John,
You are right, I was wrong. Those deeds are not contingent. They
probably appears automatically when one give a name to God.
Perhaps, "God" could be "defined" by this: it is the one which is such
that once you give it a name or a definition trouble appears.
Obviously such a sentence should not be taken to much literally (if we
do we are led to an obvious inconsistency).
So, from now on, each time I use the word "God" it will means the
impersonal big unnameable 0-person point of view, that is Plotinus'
ONE, and/or some of its possible arithmetical (set theoretical)
interpretation(s), that is arithmetical truth (resp. set theoretical
truth).
I will recall the theory in my reply to Tom Caylor.
Bruno
Le 20-nov.-06, à 18:03, John M a écrit :
>
> Bruno:
> How far Occident? Quetzealcoatle was not much better.
> Orientals? did they care at all? they were occupied
> with their lovers. Germanics and Scandinavians? no
> better, not to spek about Maori, African, Hawaiian
> etc.
> requiring virgins to be thrown into the Volcano. The
> priests of the smarter ones ate them.
> Did you notice the Catholic homophag rite: "Take it
> and eat it: it is my body. Drink it: it is my blood.
> And literary thousands of protestant rites follow
> suit.
> Muslims cleaned that up, they concentrate on heavennly
> sex (hueis).
> Sorry if I hurt feelings.
> John
>
> --- Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Le 18-nov.-06, à 21:49, John M a écrit :
>>
>>> Why do the religions (almost all of them) depict a
>> god after the worst
>>> human
>>> characters: jealous, flatterable, requiring praise
>> and blind
>>> obedience,
>>> vengeful, irate, picking favorites,
>>> even sadistic and not caring? Why does he punish
>> for deeds done
>>> exactly as
>>> he created the sinner?
>>
>>
>> I disagree with the "(almost all of them)". True,
>> since a long time, in
>> Occident, the main religions are based on such a
>> "God", probably
>> because he looks like the "terrifying father", very
>> useful to
>> manipulate people by fear and terror.
>>
>> But this is contingent, and eventually I take that
>> sad contingent truth
>> as a supplementary motivation to come back on
>> "serious theology", by
>> which I mean 3-person sharable theology (even if
>> such a theology does
>> talk about first person unsharable notion).
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> >
>
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Nov 21 2006 - 05:29:13 PST