The reason why Christianity seems so unrealistic and naive

Totality exists, and I believe in God...

Quote from PatternRec:

Great. Now disavow and desist all talk of "totality" when speaking of God or where God is the subject and you will be in compliance with Maimonides' thoughts on God.

And then just state, "I believe in God but I can't on any conceivable level define it. Not one attribute whatsoever. I can't even say that it is a conscious entity since doing so entails definition. so, yes, in essence, pragmatically speaking, I believe in nothing at all. I just have this... sense, this feeling that there is something out there I would like to call God and I believe in whatever it is, if indeed it is something. Even though my faith has no object whatsoever."
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

No, I can define it, you are not able to understand it...

If I say God is capable of creating a stone so heavy He can't lift it, and simultaneously He can lift it...you are going to say that is illogical.

And from your point of view of material logic, it is impossible.

Just as impossible practically speaking to say that a solid object is not actually solid at a deeper level.

So it is solid at one reality, and not solid at another reality...or better yet, it is a broader reality that the object is both solid and not solid at the same time and space.

All depends on the point of view a person takes...narrow or broad.

Your understanding of the word God is quite narrow from what I have read from you...

Try reading Maimonides...

At the heart of the Guide of the Perplexed is Maimonides' conception of God. When we say that "God is one" every day [in the Sh'ma prayer], what do we mean by that statement? For many Jewish philosophers, Maimonides chief among them, this is the central question of Jewish philosophy. He argues that God is a perfect unity, not admitting of any plurality. God does not have parts, either literally or figuratively--no arms or legs, no back or front, no end or beginning. (One of the alternate names for God in Jewish dis_course is Ein Sof [Without End].)

That also means that, in Aristotelian terms, one cannot actually say "God is . . ." and proceed to enumerate God's attributes. To describe the Eternal One in such a sentence is to admit of a division between subject and predicate, in other words, a plurality. (Maimonides writes in Chapter 50 of the Guide, "Those who believe that God is One and that He has many attributes declare the Unity with their lips and assume the plurality in their thoughts.") Therefore, he concludes, one cannot discuss God in terms of positive attributes.

On the other hand, one can describe what God is not. God is not corporeal, does not occupy space, experiences neither generation nor corruption (in the Aristotelian sense of birth, decay, and death). For obvious reasons, Mai_monides' conception of the Supreme Being is usually characterized as "negative theology," that is, defining by the accumulation of negatives. Maimonides writes, "All we understand is the fact that [God] exists, that [God] is a being to whom none of Adonai's creatures is similar, who has nothing in common with them, who does not include plurality, who is never too feeble to produce other beings and whose relation to the universe is that of a steersman to a boat; and even this is not a real relation, a real simile, but serves only to convey to us the idea that God rules the universe, that it is [God] that gives it duration and preserves its necessary arrangement."

But what of all the anthropomorphic terms that we encounter in Jewish sacred texts? What of "Adonai's rod and staff . . ." or the Creator who "reaches out a hand . . ."? There are thousands of passages like this in the Torah, in the Talmud, in Midrash, and in our liturgy. Maimonides' response is that these are allegorical passages, designed to ease the transition of the Jewish people from idolatry to monotheism. Even the famous description of man's creation b'tselem Elohim (in the image of God) is meant metaphorically. God created out of free will and we are granted the ability to reason and a free will of our own, but there is no "family resemblance."

The way that we come to know God and the world is through a com_bination of revelation and reason. Prophecy, for example, is not merely a gift from God processed through the human imagination. According to Maimonides, prophecy also requires perfection of wisdom and morality as well as a developed imagination. And that gift from God is passed through the mediation of the Active Intellect (a "rational emana_tion" of the presence of the Almighty in the world), so reason must always play a part.

Indeed, reason must play a role in the love of God, Maimonides holds. It is in large part through the intellect that we attain religious and spiritual goals. By the same token, he says, the sacred writings of Judaism are truthful and do not require us to accept anything that can_not be proven by reason. Where they appear otherwise, we are to read them as allegory. For this reason, study of Torah is one way of achieving greater knowledge of God, engaging the intellect in the search. Faith and reason are not enemies but, in Maimonides' thought, essential to each other if we are to understand God.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/God/The_Middle_Ages/Maimonides_on_God.shtml
More...

First let me say thanks for the quote, I enjoyed reading it.

Next - whenever I see people twisting logic to make things complicated - I ask why?

For instance - this useless torture of logic ---

"That also means that, in Aristotelian terms, one cannot actually say "God is . . ." and proceed to enumerate God's attributes. To describe the Eternal One in such a sentence is to admit of a division between subject and predicate, in other words, a plurality. "

As much as I like the conclusion... I have to say - non sequitor. .

Could it be the writer was trying to avoid the conclusion of a compound unity?

Could it be that Maimonides was arguing against other scholars who were explaining that the word "one" as in hear our Isreal the Lord our God is one.. meant a compound unity.

Was Maimonides also just twisting logic to argue against the concept of a Trinity.
 
"Was Maimonides also just twisting logic to argue against the concept of a Trinity."

