And the only way to believe in God and in the Church is to necessarily and unquestionably believe in the vassals that they work through. There is no other way. Priests are not ordinary people. Even if lately, they dress and behave like them. It's not about experience, it's about doctrine. I don't. I'm talking about the doctrine. And the territorial principle by which the CC functions tells you to go to the priest that has jurisdiction where you live. You can't pick and choose priests, unless you get a special permission to do so. One that has for centuries been at least 70% Catholic. That's a lot different than, say, the US or GB. I know that the attitudes of Catholics are somewhat different across the world. But the doctrine isn't. Again, it doesn't matter, as long as the territorial principle is in effect. Sure, if you are one of the lucky ones who were born and raised into the CC, then you had many many privileges that someone like me never did. Cradle Catholics don't even begin to understand what adult outsiders have to go through if they want to join the CC.
Whachoo got against Mars? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thus, the operative word: suspend, as opposed to deactivate. A world where one cannot entertain a fiction temporarily is a dry world indeed.
False. You may have been taught that (or are just assuming it, I don't know) but it does not apply across the board. It certainly sounds like you've had some pretty negative experiences. But you must grant that what you experienced does not necessarily apply generally.
Well, if you're a prophet and actually have personal, first-hand knowledge from (!) God, then you have a special position, of course. The rest of us have to rely on people who claim to be talking about God. I don't see them as negative, I see them as accurate. A world where one needs fictions is a dry world indeed.
Animals operate under natural instinct. What they do, is not subject to choice, but rather is controlled by instincts. If a lion kills, this is not evil since the lion is doing what it were designed to do; being true to nature. The God of the old testament would do things that atheists call evil, but this was not evil, since he was being true to his nature. This was not by choice but by design. Evil only appears with willpower and choice, since it is through will power and choice, one can leave the natural design. In the garden of Eden, evil only appears when a free choice was made. Instinct not only tells the animal what to do, but also what not to do. The lion may kill for food, territory and self defense. His instinct does not tell him to kill his family for sport. In the garden of Eden, the prohibition not to eat of the tree of knowledge, was the barrier side of natural instinct which limits animals to their nature. The choice to eat of that tree, was a choice that was alien to natural humans. An apple is red on the outside and white on the inside. It is sweet and sometimes tart. The surface color red is the color of fire and emotions, which is the basis for subjectivity. The inside of the apple is white and sweet. The symbol of the apple is implicit of emotion being used to decide what is felt as good and desirable; objects of choice. The thief may feel that new iPad will be nice to have, so he steals it. This causes the integration of humans to be lost, since not everyone will feel the same way, like with instinct. In a sense, animals operate via the will of God; integrated with creation. Their actions are choreographed by nature. Will of God, with respect to humans is similar to natural instinct for humans, but with the added features of willpower and choice. These two competing things creates a unique problem for human evolution. How do you retain will and choice, while also returning to natural instincts; return to paradise, so all humans integrate like other natural species on the earth? The tree of life tells us something, symbolically, about natural human instincts. This tree bears twelves types of fruit. Natural human instinct is not as linear as the one fruit tree of knowledge of good and evil. We have found some of the fruit, such as reason.
No. That is a false dichotomy (this supposed binary choice between not questioning authority and personal experience of truth). There are middle choices. you are not expected you abandon your rational mind entirely. (Although, one surely needs an open mind to provide the opportunity to learn stuff one might otherwise reject at first blush) I understand that it seems that is what you experienced. But I uh ... am not going to armchair psychoanalyze you. I think you recognize that personal anecdotes don't speak for all. And, as you know, your view (as anyone's) is not of the whole picture. "Can" is not the same as "need". We were talking about entertaining a possible fiction (let's call it a supposition: that God exists). We entertain the premise of fictional books, movies and all manner of things that may not necessarily be true. It would be a dull world without books, or movies or other suppositions.
