Zombies remind us that death is social

[Marcus]

. . They are just mapping different things.

Or different aspects of the same thing . .

[Marcus]

Ok, we are finally making progress.
Math is like a map.
Consider the fact that there are an infinite number of possible maps.
Only some maps are useful.
Now why is a map useful?
Because of the pretty colors?
Or because it consistently and accurately corresponds to something?
Gravity is a harsh teacher?

Speaking for myself, I've no time for playing games . . if there's a point here, just make it . .

[Taboo]

Speaking for myself, I've no time for playing games . . if there's a point here, just make it . .

Sayeth the man with 913 posts.

If a point must be made, it's you who's supposed to make it. You're the one going around asking people how come they know that 2+2=4, and then after each answer, you simply repeat the question as it it hadn't been answered a dozen times already. If I didn't know you to be a man of a certain age and with a very circumscribed sense of humor, I'd guess that you're just "trolling for lulz" or whatever it is they call it.

[Marcus]

Speaking for myself, I've no time for playing games . . if there's a point here, just make it . .

Sayeth the man with 913 posts.

If a point must be made, it's you who's supposed to make it. You're the one going around asking people how come they know that 2+2=4, and then after each answer, you simply repeat the question as it it hadn't been answered a dozen times already. If I didn't know you to be a man of a certain age and with a very circumscribed sense of humor, I'd guess that you're just "trolling for lulz" or whatever it is they call it.

Ah, you must have missed something along the way. I did make the point — that all claims to ultimate truth devolve into a single, self-authenticating source of authority. My claim was challenged by someone who said that we don't know 2 + 2 = 4 that way. I merely asked how then do you know 2 + 2 = 4, and had to repeat the question a few times to get a straight answer from Enki . . damn' good answer, by the way.

So there you go . . I made my point.

What's yours? . . . . . .

[Taboo]

I simply don't understand why you get so incensed every time someone says that reality is a very good source of self-authenticating authority. After all, the roof either collapses under the snow or it doesn't. It doesn't get much more self-authenticating.

[Marcus]

I simply don't understand why you get so incensed every time someone says that reality is a very good source of self-authenticating authority. After all, the roof either collapses under the snow or it doesn't. It doesn't get much more self-authenticating.

Not incensed at all. I totally agree. That's why science works. The problem is not that physical reality isn't self-authenticating, the problem is that some want it to authenticate too much.

[Demon of Undoing]

Well, if that's the case, then consider its inverse. You are using some non- physical, unreal ( in the sense of any sort of verifiability) standard/ practice/ belief to make predictions and document effects on something openly physical and verifiable.

I'll give up on insisting that God is quantifiable when you quit telling me he has a quantifiable effect. Whatever way sees the concept of two as being something unrelated to the reality of two can't build a house. Quit insisting you can disregard" two" as a viable option and still have anything to say about reality as humans experience it. If your concept of God is so otherworldly as to disregard binary information, what good is it?

[Enki]

Well, if that's the case, then consider its inverse. You are using some non- physical, unreal ( in the sense of any sort of verifiability) standard/ practice/ belief to make predictions and document effects on something openly physical and verifiable.

I'll give up on insisting that God is quantifiable when you quit telling me he has a quantifiable effect. Whatever way sees the concept of two as being something unrelated to the reality of two can't build a house. Quit insisting you can disregard" two" as a viable option and still have anything to say about reality as humans experience it. If your concept of God is so otherworldly as to disregard binary information, what good is it?

The notion that God is separate from this world is a form of binary dualism.

[Demon of Undoing]

Well, if that's the case, then consider its inverse. You are using some non- physical, unreal ( in the sense of any sort of verifiability) standard/ practice/ belief to make predictions and document effects on something openly physical and verifiable.

I'll give up on insisting that God is quantifiable when you quit telling me he has a quantifiable effect. Whatever way sees the concept of two as being something unrelated to the reality of two can't build a house. Quit insisting you can disregard" two" as a viable option and still have anything to say about reality as humans experience it. If your concept of God is so otherworldly as to disregard binary information, what good is it?

The notion that God is separate from this world is a form of binary dualism.

Agreed. But that is a fundamental contradiction of traditional Christian teaching.

[Marcus]

Well, if that's the case, then consider its inverse. You are using some non- physical, unreal ( in the sense of any sort of verifiability) standard/ practice/ belief to make predictions and document effects on something openly physical and verifiable.

I'll give up on insisting that God is quantifiable when you quit telling me he has a quantifiable effect. Whatever way sees the concept of two as being something unrelated to the reality of two can't build a house. Quit insisting you can disregard" two" as a viable option and still have anything to say about reality as humans experience it. If your concept of God is so otherworldly as to disregard binary information, what good is it?

You lost me, DU . . where have I insisted that God has a "quantifiable effect"?

My only point here is that all claims to ultimate truth devolve into a single, self-autheniticating source of authority.

What am I missing? . . .

[Marcus]

The notion that God is separate from this world is a form of binary dualism.

Agreed. But that is a fundamental contradiction of traditional Christian teaching.

