U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Independence Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
Old 06-05-2010, 04:23 PM
Location: missouri
1,159 posts, read 797,950 times
Reputation: 149


Please, someone list all the sources so we may deconstruct them-since god isn't at our door step or serving me my lunch, or barely in the bible, I need some other sources that make him available to mind. I need to know what completes the bible. Of course, what you will find is that they are lame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 06-05-2010, 11:02 PM
Location: missouri
1,159 posts, read 797,950 times
Reputation: 149
All thinking is either in relation to an object or thinking produces the object. One could call these the transcendental or ontological positions. The object is either a "real" object or one that is in mind (an idea, or better, a notion {a more complete thought out idea}), an ideal object of the mind's creation or development, that the subject reflects on (perhaps the term dasein works here-being between {one's subjectivity} the "object" and thought about the "object"). If there is a god, then the god would be himself, if not, then one would have some defective or abstract, or goofed up god-perhaps an old fashion one-but just a mental one; a made up one. This is a christian thread, so we will leave out the Lamas, god in trees, the feminist eros god, and other such mental abirations attached to accidental characteristics, and therefore; merely ideas reified. Since the christian god is developed beyond possible thought (see Anselm), the extreme concept, then the god is beyond thought. Thinking must have the object to think. Where is it going to get the object? Transcendentally, developed to the extreme, I guess one could say, the object is the "thing in itself" (a table is such, an apple, your girl friend, a thought as well, and etc). This thing, is of course, not havable by thought in any direct sense. The object remains itself and thought must idealize it in order to have it; thought can not have the "thing" as thought would have to become the "thing" and then it would no longer be the "thing", or thought for that matter. Ontologically (Hegel figured this out), thought creates "reality" (the thought is thought, so the two are one substance). So, what else is there? Either you are related to a "thing" or you create the "thing". If the "thing" is there, god in this case, you can only relate to it in the first position. To relate to a thing, one either has the thing before one or one has a mental conception of the thing to relate to. In the second position one merely creates the thing (perhaps in reference to the thing, but probably in reference to the idea of the thing. God is not an object like a table, or a car; ie, not physically present. So one will have a hard time relating to god as a physical object-so we can leave the physical world behind. Idea-where oh where does one get the true idea of god in order to relate to it? And when one relates to an idea, one does not relate to the "thing in itself" but to the idea of the thing. Ontologically, one creates the idea of the thing, obviously one does not have the power to bring such an idea as god into "reality" (Judas tried and failed). In both cases, the mind merely relates or operates in a closed system-for all time, past time, this is what has been taking place inside ol' little men's brains. The mental system is closed (one merely can understand this by taking a short cut through systems theory). God then is not possibly knowable in an absolute way, just as a table ain't-both are idealized (the atheists are dumb here and don't realize they too are trapped in a closed mental system-read their threads, they think they are actually reality themselves and need no thought). For god to be known, the god has to reveal himself. This is a problem of presence (like a table),and the real problem that should be discussed here is how is god knowable at all? Anyways, the closed mind, of the above two positions, means that any notion of god is developed within the mind; either one relates to a created notion of god, or one just merely creates the notion, one assumes the object is there and the other makes the object in order to assume it is there-one can see that there is a relational element in both but there is a qualitative difference between the two (for a philosophy thread, perhaps). What is thought up by mind is just that; thought up. This works good for airplanes and swimming pools, but god is a different type of "object". This whole problem of this thread is one of "knowing" (perhaps most threads here). If one gets trapped in the circularity of the mind (cor curvum in se-the ol' latin phrase), and as far as christianity is concerned (and the far reaches of western philosophy-which is far better {I know, I am a bigot, but I don't care} than any other, as philosophy goes-did you know that all that eastern crap is westernized so that we will buy into it?), that is the natural nature of all men (trapped in the circularity of their own thoughts with the above two positions; or an attempted synthesis of them), then any information one has about god is actually produced by one's own mind (of course, none are so brilliant on this data forum as to have the ability to create a god from scratch-this is always done by social interaction; one's peer group, one's little rebel club, one's drinking buddies, one's little prayer circle, one's little cry group, and etc). All thinking wishes to do this. To rationally conclude the thought, to own the thought, to control the thought; in effect to systematize it (to systematize it is to make a completed system to the mind: in effect to know it from head to toe, so to speak, to totally have dominion over it-this really borders on what is referred to as magic but other borders are here as well {when one sees this one can see why the bible says to avoid magic}, perhaps not the ancient type, but a new type, lodged in thought-a metaphysical magic {not the new age drivel}). It is unlikely that a god could be systematized, especially the christian concept as the god is greater than can be thought (there are biblical passages that indicate this, such as those that refer to a light too bright, or one dies in the presence of the god {if these were true, then it is unlikely one could role out of bed after a night of american idol and have an epiphany}. Men merely become their own gods and create their gods from their own images-what else can they do? If one is to know the "true" god one has to have the god come to one and convince the one that he is indeed the god (this is why Jesus is not believed to be the god by many-he obviously doesn't care to convince the many that that is what he is). God, of course can not be objectified even though we need the object-in the transcendental position, that we relate to the object, the object is hidden, the real object, the "thing in itself" is idealized and that is what happened to Jesus (of course the bible is aware of all this, and that is why it introduces faith as a gift fro the god, and makes it clear that that faith is somewhat different than the faith needed for me to believe that Paris is there before I visit it). That is why he was not known as the christ, even by being present-for the other position, for example, the religious people of the time, the jews, had already determined what the god is (ontologically, they created the concept), and therefore, the Jesus was not god for them because they would not allow the god to be himself (the thing in itself). Both positions, held by the majority of the people, missed the god in the flesh. How could they see? They were trapped in their own mental circularity (this is the humor in the fall, the circularity of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil {pleasure and pain}). It is obvious from the biblical record, that those who did see, did not see from their own mental operations or from the acquired religious perspectives of the social world around them (or from their drinking buddies)-if they could see, they would have seen; to see was a "miracle", so the ol' inspired bible idea was an attempt to also circumvent god's presence and actually returned, or simply kept people trapped within the mind (that is a free bee for discussion). One needs to read this record with more mental stamina than an immediate dumb un-connectedness and it is the christian position that one does not acquire such an ability in one's whole life time. It is the god's privilege to reveal himself to whom ever he wishes and to withhold himself from whom ever he wishes. Obviously, from this situation of the mind, mind can not have the truth even if it is in front of one, as the truth is not an idea but a man-a "thing in itself". Where is the record of this "thing in itself"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $94,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2015, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top