Peace

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:21 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:Not letting anybody off the hook; but if you need somebody to blame. . .Why not blame Nature?, " Nature is red in tooth and claw."--Tennyson, contra Wordsworth.


Well, perhaps your own understanding of God does not include the part where He created nature. In other words, when He created Earth and all the rest.

In law, they speak of "acts of God":

"In legal usage throughout the English-speaking world, an act of God is a natural hazard outside human control, such as an earthquake or tsunami, for which no person can be held responsible."

I must be misunderstanding your point here.

Even if the human species does manage to meld with sky and earth and forge an everlasting peace here on planet Earth, the earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis and tornados and floods etc., will still be around. Not to mention extinction events hurtling down from the heavens above when the next Big One strikes.

IMHO, you and I are "acts of God". What do we do about natural and human disasters?
Natural disasters, in or time, may be Nature crying," Rape!"
Last edited by Ierrellus on Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12630
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:28 pm

Jakob wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:The teacher must leave in order for the student to learn.
See Kierkegaard's "Gospel of Suffering"

Thats a valuable insight.

Yes, the student must first be free to object to all he has heard, and by his own resources, address all that he objects to and therefrom learn what these obtrusive notions really mean. A notion is only proto-knowledge, it must first be... valued by the student in his own terms, integrated into some living reality, take on value.

"Value" is far juicier than there analytics would have it.

Heidegger is the philosophy of grass.
Which is a really good start for a farm. Which is a really good start for an Idea.

An Idea is just a really big farm.

No, I meant, which is a good basis for a civilization. A civilization occurs between farmlands.

One might say Indians (Americans) had culture, but didn't bring about a civilization. WL said to understand culture and civilization as opposites.

In fact they did farm the continent but by more natural means - they created the prairies by setting fire each spring and fall to the woods. In the early colonial time one could say; up the Hudson between the burning banks on both sides.

Human life was once real, when there were still Encounters..

Now only philosophy, or aliens can save us.

We have run out of avatars? Are none being planted in this infertile soil?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12630
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Jakob » Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:02 pm

I think the soil has to be ploughed, first.
Minerals, struck in old stale formations, tossed around.
But I don't want this to be some yuge apocalyptic war.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7117
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Peace

Postby Meno_ » Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:31 pm

Nietzche tossed it around between Husserl and Kierkegaard, inadvertently beyond uniform space time, and it already caused cataclysm.
That is what all the excitement of about a reexamination of Nietzche's relevance in phenomenological crossed reference to Husserls.
Some would indicate a sabbatical without portfolio,( but that would entail some presumptions of weakness by others)- just to try to brush up on that.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5199
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Peace

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 08, 2019 8:42 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Even if the human species does manage to meld with sky and earth and forge an everlasting peace here on planet Earth, the earthquakes and volcanoes and tsunamis and tornados and floods etc., will still be around. Not to mention extinction events hurtling down from the heavens above when the next Big One strikes.

Ierrellus wrote: IMHO, you and I are "acts of God". What do we do about natural and human disasters?


Again, from my frame of mind, the irony here is simply staggering!

God created these natural disasters. Why? Because they are built right into the creation of planet Earth itself. "Natural disasters" that, over the centuries, have maimed, mutilated and brutally massacred countless thousands -- millions -- of men, women and children. And, in fact, when these "acts of God" occur many mere mortals have done everything that they possibly could do to relieve the pain and suffering. Pain and suffering that their "loving just and merciful" Creator brought into existence in the first place.

Explanation?

Well, what else is there [still] but to put their faith in God's "mysterious ways"; and to accept that their only recourse is [still] God if they want immortality and salvation.

Ierrellus wrote: Natural disasters, in or time, may be Nature crying," Rape!"


What on earth is this supposed to mean? "In or time"?

Edit:

Okay, I think you meant, "in our time". But what difference does it make what time [historically] they occur? Who [ultimately] is doing the raping if not God?

It seems to make sense only to the extent that one is arguing that nature and God are not one and the same.

A little help from others here, please.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Peace

Postby Meno_ » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:20 pm

Nature is created by a god , and god was not created. Nature is phenominal
God is nominal . By that it is meant that god is who he is. He is himself, a spiritual entity, unbounded even by or of himself.
Granted, in the beginning was the word, and in the vernacular of the apprebendable this is axiomatic.
There is no other, logically or descriptively.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5199
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:35 pm

All I can seem to get from you, Iambiguos, is that God, in whom you do not believe, has a history of self-abuse and is culpable in our present experiences of entropy. Have you nothing to offer but denial? IMHO, your fight against God is actually a fight against something within yourself. God is not on trial here, as the fervor of your denial suggests.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12630
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:50 pm

Meno_ wrote:Nature is created by a god , and god was not created. Nature is phenominal
God is nominal . By that it is meant that god is who he is. He is himself, a spiritual entity, unbounded even by or of himself.
Granted, in the beginning was the word, and in the vernacular of the apprebendable this is axiomatic.
There is no other, logically or descriptively.

