Think I’m reading you.
Wow, the only post of yours that I missed!
So, okay, answer the question.
Oh, and what do imagine Trump’s take on Iambilchus might be?
[size=50][you might need some help from Uccisore on this one][/size]
And my invite here is still open: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=189516
Well, first off, Christianity views creation of physicality as distinct from God, the existence of angels, of devils, or even locals such as The Garden of Eden. It is a creation Ex Nihilo. We differ from the Neo-Pythagorian account of a trinitarian existence as given by the pagan Numenius of Apamea, in which a central unmoved mover illuminates and moves a world soul (matter) into a mimicry of illuminated awareness, via depositional ecosystem ls, species. We don’t presume this at all. Some Christians, such as hardcore Christian orthodox (not all) incorporate the Platonic/Neo-Platonolic concept of the rarification of the soul via celestian gatehouses, but not the more western or better educated Greeks in the east, who know that was a later adaptation. Searle is right and wrong in questioning “where is the soul located in the mind”, we never described it as material based even in older mainstream patriarchal writings. It is something different from matter yet directly linked to God. I personally wouldn’t even use the term Nous, as it is of the Christianized Neo-Platonic school, and not authoratively Christian. It is a adopted terminology to explain a idea, not too different from embracing other concepts like Tao or Modern Physics to explain a idea.
There is a expectation that via intuition and reasoning in the new testament, one can arrive at a understanding of God, even in isolated ignorance. While we possess the onus of the original din, we also have access to the love of God, and have a ethics left to us in how to approach one another. Likewise, God describes himself as similar to us.
God isn’t described as Transcendental, this isn’t a Christian concept, it isn’t a aspect of our physics, hence why we never developed a system of yoga for liberation, we have meditative schools every bit as old and complex as Japanese meditive schools, but it isn’t founded on the same idea of Karma-Liberation. Simultaneously, as a default, we never expected science to either affirm nor refute our physics, we would be bewildered in fact if CERN discovered proof of God, as the universe was created by God but not God. It is a paradox a lot of people fail to grasp in the science vs religion debate.
More info, recommend:
If your gonna be ridding Christianty’s ass on this particular topic, I recommend Robert Petty’s translation of Numenius of Apamea. I believe Boethius includes a few fragments he missed, but otherwise this still remains our most professional and authorative translation.
amazon.com/gp/aw/d/18989105 … ref=plSrch
Note this Iamblichius I’m doing the Dramaticon on is a much earlier, Babylonian Greek and not the much later Neo-Platonic Philosopher. But if you insist on doing this, these two resources are quite authorative, Seraphim Rose for Christianity and Numenius for the Pagan concept your posing. My opinion on the matter is they don’t resolve, two very different religions, and furthermore, I’m not a theologian so don’t preach on such things, but you’ll have at least a more educated dialogue regarding things through these two resources.
Alright, I see a island.
Now I gotta do some confirmations.
Man…
Dating this story is turning insane, it’s all over the place with hidden references.
Turd wrote
The soul is God material. Who is “we?” Science is trying to make the brain be something it’s not. Our mind exists somewhat in the vicinity of the brain but that mind(of the soul) and the brain of the biological body are different organs, brain all human, soul all God, both working in tandem with different functions. Think of the Russian nesting dolls with a bigger exterior body hiding (so to speak) another smaller body nesting within, that’s a human bod and a soul bod simplified.
That’s great to know. Not proveable through classical Christian sources that the soul/heaven/eden is made of God Stuff even (just not physical matter of our universe), much less evidence of a Matryoshka Doll complex, unless you touch upon Christianized Neo-Platonist concepts that came later. It’s a assertion that can’t be made. I’ve seen a few systems from Christian Antiquity that contradict this if anything. You gotta wait for incredibly sloppy Cartesian Mind-Body dualists to assert this idea within Christianity later on.
I don’t dictate such things, as I’m not a theologian, just a Christian philosopher with a eye on history. It’s enough for me to note the divergent views on this matter, knowing contradictions aside, it really doesn’t matter as something or another is occurring, and shit will work out one way or another. The ecumenical councils doing guesswork on the nature of Christ went all over the place, caused a lot of needless strife, with little gain in the one area Jesus preached on the most, the exploration of ethics. The placement of soul or consciousness has little effect on logic, ethics, and self awareness as experienced, that’s the more important aspect we all rush to overlook, the health of the soul, not what it is made of.
Turd wrote
No one rushes to even acknowledge the soul (period). And I would beg to differ that belief in the soul’s existence very much affects all aspects of being human regarding the finite life and the eternal life. How can something that doesn’t exist in scientific terms be kept healthy?
What it is made of determines how it functions and to what degree it may continue to function.
