On 27 Jan 2014, at 18:46, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a non personal God.
So you believe this non personal thing that has no purpose or goal
and can not be understood as having any attribute as anthropomorphic
as intelligence or consciousness and that has absolutely nothing to
do with morality should nevertheless be called "God" because it adds
to clarity.
Bruno, please explain to me why this would be a wise use of language.
I just did. I copy myself for your ease:
Yes, because it can still be something transcendent and responsible
for your existence, and having no name, etc. And we can also remain
open that it *might* be a person, as we are still ignorant about it.
This is clearer with the definition of knowledge in arithmetic, where
the outer God (which is plausibly not a person) become one in the form
of the inner God (the third hypostase). The inner God is the God that
you can awake in yourself through the use of some entheogen method. It
is not the Christian god, in the sense that you were considered as a
witch when you apply such technic, for a long time in this era, in
occident.
Institutionalized religions are usually opposed to mysticism, which is
individualist and skeptical with respect to authorities and
institutions.
The main point is that "is God, or the outer God, a person" is an open
problem.
> Comp reduces that mystery to another one,
Well good for "comp".
> Read the Plotinus paper.
No thanks, I'm sick to death of ancestor worship.
I agree that Plotinus is an ancestor, but "worship"? Not at all. Just
appreciation for the last people in Occident who do not oppose
rationalism and mysticism. I like them, as they are not yet
brainwashed with the idea that we have the answers to the religious
question, like with Rome and the bibles ...
> You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist,
physicalist) theology for granted.
I've said more than once that Aristotle was the worst physicist who
ever lived, he certainly caused the most damage to the field.
So I suggest this to you: he might have been wrong in theology too,
notably on Matter (primitive matter).
Bruno
> You confirm my feeling that people who pretend to dislike religion
are those who have a religion,
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
> The fact that you ignore that you are religious, and indeed
christian (in absolute value) will not help you for making you one
epsilon less "christian".
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never
heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
