RE: God is not a cat in Schroedinger's box!

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Howard J. Van Till [mailto:hvantill@sbcglobal.net]
>Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 12:44 AM

>One more quick response. Then I'll be off line for 4 or 5 days.
>
>On 10/1/04 1:57 PM, "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>

>In each case, you presume that you already know what the referent to "God"
>is. Which "God" are you speaking of? Whose portrait of God is the accurate
>one? Your either/or choices presume that you already know what the word
>"God" refers to. Your choices might make sense for some concepts
>of God. For
>others they are meaningless.

No, the portraits are mutually inconsistent logically. That merely implies
another binary choice. One or the other portrait is wrong. My arguement
does NOT assume which portrait is correct. But God can't be A and not-A at
the same time. Unless that is what you mean by presuming, then I don't
think your statement stands much scrutiny.

>
>> You seem to think it is consistent for God to tell one man to
>chop off heads
>> of non-Muslims but tell another to love your enemy. If God does both, the
>> cynic in me wants to ask if He is setting us up for easy slaughter.
>
>Glenn, don't put words into my mouth. I neither said nor implied
>anything of
>the sort. Once again, you are choosing to overlook the distinction between
>the God who is, and various portraits of God, whether accurate or radically
>distorted.
>
>Like you, I think the people who are beheading innocent people are either
>detestable liars or people with a demonic portrait of God.

I certainly don't want to misrepresent, but I recall you saying:

>>>>Each of us deals, I believe, with our own _concept_ or portrait of God.
Some
portraits of God are life-enriching; some are astoundingly ugly and
destructive of life and joy.

Designating some set of religious writings to be Sacred Scripture -- the
TRUTH -- does not seem to improve the picture much. Persons with ugly and
destructive portraits of God make just as strong an appeal to the sacred
texts as those with more fruitful portraits. Both the text and the
interpretation of the text are thoroughly human products.<<<<<<<<<<

I see utter moral equivocation on the portraiture. I see nothing in what
you wrote to give any hint of why one portrait is better than another. To
merely say that one portrait is life-enriching means nothing if God is
really the Klingon God of War! In such a case, our warm-and fuzzy view of
life-enriching portraits would be silly and effete nonsense.

And when you accuse me of presuming that I "already know what the referent
to "God"
is", why are you not doing the same with your apparent value-judgment that a
'life-enriching' view of God is better? What if God is a war-god rather
than this warm grandpa in the sky?

>
>
>> Frankly, I can't believe where you have gone with your theology.
>It is truly
>> sad.
>
> Glenn, you have no right to say such things until you have
>actually made an
>effort to understand what I'm saying without putting words into my mouth.

all I can do is listen to your words. Sure I might be misunderstanding them,
but have you considered that you are doing a poor job of communicating? I
see no rational basis for thinking that portraits of non-existent gods are
worthwhile. Yet for some reason, I see you giving them credence. Is all one
has to do to be saved is to create a portrait of God?

>
>>> 2) Does this portrait of God lead to the enhancement of the
>life experience
>>> of those who hold this portrait and those with whom they interact?
>>
>> The head-choppers think so. Who can deny them that view?
>
>I can, and I presume that you can also. Where did I say that all human
>portraits of God were equally valid????

Here: " Both the text and the
interpretation of the text are thoroughly human products."

If that is true, then all religions are equal. Please explain why this does
not make morally equivocal Christianity, and the religion I want to make up
with the worship of Oogaboogah? (for oogaboogah fans, all you have to do to
believe is send me all your money).

I would contend that belief in Oogaboogah is exactly a thoroughly human
product, as is the interpretation of what pleases Oogaboogah. What I see
you saying is that the Bible and its intepretation are thoroughly human
products. Howard, please send me all your money, it will be a
life-enriching experience (for me).

>>
>> To answer your question, it would seem that their god does give them an
>> enhanced life experience. It is death to ever leave Islam.
>
>In truth, I have no idea how they attempt, or even if they actually do, to
>reconcile their dastardly deeds with their concept of God. Their references
>to God may be pure lies.

But if I understand you here, you are making a moral judgment on a
thoroughly human endeavor--why is that endeavor different from the Bible.
You have clearly stated that both the Scripture and the interpretation are
thoroughly human. How can you have it both ways? Is our religion a better
thorooughly human endeavor? Why? If it is man-made, and Islam is man made,
then they are equal in my view. It is that thorooughly human sacred text
which outlaws murder, but why is there any moral imperative in a thoroughly
human document? Legal imperative is different than a moral imperative. I
don't think it is morally wrong to drink absinthe, but in the US it is
illegal. The thoroughly human law decrees nothing moral at all.

>
>>>>
>>>> There is clearly a difference between certainty and uselessness.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> Howard. I see little reason to believe illusions or self-delusions.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>> I don't really see how you can agree with this given the idea
>that anything
>> goes with painting a picture of God.
>
>Glenn, you know that I never said that "anything goes with painting a
>picture of God," Until you are willing to carry on a conversation without
>this sort of distortion and misrepresentation, there's no use in
>continuing.

Then tell me clearly what makes Islamic head-choppers wrong? Is it a
thoroughly human text that makes them wrong? Why? Which text--theirs or
ours? If you don't want to be misunderstood, you must explain things like
this!
Received on Fri Oct 1 21:33:05 2004