God alone is good

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:46 pm

"God Alone is Good"

Who cares if one can't articulate things perfectly? That's God's business. God doesn't give a stuff

about being a thinker, or urging all mankind to remember him.

There's no good man but the one who moves because of God. He shouldn't ask people to follow him, or to

trust in him. For who is he, but God? So he should say, God first, for what I am is God.

So I say, "Trust in your own mind," because you can't help but be there anyway. And there is God.

Looking outwards to the idea of a guide or a guru is crippling. How can you trust in their words, if

they're always pointing to themselves, rather than to the truth of who you are. Starting with who I am,

or what I am, means I'm already oriented to what's happening for me. Naturally, there's the mind.

Then looking at myself, I ask, well, what is it? Where am I? What is the totality that is me? And

then, reason points to me and not-me, so I end up experiencing the idea of the Totality, that combines

both. So, there is the Totality, crossing all boundaries, and apparent always. And I am nothing at

all - a causal "dummy", just like anything else. A logic "dummy".

God doesn't draw lines and say, stay here, for the rest is not for you. God is just plain old ordinary

whatever-I-am. Total liberation from drapery, from pretentious states-of-mind and being-something-or-

other. God is the wildest, loose, unanchored, abysmal flexibility, because God is everything. No

stiff heavy doctrinal bossy-boots could hold it all back.

Truth is for realists, for absolutists, for freedom-getters, all the wild dreamers who love things-as-they

-are, who cannot force themselves into pretending they are blind, when they can see. Why should a vine

that can dig through mouldy, cracking old plumbing-pipes confine itself to a prissy plant-pot? Why

should the air remain behind the bars of a cage, when all the time, its airiness is already present beyond?

So, go away, you tetherings, you sucking black holes of "otherworlds" beyond logical possibility; go away

you burden of "helping others" and "social responsibility"; leave forever and fade into the dead soil

whence you came.

I never "had" everything. It was all a delusion born of stupid parentage and peerage. My eyes are

bright, my memories and the ripples of thought, they're all clearly my endlessness. Once one is real,

there's no return to the fake.

Now i have nothing, i can see clearly. If there's a ripe patch of dirt, i'll throw a few seeds in, at

just the right angle, with enough force to lodge them deep. Maybe i'll visit now and then. If there's

no ripe patch, then i might sit and observe the ants. Now i can rest, just watching.

Breath flows in and out. Where the air goes, i don't know. Where i came from, i don't know. I'm

here, but then everything is always here.

Why not climb a hill
with someone who hates you?
Why not hate someone
who climbs a hill with you?
And as time passes by,
your feet are slipping,
And you are wondering why
there's no forgiving.

By a Gentle Giant

reedsch · Post by **reedsch** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:05 pm

The classic rejoinder is (can anyone attrribute this quote?): If God is All Good then He/She is not All Powerful, if God is All Powerful then He/She is not All Good. This is a tough one to refute, logically.

It appears the whole concept of good and evil is irredeemably relative. If you are a gazelle, avoiding the lion's teeth is good but for the lion it is evil. It is hard to argue against human progress, after all we don't draw and quarter people anymore and the Aztecs that are still around do not remove beating hearts to keep the sun rising. However the Aztecs did not incinerate 100,000 people in a single day either (circa 1945).

One of the better treatments of the subject is "The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom. As much as I tout this book you'd think I was getting a commission on the sales, but it is still one of the top 10 most influential books of my 52-some winters on the planet.

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:14 pm

Reedsch,

Yes, "God alone is good" is relative to "finite things alone are good". Since God is everything, any finite vs. finite goodnesses is bad - meaning, utterly unreliable as a measurement of good or bad.

Your explanation of lions and gazelles, Aztecs and Nazis, fell into the "unreliable" category.

This is a tough one to refute, logically.

Refuted logically: God is everything, as i define it. So God is necessarily all-powerful.

One of the better treatments of the subject is "The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom. As much as I tout this book you'd think I was getting a commission on the sales, but it is still one of the top 10 most influential books of my 52-some winters on the planet.

If it's different to mine, then it's wrong.

.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:25 pm

reedsch wrote:The classic rejoinder is (can anyone attrribute this quote?): If God is All Good then He/She is not All Powerful, if God is All Powerful then He/She is not All Good. This is a tough one to refute, logically.