God is noumenal? (SP Kant's distinction--phenomena and noumena )
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12630
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Meno_ » Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:03 pm

Lerrellus :God is a synthetic necessity.
He overcomes.all distinctions .( in him, with him , through him) this is what i remember from liturgy before stopped going to church.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5199
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Peace

Postby iambiguous » Mon Sep 09, 2019 7:48 pm

Ierrellus wrote: All I can seem to get from you, Iambiguos, is that God, in whom you do not believe, has a history of self-abuse and is culpable in our present experiences of entropy.


The points I raise about God above: You will either address them to the best of your ability or you will continue to make me the issue.

What I believe is this: that what I believe about God is no less an existential contraption. Of course a God, the God, your God might exist. And, if He does, am I not permitted to ponder why He would allow for such destructive and devastating things as category 5 hurricanes? And [sooner or later] the next extinction event?

How do you rationalize it? By blaming nature? But what does that even mean given the existence of God?

Ierrellus wrote: Have you nothing to offer but denial? IMHO, your fight against God is actually a fight against something within yourself. God is not on trial here, as the fervor of your denial suggests.


Have you nothing to offer but affirmations based largely, in my view, on the comfort and consolation they provide you in a world bursting at the seams with so much terrible human suffering?

Who the hell wouldn't want to believe there is in fact a loving, just and merciful God able to provide you with immortality and salvation up there...if you are willing to toe His line down here.

Sure, no doubt about it, a part of my reaction here is embedded in my own psychological turmoil and travail. The perturbations built right into the human condition in facing both the horrors of human existence on this side of the grave and the prospect of oblivion on the other side.

But that is a manifestation of dasein, in my view. And "I" only have so much understanding and control over that.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:06 pm

Meno_ wrote:Lerrellus :God is a synthetic necessity.
He overcomes.all distinctions .( in him, with him , through him) this is what i remember from liturgy before stopped going to church.

Agree.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12630
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:15 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Ierrellus wrote: All I can seem to get from you, Iambiguos, is that God, in whom you do not believe, has a history of self-abuse and is culpable in our present experiences of entropy.


The points I raise about God above: You will either address them to the best of your ability or you will continue to make me the issue.

What I believe is this: that what I believe about God is no less an existential contraption. Of course a God, the God, your God might exist. And, if He does, am I not permitted to ponder why He would allow for such destructive and devastating things as category 5 hurricanes? And [sooner or later] the next extinction event?

How do you rationalize it? By blaming nature? But what does that even mean given the existence of God?

Ierrellus wrote: Have you nothing to offer but denial? IMHO, your fight against God is actually a fight against something within yourself. God is not on trial here, as the fervor of your denial suggests.


Have you nothing to offer but affirmations based largely, in my view, on the comfort and consolation they provide you in a world bursting at the seams with so much terrible human suffering?

Who the hell wouldn't want to believe there is in fact a loving, just and merciful God able to provide you with immortality and salvation up there...if you are willing to toe His line down here.

Sure, no doubt about it, a part of my reaction here is embedded in my own psychological turmoil and travail. The perturbations built right into the human condition in facing both the horrors of human existence on this side of the grave and the prospect of oblivion on the other side.

But that is a manifestation of dasein, in my view. And "I" only have so much understanding and control over that.

I ask for koans. Have you no koans in your pocket?
If you wish to debate about what God is like or means, Bob has a good thread for that.
Have you a cure for suffering that can top Buddhism?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12630
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Meno_ » Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:30 pm

If we are to hope to exist
Then the line between the inside
and the outside
Has to be remarked
As if time offers a cure to turn ghostly shadow with the invisible ink that separates them,

And reverse course, of course,
Inside becomes out
And out reverts back
Into It's Self

and our sense of childhood wonder
rise again
but strangely
So strangely
That god has.to suffer
Along
As well with what has been
Created, the price
For all the eons of effects and cameras, mantras

Just to Be, for a second's
Pleasure, cries the boy
Unknowing the pathos
Of wasted time
In his soul.

