[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[John W.]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>wrote:

…That which we don't know is what People call god, which shows its
> emptiness.
>
> --mkb


Would it help if I mentioned that the Christian God, at least, calls Himself
simply "I AM"?

And would it help if I mentioned that I had a conversation with Him just
this morning?  :-)





> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081112/3368c92b/attachment.htm