Evil is good at this level. That is to say, evil is beneficial to the whole. At this level Good contains evil. I don't see a problem.

It appears the whole concept of good and evil is irredeemably relative. If you are a gazelle, avoiding the lion's teeth is good but for the lion it is evil.

No, for the lion it is merely unfortunate. Do you see deliberate wrongdoing in your scenario? How else do you define evil?

It is hard to argue against human progress, after all we don't draw and quarter people anymore and the Aztecs that are still around do not remove beating hearts to keep the sun rising. However the Aztecs did not incinerate 100,000 people in a single day either (circa 1945).

You just defeated your own argument.

One of the better treatments of the subject is "The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom. As much as I tout this book you'd think I was getting a commission on the sales, but it is still one of the top 10 most influential books of my 52-some winters on the planet.

Been meaning to check it out since your last recommendation. Thanks.

reedsch · Post by **reedsch** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:34 pm

Kelly Jones wrote: Since God is everything, any finite vs. finite goodnesses is bad - meaning, utterly unreliable as a measurement of good or bad.

OK Giant, what are your terms of measurement? We are lost at sea here with no sight of land.

Kelly Jones wrote: God is everything, as i define it. So God is necessarily all-powerful.

I agree that God is everything and everything is God. My point was that the definition of good and evil is dependent on the context: whose ox is being gored. H.Himmler thought Adolf was a swell guy who loved kids.

p.s.
I'm glad we have such gold standards of evil like Hitler to deploy in arguments of this nature; what would we do without the guy?

reedsch · Post by **reedsch** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:51 pm

Carl G wrote: How else do you define evil?

We are compelled to define good and evil, but can our definition be absolute i.e. shorn of all contextual basis? How do you define it? See below...

No, for the lion it is merely unfortunate.

The lion will die. It is a choice between the lion's life and the gazelle's. You tell me which is the good and which is the evil. Your comment leads me to think that intent/deliberation is involved, that an animal has no capacity for evil if it is acting based on instinct. Even so the lion's teeth would feel just as bad buried in your own throat as the gazelle's.

It is hard to argue against human progress, after all we don't draw and quarter people anymore and the Aztecs that are still around do not remove beating hearts to keep the sun rising. However the Aztecs did not incinerate 100,000 people in a single day either (circa 1945).

You just defeated your own argument.

Not at all, in the aggregate. The net total of evil in the world circa 1945 may have been more or less than in 1500, depending on your terms of measurement.

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:05 pm

reedsch wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote: Since God is everything, any finite vs. finite goodnesses is bad - meaning, utterly unreliable as a measurement of good or bad.
OK Giant, what are your terms of measurement? We are lost at sea here with no sight of land.

I gave them to you: God is the defining scale. The Totality alone is reliable. Consciousness of this appears as a finite thing, but its meaning (good) is applicable to anything, so is absolutely reliable.

Kelly Jones wrote: God is everything, as i define it. So God is necessarily all-powerful.
I agree that God is everything and everything is God. My point was that the definition of good and evil is dependent on the context: whose ox is being gored. H.Himmler thought Adolf was a swell guy who loved kids.

Did you read the opening post? Or just the title?

The context is absolutely everything. So the "goodness" is independent of any particular thing.

I'm glad we have such gold standards of evil like Hitler to deploy in arguments of this nature; what would we do without the guy?

In this argument, the angels are as "evil" as Hitler.

Take "good" to mean "reliable", "trustworthy", "unfailing". Not "rewardable", "socially acceptable", "useful".

.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:48 pm

reedsch wrote:We are compelled to define good and evil, but can our definition be absolute i.e. shorn of all contextual basis?

Definitions are always absolute, and they can never be shorn of their contextual basis. If words are shorn from their contextual basis they become meaningless, and no longer a definition.

reedsch · Post by **reedsch** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:33 am

Kelly Jones wrote: I gave them to you: God is the defining scale. The Totality alone is reliable. Consciousness of this appears as a finite thing, but its meaning (good) is applicable to anything, so is absolutely reliable.