God is defined (among other things as) as the one being that precedes you (and everyone else), that is bigger than you (and everyone else), than contextualizes you (and everyone else), that makes you (and everyone else) possible. If you accept this definition of God, then there are only two options for knowing God: either God contacts you (as is the case with prophets), or you believe those who claim God has contacted them. This is a very straining dichotomy, potentially leaving one in constant stress and insecurity. And it is probably because of this stress and insecurity that many people adopt a definition of God that is closer to that of a demigod, because such definitions do away with that dichotomy. If you carefully examine the definitions of "God" that actual people actually work with (and not those definitions of "God" that can be found in their official doctrines), you can discover that they are definitions of a demigod. Ie. definitions by which God is a "very powerful being," "on my side, " "a force," "love," "a galactic vending machine" etc. etc. The existence of such choices depends on your ego and your willingness to play along with the religious game of keeping up appearances. Of course you are; you are expected to abandon _your_ rational mind entirely and instead internalize the religion's idea of rationality. It's routinely done. E.g. in Catholicism, they say that if you're rational, you'll see the Catholic doctrine is true. In the Bahai faith, they tell that if you're rational, you'll see the Bahai doctrine is true. Religions routinely usurp the notion of rationality. I'm taking about a basic issue of religious epistemology. Granted, many people never seem to experience this issue in their own mind, because they are too comfortably attached to their particular views (about religion, life, etc.). You're not supposed to. You don't seem to understand what I'm talking about. I am only using personal anecdotes to illustrate my general points. There are definitions of God, like the one I started this post with, that are impossible to entertain as fictions. I think that definition is also the only proposition that cannot be entertained as fiction, ever; which, however, doesn't mean that it is true. Sure. But God, in at least some of the definitions of the word "God," is not part of those things. I don't know about that.
It's a simple question that can be answered with "yes" or "no". To me it will clarify what the word God means to you.
I don't understand your quesiton. Calling it "simple" doesn't make it so. It looks like you left out a few words, or misplaced some. Do you mean something like -- "Does your God necessarily need to be intelligent and motivated?" "Does God necessarily need to be intelligent and motivated?" "Does your belief in God necessarily need to be intelligent and motivated?" ? The definition of God I am working with is this: God is the one being that precedes me (and everyone else), that is bigger than me (and everyone else), that contextualizes me (and everyone else), that makes me (and everyone else) possible.
I know you are intelligent and motivated. That was not the question. That does not answer my question. Is God intelligent or not, IOW, is God sentient and thinks? Is God motivated or not, IOW, does God have a purpose (in mind)?
But what is the nature of God? Why could it not be an implacable mathematical function which creates, not by Will but by a few numbers and equations. God may well be an abstract geometric construct, which determines what becomes expressed in our reality, in accordance to strict mathematical laws. I like Ken Tegmarks' : Our Mathematical Universe with Max Tegmark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3UxvycpqYo
Who knows ... Sure. The problem is that the moment we deem ourselves as having a choice as to what to believe about God, is the moment we venture into the untenable or irrelevant. A god of my own choosing (and making!) is not a god that could be relied on or believed -- at least not in any relevant sense.
Who said there is a choice? It's all mathematical. That's a fact. We have no choice in the matter, and neither does the universe itself at that moment. But this Mathematical concept of the *essence* of the universe is not of my choice (or making). And as an ex-bookkeeper I trusted the mathematics and that was very relevant. And so it is on a universal scale. Mathematical functions are very relevant and have predicted the existence of objects and forces which were unknown at the time. Do you believe mathematics are dependable measurements of values? Do you trust your computer to function reliably and efficiently? You see, your God has no known properties other than as a mathematical function and that's where you get stuck in the word "Creator" as a form of sentience which wished the universe to come into existence. That argument sounds vague and irrelevant to me. Mind, I am not disputing moral philosophies, but when it comes to the properties of the universe, we can make a persuasive case for a fundamental natural mathematical function, not some, emotional, willful sentience, beyond anything that can be verified..
Since I don't already believe it's "all mathematical," it appears I am facing a choice as to whether to (try to) believe it is "all mathematical" or not. Maybe not for you, but for me right now, it looks like a matter of choice. What values? Length, weight, ...? Or what do you mean? Sort of. It's a tentative trust, especially after I have witnessed an OS meltdown. Of course, because for you, "it's all mathematical" is for granted.
Many times, even in the bible, it hints that 'satan' is the god of this world and nature. Even satan tried to tempt jesus to bow before him and he would give him power, riches etc. And even in metaphor it is true when it says you are in this world but not of it if you are referring to being more christlike etc. So to worship a god thats worthy, one may really need to consider attributes besides just power or influence.