NO, it is not!

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. . . ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ . . ." —from Acts 17

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. —from Colossians 1

[Enki]

That doesn't mean he is not intrinsic to the whole however.

[Hoosiernorm]

The notion that God is separate from this world is a form of binary dualism.

Agreed. But that is a fundamental contradiction of traditional Christian teaching.

NO, it is not!

If god did not enter history and place himself in this world through his son Jesus Christ then you are saying that the basis Christianity is not Christ but revelation and revelation alone. It makes Christianity just another religion among religions and revelation just local magic for the tourist to look at in horror and fear. Marcus you have cherry picked yourself so far out of the argument that it is really not making much sense. Try to regroup and come back to what you are trying to say stop reacting to counter arguments and simply say what you mean.

[Marcus]

The notion that God is separate from this world is a form of binary dualism.

Agreed. But that is a fundamental contradiction of traditional Christian teaching.

NO, it is not!

If god did not enter history and place himself in this world through his son Jesus Christ then you are saying that the basis Christianity is not Christ but revelation and revelation alone. It makes Christianity just another religion among religions and revelation just local magic for the tourist to look at in horror and fear. Marcus you have cherry picked yourself so far out of the argument that it is really not making much sense. Try to regroup and come back to what you are trying to say stop reacting to counter arguments and simply say what you mean.

Where did I say or imply that God, in the person of Jesus Christ, did not "place himself in this world"?

What in the world are you talking about?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

[Hoosiernorm]

The notion that God is separate from this world is a form of binary dualism.

Agreed. But that is a fundamental contradiction of traditional Christian teaching.

NO, it is not!

If god did not enter history and place himself in this world through his son Jesus Christ then you are saying that the basis Christianity is not Christ but revelation and revelation alone. It makes Christianity just another religion among religions and revelation just local magic for the tourist to look at in horror and fear. Marcus you have cherry picked yourself so far out of the argument that it is really not making much sense. Try to regroup and come back to what you are trying to say stop reacting to counter arguments and simply say what you mean.

Where did I say or imply that God, in the person of Jesus Christ, did not "place himself in this world"?

What in the world are you talking about?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

Ok so we are done with the apples for awhile then?

[Marcus]

The notion that God is separate from this world is a form of binary dualism.

Agreed. But that is a fundamental contradiction of traditional Christian teaching.

NO, it is not!

If god did not enter history and place himself in this world through his son Jesus Christ then you are saying that the basis Christianity is not Christ but revelation and revelation alone. It makes Christianity just another religion among religions and revelation just local magic for the tourist to look at in horror and fear. Marcus you have cherry picked yourself so far out of the argument that it is really not making much sense. Try to regroup and come back to what you are trying to say stop reacting to counter arguments and simply say what you mean.

Where did I say or imply that God, in the person of Jesus Christ, did not "place himself in this world"? What in the world are you talking about?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

Ok so we are done with the apples for awhile then?

Sorry . . I still have no idea what you're talking about . . .

[Demon of Undoing]

The only way you get to claim that God is not bound by the rules of mere twos and fours is to insist on a miraculous God, doing miraculous things, all over the place. Literal biblical interpretations, which means that the fishes and loaves were real. Also means God has to explain why his people aren't miracle- ing up fishes and loaves for all the starving kids worldwide. Is God now suddenly bound up by twos? Or do we lack real Christians? Or was the story about something else altogether?

Point is, if God isn't measured in twos, WTH are you actually talking about? If it's all down to" to each his own", then everybody is in their own little reality, unimpinged upon by the considerations of other realities- like the rule of two.

So just be forthright. If God is outside his creation, and not bound to it ( having to respect mere twos), then what have we even to do with him?

[Marcus]

I read Genesis.

Then [your interpretation of] Genesis is your self-authenticating source of authority for your belief.

No, I am talking about the historic policy of Christianity. Not my belief. I think Genesis is little more than premodern speculation and Kabbalistic commentary. Or are you actually insisting that Christianity does not hold that God is outside creation? IOW, a supernatural God?

God is immanent in every atom of matter and every second of time yet He is at the same time separate from and different than the creation.

http://www.livinghopepress.com/Reformed ... n_God.html

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotiona ... scendence/

[Demon of Undoing]

From your second source:

Our Creator’s transcendence is affirmed throughout Scripture and is reflected in today’s passage. When we say God is transcendent, we mean that He is separate from His creation and not dependent on the created order in any way. The Almighty made the universe and He is therefore its sovereign ruler (Gen. 1:1). A biblical view of transcendence does not mean that God is unable to enter into His creation or communicate with it. He is also immanent, present within the universe that He has made (Ps. 139:7). Nevertheless, creation is not God (pantheism), nor does God depend upon it. Creation, instead, depends upon our Creator for its continual existence (Eph. 4:4–6).

[Marcus]

From your second source:

[God] is separate from His creation and not dependent on the created order in any way. [God] is also immanent, present within the universe that He has made

Isn't that what I said?