OK then just how many angels are dancing on the head of that pin? I seem to have slipped down the rabbit hole, apologies for interrupting your idyllic interlude.

reedsch · Post by **reedsch** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:58 am

Kevin Solway wrote: Definitions are always absolute, and they can never be shorn of their contextual basis. If words are shorn from their contextual basis they become meaningless, and no longer a definition.

I understand what you are saying in that a definition must always be anchored to something else that is known, a fixed point of reference. But the very fact of operating within a context IS what the word "relative" means, is it not? I also take the terms "relative" and "absolute" to be mutually exclusive.

For example I am sitting in my bedroom, pretty much stationary in front of this screen, however the planet I am sitting on is travelling at fantastic velocity spinning on its axis, revolving around the sun which is itself whirling around the galactic core. Relative to the room I am sitting in I am stationary, but in absolute terms I'm hauling ass.

This is not the same as identifying some universal constant, which is what it seems that Kelly was attempting with valiant effort but without apparent success. Good and evil are the most slippery of relative terms.

Kelly Jones wrote: Did you read the opening post? Or just the title?

Both, though I thought for a moment that I was back on the LSD thread.

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:17 am

The kinder garden of God :-)

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:08 am

reedsch wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote: I gave them to you: God is the defining scale. The Totality alone is reliable. Consciousness of this appears as a finite thing, but its meaning (good) is applicable to anything, so is absolutely reliable.
OK then just how many angels are dancing on the head of that pin? I seem to have slipped down the rabbit hole, apologies for interrupting your idyllic interlude.

Let's use the idea of an idyllic or hellish interlude. Those would be finite perspectives, right? Now package all finite perspectives as one bundle. What do you get? A perspective of everything.

.//edit: added all

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:24 am

reedsch wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote: Definitions are always absolute, and they can never be shorn of their contextual basis. If words are shorn from their contextual basis they become meaningless, and no longer a definition.
I understand what you are saying in that a definition must always be anchored to something else that is known, a fixed point of reference. But the very fact of operating within a context IS what the word "relative" means, is it not? I also take the terms "relative" and "absolute" to be mutually exclusive.

The fixed point of reference for every definition is truth. That's the context in which any definition is anchored. No definition can help it; it can't even begin to try not to be contextualised in truth.

So all things rest in truth: that's an absolute truth that points to Ultimate Truth (God).

For example I am sitting in my bedroom, pretty much stationary in front of this screen, however the planet I am sitting on is travelling at fantastic velocity spinning on its axis, revolving around the sun which is itself whirling around the galactic core. Relative to the room I am sitting in I am stationary, but in absolute terms I'm hauling ass.

No, both those terms are relative, because there are infinite perspectives to things. You might actually be dancing on the head of a pin, you just don't know. The "absolute terms" for what you are doing is what the Totality is doing (everything that makes you). You can know that with certainty.

One can't know "what" makes one, because it isn't a form that can be grasped. One can't even know what one is, because one's form is constantly changing.

This is not the same as identifying some universal constant, which is what it seems that Kelly was attempting with valiant effort but without apparent success. Good and evil are the most slippery of relative terms.

Your last statement was an attempt to identify a universal constant.

You might recall i wrote above, to take "good" to mean "unfailing" rather than "socially acceptable".

The etymology of the word "truth" is interesting, it comes from the same meaning for trust and tree (since wood was regarded as a trustworthy).

Kelly Jones wrote: Did you read the opening post? Or just the title?
Both, though I thought for a moment that I was back on the LSD thread.

It's not about altered states of consciousness. I deliberately included a line to refute that.

.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:12 pm

reedsch wrote:
Carl G wrote: No, for the lion it is merely unfortunate.
The lion will die.

You did not say that before. I took it to be the lion charged, the gazelle escaped, the lion is one hungry puss and lookin' like a chump, but hey, next gazelle may not be so lucky.

It is a choice between the lion's life and the gazelle's. You tell me which is the good and which is the evil.

Even with this scenario, I cannot wrap good and evil into it. They are irrelevant concepts here.

Your comment leads me to think that intent/deliberation is involved, that an animal has no capacity for evil if it is acting based on instinct.

Yes, that's it, exactly.

Even so the lion's teeth would feel just as bad buried in your own throat as the gazelle's.

Indeed, but I would still not consider it a matter of good and evil.

