Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
First and foremost, before others jump in, I'll qualify and say my previous post is all opinion and is my own personal belief. Please don't ask me to back it up. I can't, but it is the position I have come to over time.Fist and Faith wrote:Pam, I've never heard you make such strong statements on that topic before. Didn't know you felt that way. Which I happen to agree with.
I wasn't asking you to, and won't. Nobody can back up their beliefs in an objectively verifiable way. At least I've never seen it happen. We all go through life, being exposed to various ideas. Some resonate with us, and others do not.Menolly wrote:First and foremost, before others jump in, I'll qualify and say my previous post is all opinion and is my own personal belief. Please don't ask me to back it up. I can't, but it is the position I have come to over time.
Interesting.Menolly wrote:Eric, I've felt this way for a long time.
Strict Torah-observance is the way I prefer to worship,
Uh... OK...Menolly wrote:Anyway, you can ask ali and Savor Dam, as well as any others here who have not blocked me from their Facebook newsfeed.
Gonna fill us in on that?Menolly wrote:I didn't have a name for how I perceived HaShem until a few months ago (thanks Xar!).
I've been quietly doing some reading ever since.
I can say that this is what I meant previously when I said there's really no point to "refuting" these objections. You believe 1 & 2 is true, so if one says they aren't, then they are wrong. Or, if the answer to both questions was yes, it wouldn't mean you'd go explore Orthodoxy more, it just means you'd be against it a little bit less, and then think of a 3rd objective. That's what we do when we're content w/our beliefs.aliantha wrote:Can you refute my two baseline objections to Christianity as a whole? Specifically: 1. Does Orthodoxy include the Feminine in the Godhead? 2. Does Orthodoxy acknowledge that other sentient and non-sentient beings on Earth are as important as humanity?
Ah, I did quote your post first before stating my qualification, but the qualification was meant to be general, not directed at you specifically.Fist and Faith wrote:I wasn't asking you to, and won't. Nobody can back up their beliefs in an objectively verifiable way. At least I've never seen it happen. We all go through life, being exposed to various ideas. Some resonate with us, and others do not.Menolly wrote:First and foremost, before others jump in, I'll qualify and say my previous post is all opinion and is my own personal belief. Please don't ask me to back it up. I can't, but it is the position I have come to over time.
As I said, in my view all paths have a spark of Truth to them, even Unbelief/non-belief. One basic tenant of Judaism I do hold to is that the purpose of Mankind is to bring the spark of the Divine in to the mundane. My drifting away from the tenant is that I believe what one interprets the Divine to be is up to the individual. But I do believe that even non-believers bring holiness and divinity into their existence. We would probably just argue on just what is meant by "holiness and divinity." For the non-believers, if I had to define what it is to me, simply put it is joy, hope, anticipation, appreciation, etc. To me, such things are Divine, and can be felt by all, not just believers.Fist and Faith wrote:Personally, I agree with you, and I don't. I've often enough quoted Thou art God, and other ideas similar to what you just said. IMO, it's the best way of envisioning God. Everything is God. However, it's just as accurate to say nothing is God. That's more in keeping with what I actually believe. But what you said could work nicely for those who are trying to find God, or a god.
To me, worship and belief are two different things all together. Worship is ritualized, public displays of one's appreciation.Fist and Faith wrote:Interesting.Menolly wrote:Eric, I've felt this way for a long time.
Strict Torah-observance is the way I prefer to worship,
I started from a base that I have a tiny bit of background in, and have found more than enough to research for awhile. For now I'm concentrating on Luria and his concept of tzimtzum.Fist and Faith wrote:Gonna fill us in on that?Menolly wrote:I didn't have a name for how I perceived HaShem until a few months ago (thanks Xar!).
I've been quietly doing some reading ever since.
No, I didn't take it as if directed at me. I just couldn't figure out how to write it better than I did.Menolly wrote:Ah, I did quote your post first before stating my qualification, but the qualification was meant to be general, not directed at you specifically.
Sorry about that.
Time to repost a couple quotes.Menolly wrote:But I do believe that even non-believers bring holiness and divinity into their existence. We would probably just argue on just what is meant by "holiness and divinity." For the non-believers, if I had to define what it is to me, simply put it is joy, hope, anticipation, appreciation, etc. To me, such things are Divine, and can be felt by all, not just believers.
