The GOD Thread~

[Qre:us]

It is. Hence sense (and mockery).

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I'd wager my sanity that, that is the motivation for all suicide killers, feeling oppressed and scarred by the oppressors, until they decide to take matters into their own hands, and sacrifice their own life, for the life of the "enemies", because the enemies justly deserved it, for mocking them and their god/doctrine/what have you..........

It ain't just them cray cray Jihadists. Sanctioned in the Bible.



God likes to play hide and seek.

the essence of all things seems to be hidden behind a blanket of form. I Would expect the maker to have the most unobservable essence and thereby the most formless form of all.

 

[Totenkindly]

The way I see it is that every religion/spirituality/creed has parts which are divinely inspired just as any work and parts which are corrupt. This to me is empirical evidence of a higher one above us or a loving creator which is really a leap of faith.

How is this empirical? Just because various types of people can exhibit what we could label as divine inspiration (which is already "begging the question")?

I think it says something about human beings, but we have no idea what that is -- just as it seems just as viable to believe the "bright white light" after death could be anything from some kind of divine experience to some kind of final series of neural firings triggered by lack of oxygen. It's obviously SOMETHING... but we can't seem to pinpoint anything "empirically."

the essence of all things seems to be hidden behind a blanket of form. I Would expect the maker to have the most unobservable essence and thereby the most formless form of all.

I could propose any such kind of thing and claim as much validity. You have a belief, but it's not an argument nor empirical evidence. Who knows what's correct?

I think it's fine for you to believe it, but arguing it convicingly... that's much more difficult.

 

[Qre:us]

But I think the core of what you've said here is important -- we need to really step back from the stories and detach from our familiarity, so we can see them from various perspectives. Samson is viewed as this hero, but realistically you CAN view it from the Philistine viewpoint... here's this guy who was a leader of the enemy but also very much a hedonist himself, who killed many of their men, burned down their fields, etc., humiliated them... and finally fell into their hands through a really stupid ruse (where Delilah kept tying him up, and finally cut his hair).

Putting out his eyes and making a public spectacle of him, to show their superiority and attain some kind of satisfaction after all the damage he wrought them, isn't really atypical for the times... and even today when the US killed Osama Bin Laden (for example), there was a lot of complaints about how he wasn't really made to pay for what he had done to us. Time changes, but times don't change.

I'm big on stepping around and viewing things from many angles, to get outside our own heads.

So yeah, you can view Samson as "Jihad'ing" out here, although he was already pretty much ruined by having lost his power and his sight and his freedom unlike most jihadists who are still healthy and would have various options besides suicide bombing.

Tbh, this doesn't strike as getting out of one's own head/perspective/acculturation. You sympathize with Samson, giving him understanding that he was driven to do it, because given his "condition", the assumption you present is, "who wouldn't?" as if that is the natural (just) conclusion.

Yet, when it comes to jihadists, the starting point is that of skepticism and assumptions that bias against any sympathy for them (which is legitimate, and understandable). My point is that I would extend that same consideration to interpreting the Samson scenario, which you exempt, which is the curious thing about it.

Jihadists, whether they're healthy (health, here, is not just physical health) and have various options available to them, perhaps, perhaps not. It is a starting assumption, and a skewed perspective, though. Which is an assumption that you afford to one group of suicide killers, not another.

 

[1487610420]

Thread summary

 

[GarrotTheThief]

How is this empirical? Just because various types of people can exhibit what we could label as divine inspiration (which is already "begging the question")?

I think it says something about human beings, but we have no idea what that is -- just as it seems just as viable to believe the "bright white light" after death could be anything from some kind of divine experience to some kind of final series of neural firings triggered by lack of oxygen. It's obviously SOMETHING... but we can't seem to pinpoint anything "empirically."



I could propose any such kind of thing and claim as much validity. You have a belief, but it's not an argument nor empirical evidence. Who knows what's correct?

I think it's fine for you to believe it, but arguing it convicingly... that's much more difficult.

No doubt. I'm just explaining it as how it seems empirical. In truth any objective measurement is still subjective, it's just less so subjective since objectivity and subjectivity in absolute forms cannot exist, only as a continuum or a tendency towards one or the other...speaking mathematically of course.

But yes...I'm just explaining how I see it as potentially empirical since prayer and faith actually improve cognitive functioning, among other things, but it doesn't matter who you pray to or what you believe in of course, only that you do.

And by essence I mean that thing which is universal among all things of a type.

For instance, a neural network and a network of stars have certain common objective similarities that can be measured mathmatically...which is the essence of all networks if we use inductions.

Similarly the Baghavad Gita and the Bible have similar mathematical constructs or qualitative and quantitative states which are the same between them and the Dao which are objective which is the essence of divinity and measurable.

 

[Totenkindly]

...objectivity and subjectivity in absolute forms cannot exist, only as a continuum or a tendency towards one or the other...speaking mathematically of course.

That's fair, it's always on some kind of scale and a mix.

But yes...I'm just explaining how I see it as potentially empirical since prayer and faith actually improve cognitive functioning, among other things, but it doesn't matter who you pray to or what you believe in of course, only that you do.

Well, it's empirical yes in the sense they detect better functioning, but it's as you state... it seems to be more the attitude since the object of the attention appears to be irrelevant. They just don't have an exact mechanism in place for why this occurs, so it's still vague.

Kind of like marriage when you're old, statistically you live longer (I believe) versus just being alone.


[MENTION=6723]phobik[/MENTION]: More coffee drinking icons, for me.

Tbh, this doesn't strike as getting out of one's own head/perspective/acculturation. You sympathize with Samson, giving him understanding that he was driven to do it, because given his "condition", the assumption you present is, "who wouldn't?" as if that is the natural (just) conclusion.