It is hard to argue against human progress, after all we don't draw and quarter people anymore and the Aztecs that are still around do not remove beating hearts to keep the sun rising. However the Aztecs did not incinerate 100,000 people in a single day either (circa 1945).

You just defeated your own argument.
Not at all, in the aggregate. The net total of evil in the world circa 1945 may have been more or less than in 1500, depending on your terms of measurement.

You sound wishy washy. First "it is hard to argue against human progress," and then "the net total of evil in the world circa 1945 may have been more or less than in 1500, depending on your terms of measurement."

For the record, I think human nature is no less evil today than in 1500. I mean, look at the control systems in place today, the level of brainwashing. It is a more subtle level of barbarism, perhaps -- perhaps -- but just as effective at enslaving and milking the general public.

But, want some down and dirty genocide? Plenty of that still goes on, too. Hey, how many hundreds of thousands of Iraquis has the U.S. killed so far through its bombing, uranium poisoning, and economic sanctions?

reedsch · Post by **reedsch** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:34 pm

It looks like we're caught between a rock and a hard place. Attempts to invoke the Absolute (i.e. God) aside, we can't really define good and evil in absolute terms, but to surrender to relative definitions is an invitation to anarchy.

I set attemtps to invoke the Absolute aside because it hasn't worked...or more correct to say that it works for awhile then gets superseded. That's what's happening now, the fifteen-hundred year Christian-based order is crumbling and the New Order is still taking shape. The New Order must anchor its concept of good and evil in some kind of bedrock though.

It's like the Biible fundamentalist's predicament: if the Bible were so "fundamental" then 1 book would not spawn 10,000 different interpretations, each one claiming to be the only TRUE one. It is ludicrous to even attempt to build one's church on such a shaky rock.

reedsch · Post by **reedsch** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:50 pm

It is a choice between the lion's life and the gazelle's. You tell me which is the good and which is the evil.

Even with this scenario, I cannot wrap good and evil into it. They are irrelevant concepts here.

They are hardly irrelevant to the lion and the gazelle.

that an animal has no capacity for evil if it is acting based on instinct.

Yes, that's it, exactly.

And that is YOUR definition of good and evil. The gazelle is still dead. IMHO instinct is a refuge in this argument, unless you are trying to distinguish between something being bad and something being evil. So a tsunami that washed away 200,000 lives is not evil, but an atomic bomb is?

You sound wishy washy.

If so it is because the definition of good and evil DEPENDS ON WHOSE OX IS BEING GORED; who is on the menu and who is doing the ordering.

Look at how many Russians thought (and many still do!) that Stalin was just what the country needed. Are more people dying now in Iraq after Saddam than before? I often submit that we are lucky that Hitler was such a nutbag, he could have waited 5 years and had (1) atomic weapons (2) long-range missiles (3) jet aircraft, they guy could have just laid his cards down and said "folks, the game is over and I WIN".

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:40 pm

Reedsch,

I think you're confusing God=Infinite as God=finite. That is why you've quite sanely decided that "God alone is good" is illogical.

I've been using the former definition. Infinite just means, in this context, not-finite.

reedsch wrote:It looks like we're caught between a rock and a hard place. Attempts to invoke the Absolute (i.e. God) aside, we can't really define good and evil in absolute terms, but to surrender to relative definitions is an invitation to anarchy.

What a logjam.

I totally agree with you that "good" and "evil" can't be applied absolutely in the context of particular finite things. Your examples were clear. What is right for a hungry lion is wrong for a gazelle.

But you've totally missed the context of the Infinite (the Totality). What's right for all things is that they are all part of the Infinite. What's wrong is that they are not part of the Infinite.

This is why "God alone is good" (reliable for all things).

I set attemtps to invoke the Absolute aside because it hasn't worked...or more correct to say that it works for awhile then gets superseded.

If you really believed that, then you wouldn't have made that absolutist statement.

Absolutist statements are unavoidable, because any statement is either true or false, or (truly) uncertain. One's aim ought to be, to make truthful absolutist statements. Historically, the Absolute has been falsely invoked, that's all.

That's what's happening now, the fifteen-hundred year Christian-based order is crumbling and the New Order is still taking shape. The New Order must anchor its concept of good and evil in some kind of bedrock though.

There is only one reliable bedrock.

To my mind, Jesus spoke about what's absolutely reliable, and called it God.