And, from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Phaedrus attempted to climb a mountain, but failed:I suddenly realized that in the language, or at any rate in the spirit of the Glass Bead Game, everything actually was all-meaningful, that every symbol and combination of symbols led not hither and yon, not to single examples, experiments, and proofs, but into the center, the mystery and innermost heart of the world, into primal knowledge. Every transition from major to minor in a sonata, every transformation of a myth or a religious cult, every classical or artistic formulation was, I realized in that flashing moment, if seen with a truly meditative mind, nothing but a direct route into the interior of the cosmic mystery, where in the alternation between inhaling and exhaling, between heaven and earth, between Yin and Yang, holiness is forever being created.
He never reached the mountain. After the third day he gave up, exhausted, and the pilgrimage went on without him. He said he had the physical strength but that physical strength wasn’t enough. He had the intellectual motivation but that wasn’t enough either. He didn’t think he had been arrogant but thought that he was undertaking the pilgrimage to broaden his experience, to gain understanding for himself. He was trying to use the mountain for his own purposes and the pilgrimage too. He regarded himself as the fixed entity, not the pilgrimage or the mountain, and thus wasn’t ready for it. He speculated that the other pilgrims, the ones who reached the mountain, probably sensed the holiness of the mountain so intensely that each footstep was an act of devotion, an act of submission to this holiness. The holiness of the mountain infused into their own spirits enabled them to endure far more than anything he, with his greater physical strength, could take. To the untrained eye ego-climbing and selfless climbing may appear identical. Both kinds of climbers place one foot in front of the other. Both breathe in and out at the same rate. Both stop when tired. Both go forward when rested. But what a difference! The ego-climber is like an instrument that’s out of adjustment. He puts his foot down an instant too soon or too late. He’s likely to miss a beautiful passage of sunlight through the trees. He goes on when the sloppiness of his step shows he’s tired. He rests at odd times. He looks up the trail trying to see what’s ahead even when he knows what’s ahead because he just looked a second before. He goes too fast or too slow for the conditions and when he talks his talk is forever about somewhere else, something else. He’s here but he’s not here. He rejects the here, is unhappy with it, wants to be farther up the trail but when he gets there will be just as unhappy because then it will be ‘here’. What he’s looking for, what he wants, is all around him, but he doesn’t want that because it is all around him. Every step’s an effort, both physically and spiritually, because he imagines his goal to be external and distant.
I gotcha.Menolly wrote:To me, worship and belief are two different things all together. Worship is ritualized, public displays of one's appreciation.
Belief is personal, and far more powerful.
Ah. Never heard of it. I'll give it a looksee. hehMenolly wrote:I started from a base that I have a tiny bit of background in, and have found more than enough to research for awhile. For now I'm concentrating on Luria and his concept of tzimtzum.
Kaydene wrote:That's what I meant. If I could bring us back to the point that was being talked about in the page before us; God is everywhere, there is nowhere He is not. God is everything, there is no thing She is not.
So God is both Good AND Evil. Knowledge AND Ignorance. Fallible AND Infallible. By that logic, we should always be questioning God's judgement to find which path to choose instead of blindly following.
I agree with y'all that God/the Universe/the Force/what-have-you 
is in everything and of everything. But I also have had experiences with specific gods and goddesses which has informed my religious practice, i.e., I believe they exist. Whether they are separate entities or just faces of the One, I'm not ready to say. 
But what I meant when I said "sentient" was, for instance, animals. They do think (maybe not on a human level, but they do) and they do feel. There was a time in human history when we didn't believe that was the case. And I'll just say again that once you start categorizing levels of importance in Creation (humans are more important than animals, which are more important than plants, and so on), then you have to be *very* careful not to abuse your hierarchy (for instance, illegal immigrants/Native Americans/gays/fill-in-the-blank are "other", therefore they are no better than animals). People who believed themselves to be devout Christians (but *not* Orthodox, okay, rus? ) have fallen into this trap, which is why I keep bringing it up. So yeah, my kids are way important to me, and if I had to choose between the kids and the cat, I would choose the kids. But I like to think I would decide on a case-by-case basis. I am using the definition of Pantheism as written up on the link. So, yes, I believe Panentheism includes Pantheism.aliantha wrote:Ah, y'all have moved on from my issues a page or two back -- good for you!
