It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God or not-God;- Creator or creation

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 05:01 PM
link   
“Well, it’s right- but only just!”
British Camp Hotel, Malvern Hills, August 1973. Regular joke of a regular customer receiving his change.

Some philosophies are anxious to find ways to resolve all things into a unity, and they deny, in consequence, that there can be any true dualities.
When I was being pestered by one of these enthusiasts for unity, I could not resist pointing out that the disagreement between his view and my view was already one form of duality. He was disproving his case in the act of stating it.
The clear and sharp distinction between “right change” and “wrong change” is only one example of the fundamental distinction between “Yes” and “No”, between what is true and what is not true.

Discernment is the act of recognising the distinction between two categories.
Judgement is the act of recognising a preference between the two categories.
In the Biblical perspective, true and final judgement is God’s work, not ours.
Yet we may and must exercise our discernment, an obligation imposed by the lines of division between two categories which fill every part of the Bible.

The Creator and the Creation

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
There is the most fundamental division, right from the start.
On the one hand, the Creator. On the other hand, what was created.

So the Bible, at the outset, is disowning monism. The created world is distinct from the Creator.
At the same time, though, this is not true dualism, because in true dualism (as in Yin and Yang) the two sides are symmetrical, of equal power and standing.
This division is asymmetrical. The created world depends on the Creator, absolutely.
Thus Creation doctrine occupies a position halfway between monism and dualism, and I frequently like to suggest that it should be called “one-and-a-half-ism”.

In the events after the first creation, we are introduced to the progress of time, which implies a division between past and future. Again, this division is not symmetrical, because the progress cannot be reversed.

The work of creation then proceeds by making further divisions within the created world.

On the one hand light. On the other hand, darkness. Light is understood to be more desirable than darkness. In fact we are told later that “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John ch1 v5).

On the one hand, land. On the other hand, water. The earth is made habitable by the way that the waters of the abyss are held back from the land, so that the land emerges free and dry.
The abyss is that part of the creation which has not been organised in line with God’s will, so there is a sense in which the land is “of God” and the water is not. That is why the sea or the abyss represents “the source of evil” all the way through the rest of the Bible. That is why Leviathan is a sea-beast.

The division between male and female, which follows, is of God on both sides, of course, but it continues the pattern of setting up distinctions. The division is at least physically asymmetrical. Nothing in the story of creation suggests that there is room for ambiguity.

The real problem for those who want to explain the universe without God is not the fact that the universe exists, but the fact that the universe is asymmetrical.

The rest of the Bible is filled with examples of the choice between good and evil, and also clear choices which are analogues of the choice between good and evil, and I will pursue some of those on a later occasion.




posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The other sections of this theme will probably be delivered over the next four weeks.

In my files, the whole document is saved under the title "The Biblical need for discernment and judgement", and the intro was written on that basis. I'm now treating it as a sequel to "You are for me or against me". The true relation between the three titles is that "For me or against me" is a special case of "God or not-God", and the need for discernment between the two choices is the necessary consequence of both of them.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI




So the Bible, at the outset, is disowning monism. The created world is distinct from the Creator. 
At the same time, though, this is not true dualism, because in true dualism (as in Yin and Yang) the two sides are symmetrical, of equal power and standing. 
This division is asymmetrical. The created world depends on the Creator, absolutely. 


I mean, that's your opinion. Plenty of evidence to suggest this creator person really doesn't have a choice in what goes on. So in the context of this thought exercise, I'm forced to conclude the planet and its inhabitants are at least equal to this creature you speak of.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm
This being the Theology forum, I'm presenting the Biblical opinion.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TzarChasm
This being the Theology forum, I'm presenting the Biblical opinion.


Theology is a very wide subject but your experience seems very narrow. Hence my reply.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm
t isn't my purpose to study all possible branches of religion simultaneously. Just the Biblical branch. That's why I write within those parameters.



edit on 10-7-2020 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TzarChasm
t isn't my purpose to study all possible branches of religion simultaneously. Just the Biblical branch. That's my I write within those parameters.