But the crap projected onto it has never been reliable, because the projectors supposed he meant a finite God.

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is goodâ€”except God alone.

Mark 10:17-18

He included himself, by the way, yet Christians have ignored him totally. Good Shepherd, is one of their tricks.

It's like the Biible fundamentalist's predicament: if the Bible were so "fundamental" then 1 book would not spawn 10,000 different interpretations, each one claiming to be the only TRUE one. It is ludicrous to even attempt to build one's church on such a shaky rock.

Idiots, aren't they?

Jesus's words are so muffled in crap, that it really takes a lot of time to wade through, to find them. I think the only credible explanation was that Jesus' disciples weren't all that intelligent, but were attracted to his personality. So they were eager to create a hero, rather than to pay any real attention to what he meant.

And look what we've got now: a massive, useless, idolatrous, and highly irrational mess.

Here are some statements about the Infinite (accredited to Jesus):

"His disciples said to him, "When will the repose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come?"

He said to them, "What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it." Thomas: 51

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." John 3: 8

"Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed." John 5: 19

"The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."
Mark 10:26-27

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5: 48

(What else but the Infinite, that can never change to become less than itself, can be perfect?)

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Matthew 6: 19

"But you are not to be called â€˜Rabbi,â€™ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth â€˜father,â€™ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."
Matthew 23:1

(The same idea as, "God alone is good". Heaven is distinct from illogical ideas of good).

"When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Mark 12: 25

(How can the Infinite pair up with something?)

"Many are standing at the door, but it is the solitary who will enter the bridal chamber." Thomas: 75

"Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the Kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return." Thomas: 49

"Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly." John 7: 24

"Whoever does not hate his Father & Mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever cannot love his Father & His Mother as I do cannot become a disciple to me. For my mother gave me falsehood, but my true mother gave me Life." Thomas: 101

"Take heed of the Living One while you are alive, lest you die and seek to see him and be unable to do so." Thomas: 59

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash." Matthew 7: 24

"Whoever has come to understand the world has found only a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse is superior to the world." Thomas: 56

"If those who lead you say to you, `See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, `It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you." Thomas: 3

"The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, â€˜Here it is,â€™ or â€˜There it is,â€™ because the kingdom of God is in your midst. Luke 17: 20

His disciples said to him, "When will the Kingdom come?"

Jesus said, "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying, 'Here it is', or 'There it is'. Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it." Thomas: 113

"It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, & I am there. Lift up the stone, & you will find me there." Thomas: 77

"Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

"You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:39 pm

reedsch wrote:

me: Even with this scenario, I cannot wrap good and evil into it. They are irrelevant concepts here.
you:They are hardly irrelevant to the lion and the gazelle.

No, the concepts are especially irrelevent to the lion and gazelle because animals do not think in those terms.

So a tsunami that washed away 200,000 lives is not evil, but an atomic bomb is?

A natural weather event is not evil. Using an atomic bomb on a defenseless city can be evil, if there are viable alternatives, and if the motive is greed.

reedsch · Post by **reedsch** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:28 am

Kelly Jones wrote: But you've totally missed the context of the Infinite (the Totality). What's right for all things is that they are all part of the Infinite. What's wrong is that they are not part of the Infinite.

God is everything, and everything is God. Everything finite is transitory. Is this what you mean by "reliable", the opposite of transitory finite reality i.e. the infinite?

Kelly Jones wrote: There is only one reliable bedrock.
To my mind, Jesus spoke about what's absolutely reliable, and called it God.
Jesus's words are so muffled in crap, that it really takes a lot of time to wade through, to find them. I think the only credible explanation was that Jesus' disciples weren't all that intelligent, but were attracted to his personality. So they were eager to create a hero, rather than to pay any real attention to what he meant.
And look what we've got now: a massive, useless, idolatrous, and highly irrational mess.

Actually this is one of the more interesting things you've said. Jesus' words would have been filtered thru the experiences of his listeners. Explaining God is like telling a virgin what sex is; in your parlance, using the finite to explain the infinite.

I agree that Jesus' work is buried in the accumulated garbage of 2000 years. It is a shame that he did not himself write, what do you think the reason for that was? He was an educated man, however there is no reference I can think of to him actually passing his wisdom on in black and white.

reedsch · Post by **reedsch** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:47 am

Carl G wrote: A natural weather event is not evil. Using an atomic bomb on a defenseless city can be evil, if there are viable alternatives, and if the motive is greed.