That is his koan!
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5199
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Peace

Postby iambiguous » Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:13 pm

Ierrellus wrote:[qI ask for koans. Have you no koans in your pocket?
If you wish to debate about what God is like or means, Bob has a good thread for that.
Have you a cure for suffering that can top Buddhism?


I was responding specifically to the OP: "When sky father and earth mother are wed, there will be peace on Earth."

Now, that may or may not pertain to God and religion. And koans are either more or less about the manner in which a point is constructed or a reaction to the point itself.

After all, "a koan is a riddle or puzzle that Zen Buddhists use during meditation to help them unravel greater truths about the world and about themselves."

What greater truths? With or without God?

And, by all means, if you feel Buddhism is the most effective cure for human misery -- if that works for you -- go with it.

Others, however, argue that like so many other religious/spiritual narratives, Buddhism detracts from the effort of those who insist that, on the contrary, if you want to reduce human misery you must go to the source: the political struggle of those who seek to counter the weight of those nihilists who own and operate the global economy.

That, in its own way, Buddhism is just one more rendition of an "opiate for the masses".

Still, I'll take your reaction to the points I raised here as more or less what I expected. Just as [no doubt] you'll take mine.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:29 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:[qI ask for koans. Have you no koans in your pocket?
If you wish to debate about what God is like or means, Bob has a good thread for that.
Have you a cure for suffering that can top Buddhism?


I was responding specifically to the OP: "When sky father and earth mother are wed, there will be peace on Earth."

Now, that may or may not pertain to God and religion. And koans are either more or less about the manner in which a point is constructed or a reaction to the point itself.

After all, "a koan is a riddle or puzzle that Zen Buddhists use during meditation to help them unravel greater truths about the world and about themselves."

What greater truths? With or without God?

And, by all means, if you feel Buddhism is the most effective cure for human misery -- if that works for you -- go with it.

Others, however, argue that like so many other religious/spiritual narratives, Buddhism detracts from the effort of those who insist that, on the contrary, if you want to reduce human misery you must go to the source: the political struggle of those who seek to counter the weight of those nihilists who own and operate the global economy.

That, in its own way, Buddhism is just one more rendition of an "opiate for the masses".

Still, I'll take your reaction to the points I raised here as more or less what I expected. Just as [no doubt] you'll take mine.

The OP could have meant science and religion, neither of which can describe God alone. If you are really interested in the problem with religion, read Bishop Spong's "Why Christianity Must Change Or Die". It should be refreshing beside your atavistic nihilism.
I am not a Buddhist.
To talk about God, whom you do not claim to know, with me, whom you do not care to know, is doubly negative. Can you offer positive thoughts?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12630
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:20 pm

Ierrellus wrote: The OP could have meant science and religion, neither of which can describe God alone. If you are really interested in the problem with religion, read Bishop Spong's "Why Christianity Must Change Or Die". It should be refreshing beside your atavistic nihilism.


atavistic:
a: recurrence in an organism of a trait or character typical of an ancestral form and usually due to genetic recombination
b: recurrence of or reversion to a past style, manner, outlook, approach, or activity


That being the case then, on the contrary, my own nihilism is quite the opposite of that. It is derived from how I have come to think about the world around me given that no one has yet to convince me [of late] that a God, the God, their God does in fact exist.

Human interaction in a No God world is, in my view, reasonably consistent with the components I have chosen -- given some measure of human autonomy -- when confronting things like peace on earth: identity, value judgments, political power. Then my argument above kicks in. Which you basically ignore.

Ierrellus wrote: I am not a Buddhist.


Then why this: "Have you a cure for suffering that can top Buddhism?"

To which I responded. To which you then chose not to respond.

Ierrellus wrote: To talk about God, whom you do not claim to know, with me, whom you do not care to know, is doubly negative. Can you offer positive thoughts?


To talk about God -- you, me and others here -- is, in my view, to invoke the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein. And that is deemed to be negative by the objectivists [God or No God] who do not wish to explore the extent to which what they do talk about is more an existential contraption than the embodiment of the real me -- possessing a soul -- in sync with the right way to talk about God.

In other words, when some speak of offering positive thoughts here, what they are really after are thoughts that reinforce and then sustain the comfort and consolation that their own view of God [in relationship to peace on earth] provide them. And, among friends or in church or around the dinner table, that is to be expected. But this is a philosophy venue.

