View previous topic | View next topic

Deities

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

Feroluce
45054.  Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:11 am Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:

What if God was all consciousnesses?


That's my theory, it throws a whole new slant on the 'Did God create man or did man create God' arguement.

 
Feroluce
45056.  Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:15 am Reply with quote

QI Individual wrote:

God is a dogma. The Big Bang is a theory.

The first will never change. The second will be changed as soon as evidence for a better theory comes along.

That's why the first is religion, and the second is science.


Dogma is constantly changing, it just takes a while to filter through to the general population.
50 years ago, a child born out of wedlock could never be baptised.
30 years ago, clerics of different religions couldn't associate publicly.
10 years ago, rock music was the devils work and would never be heard in a place of worship.

 
Celebaelin
45060.  Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:37 am Reply with quote

iluphade wrote:
We have no explicit sources about Roman “religion” in the Republic and all public experiences of it can be explained as lay practices.


What about the Vestal Virgins?

The Haruspices?

Quote:
Though they played such an obviously important role in Rome's religion, the haruspices as a group were not formally recognized as a part of the Roman state cult until the time of Emperor Claudius.

http://www.unrv.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t2505.html

What about the priestly positions mentioned in the Wiki entry

Quote:
During the Roman Republic, there was a strict system of priestly offices, of which the Pontifex maximus was the most important. Flamens took care of the cults of various gods, while augurs were trusted with taking the auspices. The rex sacrorum, or "sacrificial king" took on the religious responsibilities of the deposed kings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_religion

I'm not saying you're incorrect but as you note the idea is contrary to what I've been lead to believe so far.

 
iluphade
45063.  Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:52 am Reply with quote

God as all conciousness isn't really a new idea. Nor does it "throw a new slant on the 'did god create man or did man create God' argument."

It was Aristotle who said: God's thinking about his own thinking.
(being pure act and pure form he's also the "immovable mover")
But even Christianity has gone to that stage, with Thomas of Aquino saying: "God is the being (as a verb) that is"

So far for god being all conciousness. Iff you think about god as all conciousnesses, you're making the assumption that universalism exists. However that is a daring assumption. It supposes that there is something alike in every persons thinking.
I prefer to think about this as William of Ockham did. (He was a Christian even). He coined nominalism. In this theory it is important to see that it is the human who makes every assumption of universality. It is the human mind who says there is a thing called dogs, as opposed to this is a dog and that is a dog. He actually tried to saveguard God from Aristotelian influence, but paved the way for secularism (by saying that we can't know anything about god etc. etc.)
His nominalism however is very important, as it puts the existance of universalia only in the mind. (and possibly in god, but according to William humanity can't know what god thinks) while before him universalia were thought to exist in a different reality (Plato) or as form combined with matter AND as abstract thoughts in the mind (aristotle) or as exemplaria in the mind of god AND as form combined with matter AND as abstract thoughts in the mind (Thomas Aquino)

P.S.: is it Thomas Aquino in English? Or Thomas Aquinas? I get confused with the different ways of looking at latin names in english, I apologise for that.

 
Celebaelin
45065.  Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:05 am Reply with quote

Aquinas

 
Feroluce
45069.  Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:15 am Reply with quote

iluphade wrote:
God as all conciousness isn't really a new idea. Nor does it "throw a new slant on the 'did god create man or did man create God' argument."


It depends on how you look at it, if god is all consciousness (or unconsciousness, but that's a different matter) then man created god.
If you apply all of the typical arguements (especially those pertaining to man being conscious) then god created man.

The new slant is:
Did god create man? - Yes
Did man create God? - Yes

 
Mr Grue
45073.  Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:28 am Reply with quote

Currently I believe that life is inevitable in the universe, and that the development of consciousness is also inevitable. The sense is that the universe is geared up to bring about all forms of consciousness, not just our own unique brand. If there are greater consciences then they are inherently unknowable, just as "lower" consciences are inherently unknowable. That is not to say that they do not exist.

 
Tas
45128.  Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:59 am Reply with quote

Well spoken, Mr Grue!

:-)

Tas

 
Jenny
45168.  Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:26 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Iff you think about god as all conciousnesses, you're making the assumption that universalism exists. However that is a daring assumption. It supposes that there is something alike in every persons thinking.


Is consciousness necessarily confined to human beings? I suppose it depends on your definition of it. The contents of consciousness may be wildly different from one person to another and one species to another, but the existence of awareness is universal, surely? Even if it's not self-awareness?

 
gerontius grumpus
45342.  Thu Jan 12, 2006 7:37 pm Reply with quote

Feroluce wrote:
iluphade wrote:
God as all conciousness isn't really a new idea. Nor does it "throw a new slant on the 'did god create man or did man create God' argument."


It depends on how you look at it, if god is all consciousness (or unconsciousness, but that's a different matter) then man created god.
If you apply all of the typical arguements (especially those pertaining to man being conscious) then god created man.

The new slant is:
Did god create man? - Yes
Did man create God? - Yes


This is something that I have pondered for a long time. It's so good to find a forum of people who think like I do.

 
DELETED
46249.  Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:43 am Reply with quote

DELETED

 
Jenny
46299.  Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:49 am Reply with quote

I always assumed that to be the Royal We.

 
DELETED
46305.  Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:59 am Reply with quote

DELETED

 
Quaintly Ignorant
46314.  Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:09 pm Reply with quote

Christians would claim it to be either the holy ghost or Jesus (who said, in one of the gospels, that he was at the creation. John, I think. Which is rather convenient). Some Jews and Muslims would believe it to be referring to his Arch Angels, maybe even Lucifer who was the highest ranking angel. Still other sects, as you say kabbalists, have a view more in line with zoroastrianism and a counterpart to God. The more rebelious sceptics prefer to cite early Jewish polytheism, just to see them squirm a bit. :)

 
Jenny
46445.  Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:47 pm Reply with quote

Garrick - coincidentally a letter in Tuesday's Guardian has this to say on the subject:

Quote:
"Elohim" (God) may be plural in form, but it is used in Genesis as almost always in the Hebrew Bible, with a singular verb. The story is, as Gilbert Markus implies, a monotheistic response to the ancient polytheistic accounts of creation

 

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group