If it's not your purpose to branch out and possibly surprise yourself, it's because you chose that limitation. But I will keep my ideas to myself because clearly you have reserved this space for your followers and I would just spoil the fun.

edit on 10-7-2020 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm
That was in keeping with the present theme, which is all about the necessity of choice.



posted on Jul, 10 2020 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TzarChasm
That was in keeping with the present theme, which is all about the necessity of choice.



The necessity of choice or the impetus of an ultimatum?



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm
A necessary choice has the effect of an ultimatum. If an avalanche is coming down the hill, then you jump, one way or the other. You don't waste time resenting having to make a choice.



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Naming is the origin of all particular things. Tao Te Ching.

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

In the beginning there was no thing and words appear that seem to divide the no thing into separate things.

Nothing is happening.

Emptiness is forming.

Ocean is waving.
edit on 11-7-2020 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Who are you?
If you find the answer to this question then all other questions will disappear.
edit on 11-7-2020 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TzarChasm
A necessary choice has the effect of an ultimatum. If an avalanche is coming down the hill, then you jump, one way or the other. You don't waste time resenting having to make a choice.



What avalanche? Why am I in a situation where avalanches are threatening me?



posted on Jul, 11 2020 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm
I was using a metaphor. Ask your English teacher to explain about metaphors.
Working out the meaning for yourself will be good intellectual training.



posted on Jul, 12 2020 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Evil doesn't have a presence within Orthodox Christian meta-ethics. The church fathers do not describe evil as something out there that has substance in and of itself, but rather finds it's being in the misuse of human will and the corruption that ripples throughout the creation from it. Once one understands the view of Logos held by St Maximus the Confessor the nature of Evil for the Orthodox becomes crystal clear. For Maximus the circle with it's radii is the best cosmic image. Each radii for St Maximus is understood as a double movement of expansion and contraction controlled and guided by a procession that keeps together in expansion, and a transferring convergence together with contraction. Each individual object is understood to have it's own radii, and thus at the perimeter of the circle we have your created existence, and deification or sanctification is understood as turning back towards God and returning towards that from which you came, and returning back down the radii, which represents that your being and salvation comes from an eternal principle held in God's knowledge of himself the Logos of God. Therefore, evil should be understood as behaving in such a way that either causes you to move back towards the outer edge or straying off that intended path of movement for you by God himself. In this way it becomes clear that evil does not have a "source," but is rather a parasite upon that finds it's being in creatures who misuse their will.



posted on Jul, 12 2020 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
We both accept the primary point that there is a difference between what God wants and what he doesn't want, and I don't have any quarrel with your way of describing the difference.

If fact any suggestion that evil has its own source would be much closer to true dualism of the Manichean type, and that isn't my idea of Creation theory at all. In other threads, I've described the Genesis abysss as "that part of creation which God has not organised". I've defined the original sin as humanity being "out of alignment with God's will". In essence, we're thinking along the same lines.



edit on 12-7-2020 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2020 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI
It's not about joining things to make unity.

Life is not made of things.
Life is happening.

Life does not belong to a thing.....although the assumption is that 'you' have life or that life is happening to 'you'.

There is no you separate to life

There is just life and life is not a thing....it is whatever is happening.....it cannot be grasped or named because it is in constant flow, changing ever presently......never not this.


edit on 12-7-2020 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2020 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain
The fact that you disagree with me- i.e. the very fact that disagreement is possible- is enough to prove you wrong. No other answer necessary.



posted on Jul, 12 2020 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Itisnowagain
The fact that you disagree with me- i.e. the very fact that disagreement is possible- is enough to prove you wrong. No other answer necessary.


It's what is happening....
There is just what is happening.

Life is happening just as it is.....
It appears as disagreement and everything....it appears as people, cars and anger.....but no one is doing it.


edit on 12-7-2020 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2020 @ 11:35 AM
link   




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join