Menolly, I think I'm probably both a pantheist and a panentheist, if that's possible.
I have not studied Chr-stian sects at all, but have they all deserted the Kabalah mysticism of the duology of HaShem/Shekhinah?aliantha wrote:Weez, as to my beliefs about Christianity, I've yet to run across a Christian sect that had a Holy Mother on par with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Slight detour here, but your words remind me of what St. Augustine once said about the problem of evil - namely (and I paraphrase here) that evil does not exist per se, but rather it is an absence of goodness, much in the same way as a wound does not have an independent existence but can only be defined as a "lack of health" in the body. It was his speculation that evil exists only where there is no good, and that therefore it could be extinguished if good were to fill the place it had left. In other words, St. Augustine implied that God allows evil to "exist" only because good can be extracted from it.Kaydene wrote:That's what I meant. If I could bring us back to the point that was being talked about in the page before us; God is everywhere, there is nowhere He is not. God is everything, there is no thing She is not.
So God is both Good AND Evil. Knowledge AND Ignorance. Fallible AND Infallible. By that logic, we should always be questioning God's judgement to find which path to choose instead of blindly following.
That said... isn't free will supposed to be the paramount gift that humans were given? If there were no evil, and consequently no good (since each of them can only be defined by the knowledge of the other), then where would the free will be? Similarly, but perhaps more subtly, if God gave you commands and the apparent choice was between following them blindly or being damned, wouldn't that also undermine the concept of free will (essentially offering you a "choice" which isn't really balanced, and therefore saying "sure, you have free will, but if you don't do what I want you to do, you'll be burning)? I prefer to think that God - whatever the denomination - prefers those who question, who try to understand and who do not believe things blindly only because they were told to. But then again I am a scientist and I believe curiosity to be one of the best human traits, even when applied to religion.Albert Einstein wrote:The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
Ideally, from a Christian point of view there was no need to redeem animals of plants because it was only humankind which was stained by the Original SinAliantha wrote: Weez, as to my beliefs about Christianity, I've yet to run across a Christian sect that had a Holy Mother on par with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. And as God sent Jesus to redeem humans, not animals or plants, Christianity appears to me to value humans over all other creation. So yeah, I believe those two things are true.
Xar wrote:Slight detour here, but your words remind me of what St. Augustine once said about the problem of evil - namely (and I paraphrase here) that evil does not exist per se, but rather it is an absence of goodness, much in the same way as a wound does not have an independent existence but can only be defined as a "lack of health" in the body. It was his speculation that evil exists only where there is no good, and that therefore it could be extinguished if good were to fill the place it had left. In other words, St. Augustine implied that God allows evil to "exist" only because good can be extracted from it.Kaydene wrote:That's what I meant. If I could bring us back to the point that was being talked about in the page before us; God is everywhere, there is nowhere He is not. God is everything, there is no thing She is not.
So God is both Good AND Evil. Knowledge AND Ignorance. Fallible AND Infallible. By that logic, we should always be questioning God's judgement to find which path to choose instead of blindly following.
This in turn reminds me of one of Einstein's quotes:
That said... isn't free will supposed to be the paramount gift that humans were given? If there were no evil, and consequently no good (since each of them can only be defined by the knowledge of the other), then where would the free will be? Similarly, but perhaps more subtly, if God gave you commands and the apparent choice was between following them blindly or being damned, wouldn't that also undermine the concept of free will (essentially offering you a "choice" which isn't really balanced, and therefore saying "sure, you have free will, but if you don't do what I want you to do, you'll be burning)? I prefer to think that God - whatever the denomination - prefers those who question, who try to understand and who do not believe things blindly only because they were told to. But then again I am a scientist and I believe curiosity to be one of the best human traits, even when applied to religion.Albert Einstein wrote:The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
Yes. The reason I can never really subscribe to the fundamentalist view is because it asks one to turn off the mind. That to question and critically examine and not take something on faith is not what God wants us to do. But to create us in his image and give us the amazing ability to rationalize (which is what sets us apart from animals) and then say that to use that is a sin, that seems like spitting on God's gift. Doesn't it?Kaydene wrote:...That to question and critically examine and not take something on faith is not what God wants us to do. But to create us in his image and give us the amazing ability to rationalize (which is what sets us apart from animals) and then say that to use that is a sin, that seems like spitting on God's gift. Doesn't it?Xar wrote:Slight detour here, but your words remind me of what St. Augustine once said about the problem of evil - namely (and I paraphrase here) that evil does not exist per se, but rather it is an absence of goodness, much in the same way as a wound does not have an independent existence but can only be defined as a "lack of health" in the body. It was his speculation that evil exists only where there is no good, and that therefore it could be extinguished if good were to fill the place it had left. In other words, St. Augustine implied that God allows evil to "exist" only because good can be extracted from it.Kaydene wrote:That's what I meant. If I could bring us back to the point that was being talked about in the page before us; God is everywhere, there is nowhere He is not. God is everything, there is no thing She is not.