[Demon of Undoing]

From your second source:

[God] is separate from His creation and not dependent on the created order in any way. [God] is also immanent, present within the universe that He has made

Isn't that what I said?

Ok, so what you are saying is that " separate" doesn't mean separate when you put it near a word that is otherwise meaningless except to be understood to mean " something that allows us to hold the doublethink of completely contradictory ideas".


Got it.

Where does Genesis talk about God being immanent, btw? Can't remember seeing that anywhere.

Edit: gotta tellya; this is the first time I've really gotten into this immanence business, and near as I can tell, it's got more to do with relationship and nearness issues than creation itself. If I am wrong, I'm willing to be corrected.

[Marcus]

Ok, so what you are saying is that " separate" doesn't mean separate when you put it near a word that is otherwise meaningless except to be understood to mean " something that allows us to hold the doublethink of completely contradictory ideas".
Got it.
Where does Genesis talk about God being immanent, btw? Can't remember seeing that anywhere.
Edit: gotta tellya; this is the first time I've really gotten into this immanence business, and near as I can tell, it's got more to do with relationship and nearness issues than creation itself. If I am wrong, I'm willing to be corrected.

Genesis doesn't discuss or mention God's immanence in creation . . all that is developed later from other portions of scripture.

All I can tell you about my belief in God's immanence in the created order as it relates to my day-to-day life, I don't think I could be a Christian otherwise. Either every second of time and every atom of matter is intensely personal or it's all meaningless. The very hairs of my head are numbered; God is closer to me than I am to myself.

[Hoosiernorm]

You know DoU you are the closest thing to a Christian futurist that I know. It made me wonder if there was such a thing as a religious futurist that didn't involve either millennialism or was prisoner to the book of revelations.

[Marcus]

Canticle

What death means is not this—
the spirit, triumphant in the body’s fall,
praising its absence, feeding on music.
If life can’t justify and explain itself,
death can’t justify and explain it.
A creed and a grave never did equal the life
of anything. Yellow flowers sprout in the clefts
of ancient stones at the beginning of April.
The black clothes of the priests are turned
against the frail yellow of sunlight and petal;
they wait in their blackness to earn joy
by dying. They trust that nothing holy is free,
and so their lives are paid. Money slots
in the altar rail make a jukebox of the world,
the mind paying its gnawed coins for the safety of ignorance.

——Wendell Berry

[Enki]

I am just coming to see that the fictions we have created around Christ have become walls that keep us from understading the core point. The things that can not be believed by a modern will not be, as we have seen. My understandings of this have been shaped by NT Wright and Bishop Spong, both of whom are insistent on understanding Christ in a Jewish context. There were no words for what Christ was, so they used traditional Jewish religious language. Ironically, the mundane truth of an itinerant redneck Jew, his more human than human yet all- too- human sense of seeing beyond, is lost when we think of him as Kal-El, an alien superhero.

He was able to fill the multitudes because he was the bread of life. It wasn't how many baskets were left over. It's that he revealed the love of God without qualification. As Fred the Cranky German said, when man has the why, the how is easy. People properly motivated are capable of not being weak and fainting. Coronado proves that. Filled with the freedom that Christ brought, food was irrelevant. I can get by on nothing for days if I am thankful to find that God is no vengeful potentate, but instead a forgiving Father that just wants to love you. You could get killed talking that talk, BTW. The people that man the walls have a lot to lose and a life revealed to be meaningless, besides, when there are no walls.

Eureka.

Agreed. I think the point though is when you come to recognize eternal life as fact. You are a part of a process that has gone on since the beginning of time, except there was no beginning. The infinite regress is so boggling that we setup arbitrary dates as to when our identity stems from. We are 'of a people' the very notion of 'a people' is that at some point some patriarch was the primogenitor of 'the people', Abraham if you will. But people are just as descended from Abraham's Father and Mother as they are from Abraham. We look at Mitochondrial Eve and say we are all descended from her, but she is not the first, in fact she is an idealized abstraction of the notion that we all share mitochondrial characteristics in common.

There is no such thing as death. And I think if most people were to think on it hard, they'd find the notion that they cannot die...ever...to be far more terrifying than death.

There will be no heat death of the universe, the universe will not end, it will go on forever and ever, just it has already gone on forever and forever. The Big Bang wasn't the beginning it was only the end point of our capacity to comprehend the nature of the universe into the infinite past. 'This is when the universe took on a form that we can comprehend.' Genesis even puts it into context. There was God and there was a Void. The very idea of 'Creation ex Nihilo', is our simpleton brains coming up with an explanation. It is probably the greatest dogma that humanity has, the single most unquestioned assumption. We assume that the universe has a beginning. And since we believe it had a beginning, we believe that everything that has a beginning has an end. Well, there wasn't necessarily a beginning, and even if there was, there is no good reason to believe that just because something has a beginning, that it will have an end.

It has always struck me as curious how even science tries to fit within the Genesis/Revelation paradigm. God said 'Let there be light' and there was the Big Bang. The 'world' will end by fire and we have the heat death of the universe.