2011-02-19, 01:37 | Link #3041 | ||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Quote:
but nice to know that ppl are noting me, lol)
__________________
Last edited by idiffer; 2011-02-19 at 01:47. |
||
2011-02-19, 01:49 | Link #3042 | |
I don't give a damn, dude
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 37
|
Quote:
|
|
2011-02-19, 02:21 | Link #3043 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
but still try to describe things in your own words, it helps ... uhh ...something. and also...zzzzzz....uh, what where, what was it again? okay, nighty night...
__________________
|
|
2011-02-19, 03:34 | Link #3044 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
There seems to be a general misunderstanding of this man's theistic view of Ain Sof (the infinite being/God). Mr. James Craig Green is not correct about Spinoza when he says: Quote:
This explains Spinoza's view of God as Ain/En Sof or the Infinite being who does not directly effect the world but uses the ten sephirot (spheres of creation) to influence and alter the world. To a lay person not familiar with Kabbalah it is very easy to confuse this concept (Ain/En Sof) with God being the same as nature. However, that is not the case. The concept of Ain/En Sof is the belief that God exists outside of nature/the universe and is infinitely powerful, thus incapable of direct interaction with the natural world lest it/God destroy it. Therefore, God is not nature per se, but rather both "Nature Naturata, and Nature Naturans." Put simply, Nature is a mechanism created by Ain/En Sof for the universe to operate and can only be effected by him/it via the ten emanations of power (sephirot).
__________________
|
||
2011-02-19, 03:55 | Link #3045 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Come to think of it, most attempted iterations of "god" usually put it as, well, "godly". Overpowered, unrealistic, and fantastical. Like how the general population of ancient times perceive a king of the ancient times that held absolute rule and right of "mercy, justice and equality", when the person is nothing but a very lucky or charismatic human being like the rest. This isn't progress. This is a backward mentality and giving too much credit.
__________________
|
|
2011-02-19, 06:34 | Link #3046 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2011-02-19, 06:39 | Link #3047 | |
Uncaring
Join Date: Sep 2010
|
Quote:
Because at the point of the big bang, infinite values appear and cannot be calculated as yet. Same ith a black hole's infinite gravity. The big bang actually has several successors because everyone who knows the big bang theory knows its full of flaws that do not gel with data collected in the last 30 years. Its very successful in capturing the public imagination and explaining basic principles but it is 60 years old. Most of these successors await more information and data. Some are mathematically sound but unprovable as of now such, as the multiverse theory. For more information about the successors such as the universal brane concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...ical_cosmology |
|
2011-02-19, 06:50 | Link #3048 | |
Le fou, c'est moi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
|
Quote:
Which is not surprising. In many cultures royalty and divinity are understood to overlap. The Yamato line of Japan claims divine descent and through it the divine origin of the Japanese people; Roman Emperors are regularly deified upon their deaths, their cults serving to enhance the prestige of the state; God-kings ruled ancient cities of Sumeria, one written into history as the half-divine hero of the world's first great epic; Medieval Christian monarchs, through the Church, claim their right to rule "By Grace of God"; the entire Imperial system of China functions through the ritual glorification of the Son of Heaven; hell, a certain Jonathan Edwards of colonial America, the Puritan preacher who introduces "hellfire and brimstone" into common usage, made in his infamous sermon a direct reference to God's arbitrary sovereignty. And of course, in a sufficiently large kingdom a king might as well be a god, since many of his subjects never ever get to see him. So how do you make people you never ever get to see in person be loyal to you? You create a whole system of rituals and beliefs surrounding your entity. Like a god. Equate yourself with omnipotence, with holiness and supernatural authority and you have a good show going. Ergo, when the Enlightenment philosophers rise, they minimize their Christian God into Nature, into Mathematics, to Reason -- Deism. And when the socialists rise, they kill God. For in their worldview a sovereign is to be guillotined, not worshiped, and power to be held by the common peoples of the world. |
|
2011-02-19, 09:29 | Link #3050 | |
思想工作
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 31
|
Quote:
|
|
2011-02-19, 11:46 | Link #3051 |
I don't give a damn, dude
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 37
|
It is worth noting that both of the Communist dictators came by their absolute power through the creation of personality cults centered around themselves; in other words, replacing traditional religions with their own form of dogma, based on unquestioning obedience to the will of a central authority figure, themselves. In short, elevating themselves to the position of god-kings, using the same kind of rhetoric that have been perfected by generations of religious god-kings before them.
|
2011-02-19, 13:25 | Link #3053 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
The model works great except at the margins... which is what drives most overhauls of a model (Copernicus->Newton->Einstein->Hawkings et al) Most people whining about the "Big Bang theory" are about 20 years or more behind current thinking... they might as well still be whining about Einstein's changes or the loss of the earth-centered solar system model.
__________________
|
|
2011-02-19, 15:06 | Link #3054 | |
思想工作
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 31
|
Quote:
|
|
2011-02-19, 18:40 | Link #3057 |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
In what sense? I'm not disputing their power but I don't quite follow your logic. Surely there were rulers with similar levels of influence in the past? Or do you mean their influence over such a large group of people, combined with their dictatorial power (ie they're the most powerful due to higher populations in modern times, not because of their actual abilities as leader)?
|
2011-02-19, 21:59 | Link #3058 |
I don't give a damn, dude
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 37
|
Hoho. It does go to show that charismatic dictators like the aforementioned couple (as well as several others in history) draw the source of their power from the general population's tendency towards blind, unquestioning faith of authority figures; the exact same kind of faith that religious institutions draw their staying power from. History has demonstrated all too many times that the favouring of blind faith over critical thinking tends to lead to bad things.
|
2011-02-20, 05:37 | Link #3059 | ||
思想工作
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 31
|
Quote:
Spoiler for Long rant on social dynamics:
For those who managed to slog through all that, the moral of the story is that society, people, and the whole world have their own patterns and truths that may or may not be verifiable, and that claiming that the whole truth can only be obtained through empirical analysis (even though, like I said in an earlier post, human beings are imperfect in their perceptions) only leads to a more long-term, underlying blindness and the rise of tragedy. In my opinion, religion in its ideal form does not claim to know or preach in the same way that science and engineering do, but rather to temper and remind people of what we do not know as tiny beings in the vast existence of the cosmos. Empirical science is but an extension of man's natural physical existence, and we should not be boxed in by its limited scope. Quote:
|
||
2011-02-20, 06:12 | Link #3060 | |
I don't give a damn, dude
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Additionally, Straw Man. Nobody's making the argument that empirical analysis is sufficient to lead to the whole "truth" (whatever it may be), but it is by far our best possible toolbox for the purpose....or to be more accurate, if ever we find a better alternative, it will be incorporated into that same toolbox. So, since you're trying to invoke the "other ways of knowing" argument, why don't you give a few examples? Try again. |
|
Tags |
not a debate, philosophy, religion |
|
|