Christinatiy would show man as a battlefield between the impulse of the devil vs the divinity and its possible salvation.
Yet what if we think like this for a moment. A shadow is formed when light meets an object and that object blocks the light upon the background. A shadow can not exist with out Light cause there is nothing to illuminate its border and make it diffrent from the darkness, Nothing to shape it. And a shadow can not exist in pure surronding light, nothing to limit the light.
These same physical idea’s match man. Man can not exist with out warmth and basic qualities light like sun provides, he just cant exist in pure darkness and he could not exist in a world of all light simply because it would eventually kill him. Everything in moderation. NOW combine religion Devil is the “darkness” and God is the “light” man is just a shadow created due to the dualistic nature of life. Traped as the binding middle force in between god and his light and the devil and his darkness, God being pure and infinte with unfaltering love, Man with finite abilty and faulting love and devotion wether it be spiritual or physical. and the darkness always at the foundation of any shadow, always beyond a light’s power hidding it would seem.
I dont feel man is a battleground, i feel man is a mediarry a finnite mediary that somehow is caught in the middle(sorry if i offend, Spellchecker alon with most software is offline)
BluTGI,
I think that was almost poetic. Brilliantly said. Have you read Aristotles theory on the ‘Golden Mean’? I think you would find it quite insightful, especially in relation to your above post.
But what type of God are we talking about here? Do you mean the typical, westernized version of God–either Jewish or Christian? Or the Muslim God or do you mean a more eastern version of God? I just ask because one cannot reasonably discuss theology without first defining the all generalizing word “god”. It’s just a thought, and a small one at that, I’m afraid.
To me God is something that refers to the unknown, but felt. I feel that there is something more powerful or more complicated than us, but I don’t mean it in any religious sense. This unknown could be a collective unconscious, or aliens, or some invizible spirit, I really don’t know but my mind it open to anything that makes the most sense to me, more importantly, it must feel right.
Andreana: As to the version or idea of god I used. I meant it in the classical philosophic way. I would say Greek but I don’t mean the mythic gods but the ones the philosophers used to think about. It doesn’t matter which domination you choose any mono system has basically the same god. Just going by the basic qualities that come from the word god, all-knowing, all-seeing all-hearing, all-thinking, big picture know it all set things up and watch them fall type deity. But since I use the word god and devil i can see why it would be confusing to those who don’t even believe, understand, care about that system. Small minded of myself. I would have used good Vs evil but good would not have worked so well with the theory.
cba1067950: I wouldn’t say Ying Yang cause that’s only a dualistic nature. I’m saying its more of a triad. a upside down triangle you have two points and they have their angles against each other, yet no matter what Humans being the third point at the bottom are affected by each sides actions. But I do agree with the dualistic ideas how one requires the other.
Thx magius. I think I know what your talking about but ill check to make sure. And see how it relates. As for your view that you responded with I feel your right about unknown but I would have to disagree with most of your options. I think god(s) in its truest form is the ultimate being the end of the spectrum. And that we are so far down the line from it that we are too lost. Course I’ve watched too much film and media to fall for some alien saying he is god. Heh
Good news to everyone the spell checker is working. And I am glad to see healthy non argumental posts.
I had a similar thought, but I came up to the conclusion that what we believe to be god could be layers and layers away, so that what we will one day think of as God (once found and/or investigated) will not be the most powerful thing. There will be yet another, so my definition is leaving room for error as to what God may really be and all those whom we will think to be Gods until we find yet another greater power. Hopefully, we will one day find the greatest power in the universe, worse yet, maybe we already have and don’t know it…
I think we are both right and are on the same level. Just your taking it like you said in layer format, one step at a time. I’m sure people will believe something is god only that it turns out to be just a bag of garbage god took out that day.
But my biggest fear is that like most things the continually will strike and there really is no god. It will just keep going in circles. What we think is god, will have its own god, and that will have its own god, and so on until it loops back around. And we end up being gods to something lower. Cause that means there is no end, just a eternal long twighlight zone thing going on.
Speaking of twighlight zone I was worried I had killed the board, I posted everywhere and only got a few replies today. Guess not everybody has to sit with only a computer for 8.5 hours hoping a customer walks in.
Its funny you say that TGI, since I too posted from work today. But I digress to the God approach, I understand what you are saying. But I don’t think it will go on forever. Atleast not following my theory. Since the concept of my God is not necessarily a God, but a concept of something greater than us. Anything can viewed as that. Most peoples concept of God is actually just a ‘gap’ filler. Since people have questions and not all of them can be answered, they fill it in with God. We’ve been doing that for hundreds if not thousands of years. We truly are afraid of the unknown, I mean that generally (the majority), I am aware there are those who are not afraid of the unknown.
maybe if physicists find a way to fuse or combine the four forces of existence, than the concept of GOD will disappear. Who knows…
I understand and enjoyed reading everything down this list, and can understand where every point of view lies. It’s delightful to read such healthy discussions and open minded thoughts.
But I must disagree with the idea that science has the ability to solve theological problems that are plaguing more modern societies. Don’t misunderstand, I adore this subject, and how much science has taught us and helped the world. I undersand that “science” was at first the very essance of “discovery” during the Renaissance, a subject that continues to fascinate me.
But it seems that today, “science” has done all it can do for us. It can answer many questions, solve many problems, but it cannot do everything, nor does it try to. For centuries Scientists have been trying to discover the mysteries inside the human mind, but never has, and never will, despite all the time and effort put forth to accomplish such a task. Science may help to discover “life” on other planets, but it will never tell us “why” there was life to begin with–espically if that life we discover has intelligence to it. And finally, science cannot help us to understand why humans have such an innate need to “worship” something much more poweful then themselves. Of course, many ideas have been suggested, from religion being a for the “baser minded” to ideas of our primal ancestor’s fear of what they couldn’t understand. But these ideas have been rejected as mere speculations themselves–just as bad as saying that God has a long beard and a deep voice. But, since i’m still a great lover of science, I am always reading on to see what the next theory might be.
I am , of course, open to suggestions on the subject.
I don’t agree. I think science in some form will solve a lot of things. Or suggest a theory for everything. One that has atleast some proof behind it. There is a science for everything. There are scientists making an attempt to find out about emotions. There are people that can predict how a relationship is going to turn out based just on the interactions the two people have with each other. They have no idea what the person is thinking but they can tell you whether or not the people like each other or not based soley on their body language and personality tests.
Thats pure alchemy. Not science. But one day our descendants will view this time period as a dark age, and view our dark age as myths, and our myths as forgotten, thus enabling it all to cycle around
like neitzsche’s pathos of distance…there must be a split, only way to identify or define something is in contrast to some other thing…but neitzsche’s account of the rise of slave morality in his genealogy sums that aspect up…