Here, we're expected to go a little deeper.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:31 pm

I do not have to be a Buddhist to note that Buddhism can be an effective antidote for suffering.
When you speak of God you use the outdated description--omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. This is a caricature of God which many progressive Christians no longer believe , hence atavistic. Believing that God is almighty, like some Marvel Comics hero, prompts questions such as why does God not intervene in natural disasters? It implies an outdated concept of God as localized in Western theism. Your argument allows that type of concept. Many rational and virtuous people no longer buy those descriptions of God. A good study of why people hang onto such beliefs. including reasons for existential angst , can be found in Freud"s "The Future of an Illusion".
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12630
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:20 pm

Ierrellus
So, in what way do these storms or "natural disasters"deter folks from being peacefull?

You mean the folks who are experiencing them? Ierrellus, If you lost your home, your belongings, in a flash, if you felt deeply uprooted and scared while experiencing these things, just how peaceful do you think you would feel, how deterred from experiencing peace?

Unless I am misunderstanding your question....I think that very often feeling "peaceful" is a subtle sense that all is right with one's world. I would not have that sense if the above happened to me but then again I am only human.
Usually disasters cause more folks to be compassionate and empathetic.

Which folks? Those who have lost everything or those who see that others have lost everything and can empathize with them?
Perhaps those INDIVIDUALS who were compassionate and empathetic in the first place before they lost everything (remarkable people to me) and those who did not lose anything who are also compassionate and empathetic.

I think that your last quote is based more on who the individuals are.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15501
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Peace

Postby iambiguous » Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:31 pm

Ierrellus wrote: I do not have to be a Buddhist to note that Buddhism can be an effective antidote for suffering.


Yes, that is true. But if you are asking someone to name a better cure for suffering than Buddhism, this would seem to suggest that, as far as you are concerned, Buddhism is the best cure out there. And, so, if ending human suffering is important to you, why would you not choose to be a Buddhist?

Ierrellus wrote: When you speak of God you use the outdated description--omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. This is a caricature of God which many progressive Christians no longer believe , hence atavistic.


My guess: the overwhelming preponderence of religious folks still believe that, when you speak of God, you speak of these things.

So, what are you then suggesting here -- that they are all wrong because you are right regarding the one true understanding of God?

But then you are basically back to demonstrating that in fact this God -- your God -- does exist. And exist as you say He does. And not just because, in believing this "in your head", it continues to comfort and console you.

Believing that God is almighty, like some Marvel Comics hero, prompts questions such as why does God not intervene in natural disasters?


Does your understanding of God include or not include the part where He is the Creator of all there is. Including the natural disasters built right into planet Earth. To my knowledge, no comic book character is described in that manner.

It implies an outdated concept of God as localized in Western theism. Your argument allows that type of concept. Many rational and virtuous people no longer buy those descriptions of God. A good study of why people hang onto such beliefs. including reasons for existential angst , can be found in Freud"s "The Future of an Illusion".


Okay, note a few of these "rational virtuous people" for us. And why hasn't this point of view percolated up into a wide circulation across the globe?

Can you note some places [on or offline] where a significant number of people are in fact arguing for a God understood in this manner?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:32 pm

Iambiguous,
I refer you to Daniel C. Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" and "Caught in the Pulpit". Also Bishop Spong's "Christianity Must Change Or Die".
I will not spoon feed you on these works, but assume you can learn about them on your own. Surely you have heard of progressive Christianity. Polls mentioned in the above books show that the majority of Americans surveyed on belief in God no longer support traditional concepts about who or what God is.
Way back in the early 19th century William Blake writes of God as Nobodaddy (Nobody's daddy). This was well before the "death of God " meme came about.
Last edited by Ierrellus on Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12630
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:41 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Ierrellus
So, in what way do these storms or "natural disasters"deter folks from being peacefull?

You mean the folks who are experiencing them? Ierrellus, If you lost your home, your belongings, in a flash, if you felt deeply uprooted and scared while experiencing these things, just how peaceful do you think you would feel, how deterred from experiencing peace?

Unless I am misunderstanding your question....I think that very often feeling "peaceful" is a subtle sense that all is right with one's world. I would not have that sense if the above happened to me but then again I am only human.
Usually disasters cause more folks to be compassionate and empathetic.

Which folks? Those who have lost everything or those who see that others have lost everything and can empathize with them?
Perhaps those INDIVIDUALS who were compassionate and empathetic in the first place before they lost everything (remarkable people to me) and those who did not lose anything who are also compassionate and empathetic.

I think that your last quote is based more on who the individuals are.[/quote
Off topic. So these statements bear other interpretations. Is that all you get out of this thread? Should I waste time trying to clarify what can be said in different ways? I'll leave that up to the the mind worshipers known as philosophers. Are you all out of koans?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12630
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:02 pm

Worshipers of Urizen--a koan cannot give its depth when translated literally.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12630
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Peace

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:30 pm

Ierrellus,

Off topic.

