Quote:
Originally Posted by Eloise
Which Theologians?
St. Thomas Aquinas, King James, &c. But there are better examples earlier on in history that I couldn't name off the top of my head, those two are just examples. Additionally, I'm not claiming to know what their intentions were. Perhaps it was a mistake. But if it is a mistake, we shouldn't pay it any credence.
Quote:
I find it interesting that the very things which throw the whole religion thing into question for you don't do that at all for me. I think it highlights mystery of God, someone who could create (however he did it) such bizarre (to me) things . . . :o . Besides which, I figure that he's probably got the time inconsistancies etc organised - I don't think that he himself is bound by a linear time as we are
It's not a mystery really, it's a paradox (a paradox can be explained, a mystery can't), and if it's a paradox it is a contradiction. How do you feel about contradictions? After all, nihilism is a contradiction, but people still accept it. Why is the belief in metaphysics any better than the rejection of it? They both rest on unstable foundations.
In case you didn't know, Relativity was the theory that proved Time isn't linear. But even Einstein struggled with a problematic phenomenon: the existence (or, rather, the nonexistence) of zero. So I don't have to type it out again, just go back two pages and look at my post about Achilles and the Tortoise. Obviously, the conclusions are wrong (Time and Space--or, more precisely, Motion--exist), but there isn't a single flaw in the reasoning behind them; they're logical contradictions. But not only that, every statement can be reduced to a similar logical contradiction. You might ask me to define logic, however we'd first have to define definition (but we'd only be chasing our tails). Think about it: a truth is supposed to be objective (eternal), right? Those sorts of truths can never be revealed to us. Signs (e.g. thoughts, words, sounds, colors, sensations, &c.) are not little doorways to some everlasting meaning; instead they act like mirrors distinguishing themselves from other signs that are different. Only with these prior differences do they generate anything that resembles a truth or meaning.
Quote:
Religion, yes; God, no. I don't think they are the same thing. The who knows what happens when we die question, hasn't (of course) just come up with the newer questions arising from us finding out more about the universe, it's been around for ages. I tend to think that even if I do just non-exist when I die, I won't know about it so it doesn't really matter. Seeing as we can't know for certain (excluding religious revelation) either way, then I guess you could say that believing in a (happy) after-life is a security blanket, in the sense that it presumably makes life more hopeful? bearable? whatever, while you're still alive.
I never said it was new, I was just comparing two similar ideas that are older than I am (much older). As far as religion and God making life more hopeful, I don't know if that's true at all. I always thought spirituality promoted sacrifice and modesty, acts that are excruciatingly difficult to many people. Some want instant gratification, others are willing to wait it out for the hope of gaining more than the hedonists. There will always be those who are marginalized. In fact, to some, non-existence after death allows people peace of mind from having to worry--not only about this life--but the next life as well.
Quote:
I would be interested to hear it. (Seriously)
Here's what I have for Purgatory right now. Corinthians [3:11], Matthew [12:32], 2 Maccabees, [12: 39-45]. I don't have a Bible handy to quote them (I'm citing the bibliography of a book I own which is titled Hamlet in Purgatory by the Harvard Shakespeare scholar, Stephen Greenblatt, who touches rather heavily on this subject.
Quote:
I don't think anyone's arguing that. I would say that nature and the Bible are separate revelations of God's character, both being based on a third entity, God, rather than one on the other. Note revelation is different from model - to me, a model implies completeness, ie. all characteristics of the original are reflected in the model, whereas a revelation doesn't.
You can say that, but it will come back to haunt you. There aren't multiple 'natures', the Bible has one and, according to its own reasoning, it agrees with the Nature of the Universe and, therefore, agrees with itself. Simple enough, but very tautological (or, in other words, redundant). The essence of God should be present the same in the Bible as He is in Nature. Using Aristotle's logic, the Bible and Nature ought to have the same essence, too. Unfortunately, Man wrote the Bible, not God. So everything you've said falls flat on its face. We don't know what their intentions were nor do we know what God's intentions were, if he does exist.