Responsiveness of intuition, miracles, prophecy, impulse, etc. You’ve heard it all, falls under the broad categories of Omnipresence and Omnipotency. Hard to test that by blastic particles at a gold sheet, they can’t even decide is shit is a wave or a particle in the most controlled of experiments, and demand more money than any church got to find out.
Why can’t energy be an object? I’ve seen others write that everything is energy moving at varying speeds, yet they contradict themselves by changing their tune along the way of their explanation.
Because it doesn’t want to be objectivied.
Turd wrote
Energy doesn’t want to be objectified? It has to be one or the other? Why can’t it be both, motion and being? If motion and being are analogous, what did either of their takes do other than lead your reply to me in motion and being? Time only exists through being and being only exists through motion.
It doesn’t want to be limited in it’s options nor forced to conform, likes the options of swinging both ways.
Energy IS the limiter of options and the force of conformity, so what in the heck are you talking about?
IS isn’t a limiter of THAT, as limitation is a compound of a particular universalized via metric in matrix.
You can’t get that from is, or us from that, as both are just in and of itself, proto-solipsist. Honestly, am I the only one who watched Inception? Not all constructs originate the same, even if beheld, but beholding always is equal.
Go back to your fabricated temple for there is no such thing as jumping on the ficticous bandwagon with regards to history. LOL!
Admittedly the question was more or less tongue in cheek. But let’s consider your answer…
You make a series of points regarding what various religious folks [Christians in particular] have come to believe “in their head” about God.
They believe different things, don’t they?
But: With so much at stake [immortality and salvation and Divine Justice] is it or is it not crucial for mere mortals to be reasonably certain that any one particular God does in fact exist? And that their own rendition of a God, the God, my God be the one that those who wish to be saved subscribe to?
Now, reading your rather scholarly assessment of all this above, how on earth would you go about connecting the dots between this rather academic and “spiritually” speculative “analysis” and an argument that does in fact demonstrate that only your own narrative here is the correct one?
An argument that, among others, scientists might be able to sink their own tools into.
And consider, in turn, why different individuals come to embrace so many, many, many different renderings, depictions, portrayals of God.
Is this because, at a particular point in their lives, they set aside days, weeks, months in order to explore the question of religion in depth — from the perspective of theology, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychologically, political science, etc.?
Or, instead, are their views far, far more likely to be embodied in their own particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.
In other words, they lived a particular life, had particular experiences, met particular people, had access to particular sources of information and knowledge and, as a result, came existentially to be predisposed to one or another denomination or sect or cult?
Which seems most likely, most reasonable, most in sync with the lives that we actually live?
Note to others:
I would advise watching the A&E series on Scientology with Leah Remini: aetv.com/shows/leah-remini-s … -aftermath
The focus here of course is on the Church Of Scientology but, really, it could just as well be in regards to any other objectivist religious denomination.
Indeed, perhaps Christianity might consider its own rendition of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Org#B … commitment
You may not live for all eternity, but at least you are guaranteed a billion years. Well, if only “symbolically”. [-o<
No.
Again, no.
I don’t, wouldn’t even want to. Why should I? Said I wasn’t a theologian a few hundred times on this site, even was cursed out by Pezer for not mentioning stuff like this. You asked me, I gave a brief answer with historical resources I don’t very much you’ll read.
No. If you take thecock out of your ears and reexamine what I wrote, and especially the book by Seraphim Rose, you would of quickly grasped that is a dead end. Systematic experimentation has limits.
Yes, I’m considering. Never asserted it was correct, nor a plurality of correct ones can exist, nior that they could be desposed of, etc. You seem to be wanting me to be a stereotypical domino you can knock over with ease, when in fact the world is far more complex, as well as individuals, than you can suppose in your Dasein worldview you try to trap everyone into belonging in, without much in terms of supporting evidence. Perhaps I’m approaching matters in undisclosed terms completely alien to all your stated suppositions so far? Reasonable given I am smarter than you.
Or maybe you have incorrectly balanced your juxtaposition, and asserted a answer to a failed question?
Your questions in the negative don’t apply to me, Christians in general, or most people, and in regards to the latter, aspects are true, and are common sense, but you’ve utterly failed to make a coherent point, as you failed rhetorically to isolate me or anyone for that matter. You’ve managed to deliver a proscription against no one, and in fact theological arguments have historically been made between your negative and positive arguments, in regards to the universality of god, self deception, and inability to see God, and that rites and rituals are historically inherited. This is a subject that most religions, including Christianity, haven’t abandoned.
And I don’t think it was tongue in cheek. You saw me mention Iamblichus, Google’s him, and asked a question you thought could provoke me, and failed when you discovered I already well knew of these matters,and that you did not, when ai had to point out I was talking about soneone else entirely.
I recommend instead of tryimg to salvage this conversation, you just get the two books I listed and improve the arguments you originally intended to ask,but this time from a pisition of knowledgeable competency. I like it when people challemge me with evident prior learning.
Shhhhh… read.