I wonder if intent is the true measure of evil. After all, if I shoot you accidently or on purpose, you're still dead.

Morality (the fine-tuned definition of good and evil) has been founded on a single Book for about the last 1600 years. It has worked to some extent, but it has also shown its flaws. It did not keep the Christian nations of Europe from slaughtering each other by the millions in the 20th century, and I think this is one reason why Christianity in Europe is on the wane. Fundamentalism is seductive but futile: there is no going back to pre-Newtonian pre-Darwinian pre-Hiroshima reality, so trying to resurrect the past order based on the Book is doomed to failure. I am tempted to think that invoking Christianity as a solution is doing our society a great disservice, after all if we haven't gotten it right in all that time then what are the prospects for eventual success?

The search is on for the new bedrock.

millipodium · Post by **millipodium** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:48 am

reedsch wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote: But you've totally missed the context of the Infinite (the Totality). What's right for all things is that they are all part of the Infinite. What's wrong is that they are not part of the Infinite.
God is everything, and everything is God. Everything finite is transitory. Is this what you mean by "reliable", the opposite of transitory finite reality i.e. the infinite?

Kelly Jones wrote: There is only one reliable bedrock.
To my mind, Jesus spoke about what's absolutely reliable, and called it God.
Jesus's words are so muffled in crap, that it really takes a lot of time to wade through, to find them. I think the only credible explanation was that Jesus' disciples weren't all that intelligent, but were attracted to his personality. So they were eager to create a hero, rather than to pay any real attention to what he meant.
And look what we've got now: a massive, useless, idolatrous, and highly irrational mess.
Actually this is one of the more interesting things you've said. Jesus' words would have been filtered thru the experiences of his listeners. Explaining God is like telling a virgin what sex is; in your parlance, using the finite to explain the infinite.

I agree that Jesus' work is buried in the accumulated garbage of 2000 years. It is a shame that he did not himself write, what do you think the reason for that was? He was an educated man, however there is no reference I can think of to him actually passing his wisdom on in black and white.

It was in black and white. The jews were perverting god's teachings with their excessive legalism and worldy power fixation. Just like now.

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:17 am

reedsch wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote: But you've totally missed the context of the Infinite (the Totality). What's right for all things is that they are all part of the Infinite. What's wrong is that they are not part of the Infinite.
God is everything, and everything is God.

A=B implies B=A, so it needn't be said twice.

Everything finite is transitory. Is this what you mean by "reliable", the opposite of transitory finite reality i.e. the infinite?

I don't define "finite" to mean "transitory". Finite just means, not-Infinite. All things are finite. Each one falls short of the Infinite.

Anything that has form is finite, because there is something that it isn't.

Where exactly can the boundary realistically be laid on any finite thing? We say something is an "apple", yet whatever we are labelling could very well be something else. The realistic boundary between "apple" and "not-apple" is impossible to project. What happens if the apple, cut in half, happens to disclose a worm-hole to a mysterious galaxy? Is it still "apple" or not-apple?

That's why finite things aren't reliable. The causes making any finite thing are infinite.

Kelly Jones wrote: There is only one reliable bedrock. To my mind, Jesus spoke about what's absolutely reliable, and called it God.

Jesus's words are so muffled in crap, that it really takes a lot of time to wade through, to find them. I think the only credible explanation was that Jesus' disciples weren't all that intelligent, but were attracted to his personality. So they were eager to create a hero, rather than to pay any real attention to what he meant. And look what we've got now: a massive, useless, idolatrous, and highly irrational mess.
Actually this is one of the more interesting things you've said. Jesus' words would have been filtered thru the experiences of his listeners.

It can't be helped. But a skillful teacher and an intelligent student can get over it.

Jesus disciples, by and large, only heard his reprimands, and turned them into standard morality tales. Just as you haven't been able to focus on the core, but only on the morality tale here.

Explaining God is like telling a virgin what sex is; in your parlance, using the finite to explain the infinite.

That's the way consciousness works: there's no other way to understand the Infinite except via the intellect (using logic).