Wow!

Well, if what I said was off topic, then this thread has been off topic for quite some time. The subject is Peace.


So these statements bear other interpretations.

Are you saying that they do not? As an English teacher, did you also teach Literature? The way I look at it, many statements can bear other interpretations. Perhaps you just want everything in a tidy bunch as you would have it.

Is that all you get out of this thread?

That is what I gleaned from your quotes which I responded to. Perhaps you ought not to "hug" this thread too tightly.

Should I waste time trying to clarify what can be said in different ways?

I do not have an answer to that except to do what you want to do.
Is this the way you spoke to your students?

I'll leave that up to the the mind worshipers known as philosophers. Are you all out of koans?

That is a pretty disdainful statement to make. I do not worship mind but I do recognize and respect it and since I do have one, I try to utilize it, feed it, learn from it, perhaps not as well as others do but still.... I do worship nature though.

You asked the below question:
So, in what way do these storms or "natural disasters"deter folks from being peacefull?


So I proceeded to answer it with a question of my own because I was not quite understanding it.
How would You have answered that quote, Ierrellus

Was I supposed to answer with a koan? You might have said from the very beginning of the thread "Respond with Koans Only".

Are you saying that one need not use one's mind when koans are around? No need to answer it.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15501
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Peace

Postby iambiguous » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:31 pm

Ierrellus wrote:Iambiguous,
I refer you to Daniel C. Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" and "Caught in the Pulpit". Also Bishop Spong's "Christianity Must Change Or Die".
I will not spoon feed you on these works, but assume you can learn about them on your own. Surely you have heard of progressive Christianity. Polls mentioned in the above books show that the majority of Americans surveyed on belief in God no longer support traditional concepts about who or what God is.
Way back in the early 19th century William Blake writes of God as Nobodaddy (Nobody's daddy). This was well before the "death of God " meme came about.


Still, what does this really have to do with you responding to the points I raised above? How might you image William Blake responding to them? And, if you are in acquaintance with other progressive Christians, perhaps they might be more willing to explore the quandaries I posed above.

On, say, another thread. Sans koans. Although I do like the idea of discussing God [and peace on Earth] in the context of "paradoxes and riddles". Or, for me, more in the way of ambiguities and the existential "I".

Also, from my frame of mind [and that's all it is], however one views God, it does not make my arguments above go away. God the Creator of planet Earth inundating us time and again with one or another natural disaster. Or, perhaps, Harold Kushner's take on God comes closest here to encompassing an explanation. A loving, just and merciful God who set into motion a creation that He is no longer able to control. The God lacking in omnipotence.

And then the endless squabbles over what peace on Earth ought to look like from the perspective of any number of religious narratives confronting any number of conflicting goods.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Peace

Postby Ierrellus » Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:28 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:Iambiguous,
I refer you to Daniel C. Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" and "Caught in the Pulpit". Also Bishop Spong's "Christianity Must Change Or Die".
I will not spoon feed you on these works, but assume you can learn about them on your own. Surely you have heard of progressive Christianity. Polls mentioned in the above books show that the majority of Americans surveyed on belief in God no longer support traditional concepts about who or what God is.
Way back in the early 19th century William Blake writes of God as Nobodaddy (Nobody's daddy). This was well before the "death of God " meme came about.


Still, what does this really have to do with you responding to the points I raised above? How might you image William Blake responding to them? And, if you are in acquaintance with other progressive Christians, perhaps they might be more willing to explore the quandaries I posed above.

On, say, another thread. Sans koans. Although I do like the idea of discussing God [and peace on Earth] in the context of "paradoxes and riddles". Or, for me, more in the way of ambiguities and the existential "I".

Also, from my frame of mind [and that's all it is], however one views God, it does not make my arguments above go away. God the Creator of planet Earth inundating us time and again with one or another natural disaster. Or, perhaps, Harold Kushner's take on God comes closest here to encompassing an explanation. A loving, just and merciful God who set into motion a creation that He is no longer able to control. The God lacking in omnipotence.

And then the endless squabbles over what peace on Earth ought to look like from the perspective of any number of religious narratives confronting any number of conflicting goods.


Good post. Honest. IMHO the problem with conflicting goods is a belief in what is not. Any God worth his salt is a force not a person. The force is universal, unconditional love. That alone can save us from ourselves. Kushner is probably right. The three Os no longer apply to God which is why Bishop Spong compares the literalist Christian God to a comic book character like Superman.
Last edited by Ierrellus on Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12630
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users