Wow. That's a helluva of a LOT of assumption about my "sympathies" here based on a single post that was never meant nor could be explicitly clear about all the possibilities of how I could view this single anecdote, especially when I didn't know you were going to take this particular tactic.

Yet, when it comes to jihadists, the starting point is that of skepticism and assumptions that bias against any sympathy for them (which is legitimate, and understandable).

Seriously? See above.

Jihadists, whether they're healthy (health, here, is not just physical health) and have various options available to them, perhaps, perhaps not. It is a starting assumption, and a skewed perspective, though. Which is an assumption that you afford to one group of suicide killers, not another.

Your example, not mine, and I was using the framework you presented. Please don't assume it's my single view, thanks.

 

[Qre:us]

the essence of all things seems to be hidden behind a blanket of form. I Would expect the maker to have the most unobservable essence and thereby the most formless form of all.

So, then, seek and ye shall not find?

Modus tollens.

 

[Evee]

the essence of all things seems to be hidden behind a blanket of form. I Would expect the maker to have the most unobservable essence and thereby the most formless form of all.

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

 

[1487610420]

[MENTION=6723]phobik[/MENTION]: More coffee drinking icons, for me.

Coffee icons

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

did we lose the coffee drinking smilie???

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

Yes. This i know. And even nothing is something. So emptiness can be nothing and something.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

So, then, seek and ye shall not find?

Modus tollens.

Enantiodromia Reconciling the paradox is impossible hence even when the seeker wishes not to they seek. The less they seek the more they do, the more they seek the less they find.

The more they maintain a logical stance the more illogical they become.

The more subjective a person is the more objective they are and vice versa.

The see saw moves up and down over a fulcrum
the wheel spins on a pivot
we dance around an invisible center
we laugh
we cry
as we orbit
and we believe in limits that don't exist.

That's my cat in the hat impression and mad hatter impression too.

 

[Qre:us]

Wow. That's a helluva of a LOT of assumption about my "sympathies" here based on a single post that was never meant nor could be explicitly clear about all the possibilities of how I could view this single anecdote, especially when I didn't know you were going to take this particular tactic.

It was the only assumption arising out of your explicit text. Drawing all other possibilities of assumptions, of your points of view, that you may or may not hold, from what was not explicitly stated, would be assumptive of me.

Your example, not mine, and I was using the framework you presented. Please don't assume it's my single view, thanks.

So you want me to assume things about you that you didn't say?

...especially when I didn't know you were going to take this particular tactic.

Tactic? My only point was that, in one context, a suicide killer can be lauded as a hero, and his actions just. While, in another context, it is seen as a repugnant crime. And that the shift in perspective, and maintenance of cognitive dissonance, is afforded by upholding a "side". Religion, in this case/thread.

 

[Totenkindly]

It was the only assumption arising out of your explicit text. Drawing all other possibilities of assumptions, of your points of view, that you may or may not hold, from what was not explicitly stated would be assumptive of me.

So you want me to assume things about you that you didn't say?

Tactic? My only point was that, in one context, a suicide killer can be lauded as a hero, and his actions just. While, in another context, it is seen as a repugnant crime. And that the shift in perspective, and maintenance of cognitive dissonance, is afforded by upholding a "side". Religion, in this case/thread.

Sorry, these are the games I avoid. See ya.

 

[Qre:us]

Enantiodromia Reconciling the paradox is impossible hence even when the seeker wishes not to they seek. The less they seek the more they do, the more they seek the less they find.

The more they maintain a logical stance the more illogical they become.

The more subjective a person is the more objective they are and vice versa.

The see saw moves up and down over a fulcrum
the wheel spins on a pivot
we dance around an invisible center
we laugh
we cry
as we orbit
and we believe in limits that don't exist.

That's my cat in the hat impression and mad hatter impression too.

Martin, you have a way with words. So does Shakespeare, "...filled with sound and fury, signifying nothing." That's something, isn't it?

I <3 Alice in Wonderland.

Reconciling the paradox is impossible hence even when the seeker wishes not to they seek. The less they seek the more they do, the more they seek the less they find.

“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to."
"I don't much care where –"
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go.”
- Alice & Cheshire Cat

 

[prplchknz]

how to judge if you should take that action:

1. Is what you're about to do gonna piss anyone of
2. if so will it help or harm them?
3. is it for the greater good, even if it might look morally questionable
4. how much do you hate the person?

if #1

1. if it's not gonna piss them off but hurt them long term re-think action
2. if it's not gonna piss them off and does not harm them long term, go for it
3. if it's gonna piss them off and hurt them long term re-think action
4. if it's gonna piss them off but help them long term, go for it, but be prepared for immediate fall out

for #2

1. if gonna harm both long and short term don't do
2. if gonna help short term but harm long term don't do
3. if gonna harm short term but help long term, consider but prepare for fall out
4. if gonna help consider

for #3

1. for greater good, do it
2. not for the greater good, don't

for #4

1. a lot, just don't talk to them you don't need the drama
2. so-so uh if it's not a big thing i guess you can, if it's too big don't bother
3. I like them so much i'd give them my spleen: do it if any of the above conditions check out

 

[Beorn]

I think my whole exchange here bears witness to this:
"[F]aith is unthinkable, but abandonment to the abyss even more so." - James K.A. Smith

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I think my whole exchange here bears witness to this:
"[F]aith is unthinkable, but abandonment to the abyss even more so." - James K.A. Smith

Carl Jung said if we stare into the abyss for too long the abyss will stare back and then other people will see its reflection upon our visage.

 

[Beorn]

Carl Jung said if we stare into the abyss for too long the abyss will stare back and then other people will see its reflection upon our visage.

That makes sense.