If the Abrahamic God(s) Were Human...

[Sunstone]

Troubled.

Purely to simplify things for the sake of discussion, suppose for a moment there actually exists something as necessarily absurd as an all-encompassing deity to which one might somehow have a relationship of one sort or another. If that were the case, would it be possible to be in relationship to that deity without first either ascribing characteristics to it, or -- alternatively -- selecting from its infinite set of characteristics a few that one felt one could relate to?

I don't feel like debating any answer, but I am curious how you'd answer that.

 

[Urizen]

... something as necessarily absurd as an all-encompassing deity to which one might somehow have a relationship of one sort or another....

The relationship between man and god is nothing less than the correspondency of microcosm and macrocosm; far from being an 'absurdity', it is the most elegant, economic, parsimonious, logical, consisent, and succinct conception of reality, proportionate to the external facts of existence as well as to inner experience.

What is absurd is the naturalistic of materialist view of reality, which would have us believe that the universe is not of the mind, yet at the same time inexplicably conforms to the mind's empirical logic, whereby it is rendered intelligible. Everything just magically corresponds to the contours of the human mind, and that's that. This view is self-contradictory, reductionistic, and ludicrously anthropomorphic.

But there is nothing absurd in the view that the same intelligence that flows through the universe also flows through man. If God appears anthropomorphic, it is because man is theomorphic. Religion and traditional wisdom are correct: Man is created in the image of God; he is an eternal archetype "incarnated" in matter.

 

[Willamena]

If the God(s) of the Abrahamic religions were human, how would you describe them as persons?

Names.

Edit: Or masks. I've always been partial to masks.

 

[Sunstone]

The relationship between man and god is nothing less than the correspondency of microcosm and macrocosm; far from being an 'absurdity', it is the most elegant, economic, parsimonious, logical, consisent, and succinct conception of reality, proportionate to the external facts of existence as well as to inner experience.

What is absurd is the naturalistic of materialist view of reality, which would have us believe that the universe is not of the mind, yet at the same time inexplicably conforms to the mind's empirical logic, whereby it is rendered intelligible. Everything just magically corresponds to the contours of the human mind, and that's that. This view is self-contradictory, reductionistic, and ludicrously anthropomorphic.

But there is nothing absurd in the view that the same intelligence that flows through the universe also flows through man. If God appears anthropomorphic, it is because man is theomorphic. Religion and traditional wisdom are correct: Man is created in the image of God; he is an eternal archetype "incarnated" in matter.

You have used your impressive vocabulary to compose an elegant straw man, Urizen. A straw man is a childish fallacy of logic. Thanks for the laughter.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

If the God(s) of the Abrahamic religions were human, how would you describe them as persons?

An average man with terrible PR staff.

 

[Urizen]

You have used your impressive vocabulary to compose an elegant straw man, Urizen. A straw man is a childish fallacy of logic. Thanks for the laughter.

There is no need to be defensive. What the post refuted, first, was the supposed 'absurdity' of man's relationship with god by clarifying the nature of that relationship; and second, more generally, the opposing materialist and naturalist worldview. If you personally don't hold the materialist philosophy, that doesn't alter the fact that materialism is a common alternative to the theistic perspective. To say that the above refutation of materialism is 'straw man' suggests that one is in 'debate mode' and taking it as an intended attack on one's 'own' argument, rather than part of a disinterested discussion of ideas.

 

[Sunstone]

There is no need to be defensive. What the post refuted, first, was the supposed 'absurdity' of man's relationship with god by clarifying the nature of that relationship; and second, more generally, the opposing materialist and naturalist worldview. If you personally don't hold the materialist philosophy, that doesn't alter the fact that materialism is a common alternative to the theistic perspective. To say that the above refutation of materialism is 'straw man' suggests that one is in 'debate mode' and taking it as an intended attack on one's 'own' argument, rather than part of a disinterested discussion of ideas.

This thread has already gone way off topic without you jumping in with your idiotic and offensive cliches. Don't you think if you're going to be one of the several posters who drags this thread off topic that you should at least try to have an original thought?

 

[idav]

Moses is like Hitler and Charles Manson rolled into one. He, and his doctrine of terrorism is responsible for around 30 genocides, and countless murders of innocent lives, including sanctioning and condemning Jesus's murder , all in the name of YHWH. Actually, YHWH seems to fit the description of Satan to a T. (no pun intended)

Wow the Hitler card. No need to remember Moses saving the slaves or anything. Besides Moses didn't do any annihilating but his predecessor did.

 

[Sunstone]

It's incredible how off topic this thread has been.

 

[Zelophehad]

Wow the Hitler card. No need to remember Moses saving the slaves or anything. Besides Moses didn't do any annihilating but his predecessor did.

Moses had PLENTLY innocent live put to death in his day, and his legacy of death, murder, genocides and framing God for it all, continued on LONG after his death. Moses's doctrine spread all over the globe, thanks to Jesus performing miracles on his behalf.

And History disproves the Bible's claims that Egypt enslaved the Jews. The policies of Egypt was that of freedom. Even if the Jews WAS enslaved, at least they had the freedom to worship whomever, in whatever way they wanted. The Jews in the dessert had NO basic human rights to speak of. They were oppressed by a terrorist dictator with abandonment issues.

 

[Urizen]

This thread has already gone way off topic without you jumping in with your idiotic and offensive cliches. Don't you think if you're going to be one of the several posters who drags this thread off topic that you should at least try to have an original thought?

'Idiotic', 'offensive', 'cliche' are here being used as nonsubstantive pejoratives, lacking discernible meaning. This will be interpreted as, 'Sunstone strongly disagrees ("idiotic") with something he has not clearly specified, and desires his opinions not to be criticised ("offensive")'. Very well; this sentiment has been noted; it will stand without further comment.

As for 'original thought,' the desire is only to speak the truth, which has been known throuhout the ages - not to flatter the vanity of the ego by thinking itself 'original', unique, special. Timeless truth overrides all the vanities of this world. Don't be so preoccupied with originality, aim at truth above all else. Once the truth is assimilated, originality will come of itself - in art, poetry, music, or whatever interests you. First get the truth, Sunstone, and then you can have lasting originality and creativity.

 

[LuisDantas]

Purely to simplify things for the sake of discussion, suppose for a moment there actually exists something as necessarily absurd as an all-encompassing deity to which one might somehow have a relationship of one sort or another. If that were the case, would it be possible to be in relationship to that deity without first either ascribing characteristics to it, or -- alternatively -- selecting from its infinite set of characteristics a few that one felt one could relate to?

I don't feel like debating any answer, but I am curious how you'd answer that.

Possible? I guess so. Quite possibly unavoidable, even. But then how would we even realize that there is such a relationship?

For all anyone can tell, that may well be happening right now with everyone - yet no one has any clear way of realizing that.

Of course, there is the downside that such an undescribable and unnoticeable relationship might as well not exist, for all the discernible effect that it has.

 

[ruffen]

If the God(s) of the Abrahamic religions were human, how would you describe them as persons?

Psychopatic, sociopathic, narcissistic, evil, unjust, morally unacceptable, not very bright, and with a serious anger management problem...

...and sexually envious of humans and in serious need of a girlfriend.

:run:

 

[emoneyshonuff]

yes he did.

Then "HE" should be thought of nothing more than a human invention.