[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

I guess now this is not only "Peace-Discuss" but "Peace and
Religion-Discuss." 

-----Original Message-----
From: E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj at pigs.ag] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:30 PM
To: Morton K. Brussel
Cc: C. G. Estabrook; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; LAURIE SOLOMON
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

The fullness of God is manifest in the things that exist and in the 
infinity that characterizes existence itself.

Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> .That which we don't know is what People call god, which shows its 
> emptiness.
>
> --mkb
>
> On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:05 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> I agree that we don't know the answer to the question, Why is there 
>> anything instead of nothing?
>>
>> But that answer (which we don't know) is "what people have called 
>> God," as Thomas Aquinas says.
>>
>>
>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>> You can ask all you want; but that does not mean that there are any 
>>> answers
>>> that are The Answer.  Thus, the exercise can turn into intellectual
>>> masturbation, which may give some pleasure although it may not 
>>> furnish such
>>> pleasure to all.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
>>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
>>> Estabrook
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:00 PM
>>> To: Morton K. Brussel
>>> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???
>>> The universe just is, and we can't ask about it?
>>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>> I submit that gods have no substance to answer this question. They 
>>>> are totally insubstantial.
>>>> My guess is there has never been "nothing". There's no need to 
>>>> question existence; it's axiomatic. --mkb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:27 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why is there anything instead of nothing, Mort?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>>>> All this preaching on this list!  Perhaps I can insert the 
>>>>>> opinion that "God"
>>>>>> (or gods) are totally empty concepts, explaining nothing, but 
>>>>>> giving rise to
>>>>>> endless ratiocination.  --mkb
>>>>>> On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:35 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>>> God is not a necessary component of morality for the simple 
>>>>>>> reason that God
>>>>>>> -- the answer (which we do not know) to the question, "Why is there
>>>>>>> anything instead of nothing?" -- is not a component of anything.
>>>>>>> God is not a thing in the universe -- we can't point to 
>>>>>>> something in the universe as the reason for the existence of the 
>>>>>>> universe -- and God and the
>>>>>>>  universe don't add up to two. (Two of what would that be?  Two 
>>>>>>> things?
>>>>>>> But God is not thing in the universe, etc.)
>>>>>>> Morality is a component of human nature (for the existence of 
>>>>>>> which God of
>>>>>>> course is the reason, as for everything), as grammar is a 
>>>>>>> component of language. Just as an intelligent visitor from Mars 
>>>>>>> would think that all
>>>>>>> humans were speaking one language with regional variations, so 
>>>>>>> human ethics
>>>>>>>  might be regarded as the rules (or grammar) for humans' being 
>>>>>>> together --
>>>>>>> with some interesting regional variations... (That's what makes 
>>>>>>> horse racing, or at least philosophical argument -- and 
>>>>>>> literature.)
>>>>>>> Well over a thousand years of Christian philosophical reflection 
>>>>>>> took it as
>>>>>>> a commonplace that the Decalogue is not a set of rules imposed 
>>>>>>> from outside, as it were, that might have been different, but 
>>>>>>> rather rational
>>>>>>> conclusions from reflection on what it is to be human.  (They 
>>>>>>> did think it
>>>>>>> was a little hard to derive the 3rd/4th Commandment -- there are 
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> numbering systems -- this way.)
>>>>>>> Christian theologians thought that, although ethics could be 
>>>>>>> descried rationally, that took effort (and time) -- hence all 
>>>>>>> that literature -- and
>>>>>>> so God generously provided in the Ten Commandments as it were an 
>>>>>>> operating
>>>>>>> manual ("documentation," we would say) for being human.
>>>>>>> More on this from me (quoting others), if you want, at "The 
>>>>>>> Subversive Commandments," 
>>>>>>> <http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook03292005.html>. --CGE
>>>>>>> John W. wrote:
>>>>>>>> ... I'd be more interested in hearing one or both of you Bible 
>>>>>>>> scholars
>>>>>>>> explain to Jenifer why God is a necessary component of 
>>>>>>>> morality.  Or
>>>>>>>> conversely, how one can be moral without a belief in God. John 
>>>>>>>> Wason
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>