As far as the records show, Jesus used popular experiences, like biological processes and human psychology, to trigger insight about the importance of a spiritual life. Only Thomas' gospel focusses more on Jesus' understanding of Reality (the Kingdom of God). It suggests that Thomas was the only one of his disciples to have any clue whatsoever.

I agree that Jesus' work is buried in the accumulated garbage of 2000 years. It is a shame that he did not himself write, what do you think the reason for that was? He was an educated man, however there is no reference I can think of to him actually passing his wisdom on in black and white.

Probably as a contrast to the scribes in the temples, who were starkly void of any intellectual awareness of Nature. There is an anecdote of him writing in the sand. He could well have written on the paper. There is no difference between writing and speaking: all of it is empty. He was illustrating what all communication is.

There's also the fact that speaking aloud improves one's recollection. And that Jesus' audience was probably mostly illiterate.

.

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:19 am

Reedsch,

I suggest you slow down.

reedsch wrote:The search is on for the new bedrock.

"His disciples said to him, "When will the repose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come?"

He said to them, "What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it." Thomas: 51

reedsch · Post by **reedsch** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:23 pm

Listen, i can make any statement I want to about God and there is no way to prove or disprove it. I can say that "only God is a triple-decker sandwich", if you chose to make one in an attempt to prove me wrong then I could argue until Doomsday that you did not make a TRUE triple-decker sandwich, ad infinitum.

Anyway, wiping out cities in response to some unspecified crime ( Sodom and Gomorrah) does not seem very "good" to me.

Bible quotations will win no arguments. Maybe I should ask the board moderator though: Kevin, do Bible quotations prevail in disputes? Since it's Kevin's board, he gets to play God, smite the evildoers and reward the faithful.

p.s. the world has ended many times already, though it takes a lickin' it keeps on tickin'

Kelly Jones · Post by **Kelly Jones** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:25 pm

Reedsch wrote:

Listen, i can make any statement I want to about God and there is no way to prove or disprove it.

You're still confusing the issue. In my second-to-last post, i pointed out the difference between infinite and finite.

Do you understand this difference?

I can say that "only God is a triple-decker sandwich", if you chose to make one in an attempt to prove me wrong then I could argue until Doomsday that you did not make a TRUE triple-decker sandwich, ad infinitum.

Proof is always uncertain, and always relates to finite things.

So, if the definition for God is "finite thing of some kind", then you're correct. But, since i've never been using this definition in this thread, you're not correct. It's been: God is "Infinite". Thus:

God (the Infinite) is:
- not a finite thing, not short of something else
- incapable of starting or finishing at some boundary
- always in existence, since it is not something or nothing whatsoever
- constant
- logically present in every possible appearance or world
- unchanging
- always reliable
- without any form or nature or character of its own
- essentially nameless
- cannot be a power, force, personality, intention, or creative intelligence (since all these are forms)
- reveals the emptiness of all things

Proof never relates to the Infinite, because it can never be shown to another person. There's never a moment when it can be produced, since it's always happening. So, it can't be proved. It is Ultimate Truth.

Anyway, wiping out cities in response to some unspecified crime ( Sodom and Gomorrah) does not seem very "good" to me.

Just because Jesus used the words "God", and "Heavenly Father", and "Kingdom of God", doesn't mean he was referring to the finite God worshipped by his fellow countrymen.

As shown by the list of quotes given above, he was using God to refer to the Infinite.

The wrathful God of "fire and brimstone" was simply a social construction. Being a finite thing, it isn't inherently good or bad. That is, it isn't reliable in the way that the Infinite is reliable.

Bible quotations will win no arguments. Maybe I should ask the board moderator though: Kevin, do Bible quotations prevail in disputes? Since it's Kevin's board, he gets to play God, smite the evildoers and reward the faithful.

The quotes illustrated the difference between a finite God and an Infinite God.

Just as i'm doing with my quotes and yours.

One doesn't need to rely on any authority but reasoning.

p.s. the world has ended many times already, though it takes a lickin' it keeps on tickin'

If the world is Infinite, then it cannot end, since it cannot begin.

If it is finite, then it cannot restart again as itself. It essentially dies when it stops; begins as a new form. This happens constantly.

----

Reedsch,

Do you distinguish between finite and not-finite, in purely logical terms?