So God is both Good AND Evil. Knowledge AND Ignorance. Fallible AND Infallible. By that logic, we should always be questioning God's judgement to find which path to choose instead of blindly following.
This in turn reminds me of one of Einstein's quotes:
That said... isn't free will supposed to be the paramount gift that humans were given? If there were no evil, and consequently no good (since each of them can only be defined by the knowledge of the other), then where would the free will be? Similarly, but perhaps more subtly, if God gave you commands and the apparent choice was between following them blindly or being damned, wouldn't that also undermine the concept of free will (essentially offering you a "choice" which isn't really balanced, and therefore saying "sure, you have free will, but if you don't do what I want you to do, you'll be burning)? I prefer to think that God - whatever the denomination - prefers those who question, who try to understand and who do not believe things blindly only because they were told to. But then again I am a scientist and I believe curiosity to be one of the best human traits, even when applied to religion.Albert Einstein wrote:The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.
in the Wikipedia article on [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yetzer_hara]Yetzer hara[/url] it is wrote:Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, also known by the Hebrew acronym RaMCHaL, wrote in Derech Hashem (The Way of God) "Man is the creature created for the purpose of being drawn close to G-d. He is placed between perfection and deficiency, with the power to earn perfection. Man must earn this perfection, however, through his own free will.…Man's inclinations are therefore balanced between good (Yetzer HaTov) and evil (Yetzer HaRa), and he is not compelled toward either of them. He has the power of choice and is able to choose either side knowingly and willingly…"
Interesting links. First time I've ever seen anything equating the Holy Ghost with a Divine Feminine. I can tell you that this is not even mentioned in Protestant churches -- at least not the ones I've ever been to. That's part of the reason why some feminists turned to Wicca. Why would you feel the need to invent a Goddess religion if your childhood religion had a Divine Feminine?
So the snake had nothing to do with it, huh?Xar wrote:Ideally, from a Christian point of view there was no need to redeem animals of plants because it was only humankind which was stained by the Original Sin
I get what you're saying -- the snake was being a snake, the apple was being an apple, and it was only man (well, woman) who was being disobedient.Gotta disagree with this. Good might mean going out of your way to find food for a starving person. Is evil not going out of your way to find food? Or is evil taking food from someone so they starve? I can see a wound being defined as a "lack of health", even though I think "active interruption of health" is better. But a disease that's caused by invading germs is stronger yet.Xar wrote:Slight detour here, but your words remind me of what St. Augustine once said about the problem of evil - namely (and I paraphrase here) that evil does not exist per se, but rather it is an absence of goodness, much in the same way as a wound does not have an independent existence but can only be defined as a "lack of health" in the body. It was his speculation that evil exists only where there is no good, and that therefore it could be extinguished if good were to fill the place it had left. In other words, St. Augustine implied that God allows evil to "exist" only because good can be extracted from it.
Extremely agree. And here's yet another thing I've quoted before. There's a fantasy book, The Kundalini Equation, by Steven Barnes, where one character is doing a lot of searching, questioning, etc, about life, God, etc. During an appearance, a woman in the audience asked, "Mr. Patanjal, how does it feel to know that you are going to burn in hell?" And he answered:Xar wrote:That said... isn't free will supposed to be the paramount gift that humans were given? If there were no evil, and consequently no good (since each of them can only be defined by the knowledge of the other), then where would the free will be? Similarly, but perhaps more subtly, if God gave you commands and the apparent choice was between following them blindly or being damned, wouldn't that also undermine the concept of free will (essentially offering you a "choice" which isn't really balanced, and therefore saying "sure, you have free will, but if you don't do what I want you to do, you'll be burning)? I prefer to think that God - whatever the denomination - prefers those who question, who try to understand and who do not believe things blindly only because they were told to. But then again I am a scientist and I believe curiosity to be one of the best human traits, even when applied to religion.
"Madame, the divine force which you believe in and the one in which I believe are obviously two different beings. If in a sincere quest for understanding and knowledge I have erred, I am deeply sorry, and await a sign from the Almighty that will teach me the error of my ways. I simply believe in the virtues of sincere intellectual curiosity. An eagerness to use the mind and feelings that God himself gave me to inquire into mysteries rather than merely accept the explanation othat other men have passed down through the years. If for this I will be cast into fires everlasting, then God is indeed the malign thug of which Mark Twain wrote, and his hell could certainly be no more insufferable than his heaven."
This is what I meant. You don't approach the question w/an open mind (I equate open mind w/undecided), but one waiting to dismiss it if it doesn't match your "truth". I don't pass judgement on that, I just mean to point out that there's no point in trying to discuss it, as you just want to have reasons to dismiss it.aliantha wrote:Weez, as to my beliefs about Christianity, I've yet to run across a Christian sect that had a Holy Mother on par with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. And as God sent Jesus to redeem humans, not animals or plants, Christianity appears to me to value humans over all other creation. So yeah, I believe those two things are true. As for evolution, I do believe in it; and if I were you, I wouldn't sell the cockroach short -- it's been around longer than humans have.
ali, in case you're interested...aliantha wrote:Interesting links. First time I've ever seen anything equating the Holy Ghost with a Divine Feminine. I can tell you that this is not even mentioned in Protestant churches -- at least not the ones I've ever been to. That's part of the reason why some feminists turned to Wicca. Why would you feel the need to invent a Goddess religion if your childhood religion had a Divine Feminine?
No, why would it nullify free will? If a govt says you can speed, but you'll get a ticket, did they remove free will? You can still decide. (that's beside the point of whether those 2 choices are the only ones, I'm playing w/the hypothetical)Xar wrote:Similarly, but perhaps more subtly, if God gave you commands and the apparent choice was between following them blindly or being damned, wouldn't that also undermine the concept of free will (essentially offering you a "choice" which isn't really balanced, and therefore saying "sure, you have free will, but if you don't do what I want you to do, you'll be burning)?
Well, remember that St. Augustine lived before the discovery of germsFist and Faith wrote:Gotta disagree with this. Good might mean going out of your way to find food for a starving person. Is evil not going out of your way to find food? Or is evil taking food from someone so they starve? I can see a wound being defined as a "lack of health", even though I think "active interruption of health" is better. But a disease that's caused by invading germs is stronger yet.Xar wrote:Slight detour here, but your words remind me of what St. Augustine once said about the problem of evil - namely (and I paraphrase here) that evil does not exist per se, but rather it is an absence of goodness, much in the same way as a wound does not have an independent existence but can only be defined as a "lack of health" in the body. It was his speculation that evil exists only where there is no good, and that therefore it could be extinguished if good were to fill the place it had left. In other words, St. Augustine implied that God allows evil to "exist" only because good can be extracted from it.
That said, consider this: you see a person who is starving and you know that the only way to get food for that person is to go out of your way to do so. Your choice is either to go out of your way to get food for that person, or not to do so much and leave the person to his or her own devices. St. Augustine would point out that the former would be good; the latter would be evil simply because it's the absence of good (i.e. it's the absence of your willingness to go out of your way to help a fellow human being at the expense of that person's well-being). The quote I mentioned above, from Einstein, would fit this situation quite nicely. Well, there are a number of fundamental differences here.Cybrweez wrote:No, why would it nullify free will? If a govt says you can speed, but you'll get a ticket, did they remove free will? You can still decide. (that's beside the point of whether those 2 choices are the only ones, I'm playing w/the hypothetical)Xar wrote:Similarly, but perhaps more subtly, if God gave you commands and the apparent choice was between following them blindly or being damned, wouldn't that also undermine the concept of free will (essentially offering you a "choice" which isn't really balanced, and therefore saying "sure, you have free will, but if you don't do what I want you to do, you'll be burning)?