I can't speak directly for Maimonides, but generally Jews don't make arguments that have the Trinity in mind...or arguments in support of a particular form of God imagined by man on the basis of man's physical perceptions.

I don't see a logical problem at all in Maimonides...I just see him making an argument for God, his conception of God as beyond material definitions based on material logic and material perceptions...

I'm not saying a compound unity is wrong, I am saying I see nothing wrong in Maimonides work.

Just as I don't see anything wrong with Newton's work.

It is true on its level, and not true when viewed from a different level.

Is God formless?

Does God have form?

Only the human mind would say that it had to be one or the other situation, as the human mind can't imagine it can be both at the same time (without compounding).

The Christians did not invent loving a personal form of God, and they understood that it is easier to love a personal form of God than it is to love an impersonal God.

Suddenly we had a graven image (Christ on the Cross) which went against some of the ideas of Judaism..idolatry in the name of God.

Since the Christians couldn't break entirely with the Old Testament, they (IMO) conceived this idea that God was actually a trinity, not a singularity...in order to bring in a form of God that man could love and/or idolize.

So they added something new to the Old Testament...for good and bad reasons.

The good reason was to get people to love God, the bad was to manipulate people's love of God for their own selfish reasons.

It is almost always a mixed bag with human mind.

Maimonides is making an ontological intellectual argument about the existence of God, not an appeal to the emotions.

So I can see why you (given your emotionalism) think there is a problem in his logic.

There is nothing wrong, he is just describing the God of the Old Testament as being beyond the human mind or human sense's reach in the classical sense.

Quote from jem:

First let me say thanks for the quote, I enjoyed reading it.

Next - whenever I see people twisting logic to make things complicated - I ask why?

For instance - this useless torture of logic ---

"That also means that, in Aristotelian terms, one cannot actually say "God is . . ." and proceed to enumerate God's attributes. To describe the Eternal One in such a sentence is to admit of a division between subject and predicate, in other words, a plurality. "

As much as I like the conclusion... I have to say - non sequitor. .

Could it be the writer was trying to avoid the conclusion of a compound unity?

Could it be that Maimonides was arguing against other scholars who were explaining that the word "one" as in hear our Isreal the Lord our God is one.. meant a compound unity.

Was Maimonides also just twisting logic to argue against the concept of a Trinity.
More...
 
You might try reading a little history on this one - there is no doubt maimonides was from the sephardic school of thought and at times critiquing Christian belief in a trinity. We already knew that. What I proposed is that he was twisting logic to get away from the fact that the bile does point to trinity...



New International Version (©1984)
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."



By the way I pointed out a specific piece of twisted logic in the quote you chose.

1. You have not established that who wrote the quote nor have you shown the logic was not twisted. As it most certainly was.... unless you think maimonides was arguing for your belief that God is a totality. Which is very inconsistent with other things he stated.


Regarding newton. You just made the argument for the trinity.

man had trouble understanding light could be a wave or a particle - John says Jesus is light. God and Person... get it.

By the say I do not care if you believe in a trinity - I am just pointing out your quote was just made as a counter to the Christian concept of the Trinity If you read history ... you would see I was right.
 
Christians are so damn touchy and emotional.

Maimonides was talking about his concept of God (based on the Old Testament) and the Christians get all defensive because his position doesn't jibe with theirs...

Typical.

Christians aren't the most tolerant religious group in history...and quoting the "New International Version" of the Bible in a discussion of Maimonides' Old Testament is so flawed as to be ridiculous.

Go to the text Maimonides was working from...in the original language.

You aren't going to find "our image, our likeness, etc."

Typical, so typical of religious people to alter scriptures as the languages change and on that basis religion's materialistic leaders pervert the nature of the work to push their own materialistic belief on materialistic people...

Jesus Christ, you quote a newly written Christian version of the Old Testament to argue with Maimonides?

How pathetic...

I don't see Maimonides was arguing for anything but his own take on God...has nothing to do with me.

I merely quoted it to demonstrate to one of the atheists that purely intellectual arguments on the nature of God have existed for quite a long time...

I am not a Jew, not a Christian...but I would never say that Judaism or Christianity (in their original form) were wrong.

Just as I won't argue that Newton was wrong...things are true from their own material level, and not necessarily true at a different material level.

God is beyond any level though, so people at their own material levels try to describe God who is beyond the concept of levels, "illogically" existing at all levels at all times, and at no particular level at any particular time, with no respect to higher or lower levels...

To imply a level suggests that there are separate parts of God which are not the whole itself.

It won't make any sense to the human mind, as the human mind is glued into the material senses, levels, duality, etc.

God is whole, and God is the parts, and each of the parts have the exact same value as the whole...there is no difference between the parts and the whole when it comes to God.

So to attack a part of God is to attack the whole of God...which makes no sense as God in not separate from any whole or partial value...

All places, no place, all times, no time, nothing larger, nothing smaller, no size, no dimensions, all dimensions...

To the human mind it has to appear as a contradiction, because the human mind is glued into time and space...God is beyond the constraints of time and space.

So if you want to believe in a Trinity...that's fine. If Maimonides wants to believe in a singularity, that's fine with me as well. I can see the point of view of unity, duality, a trinity quite easily.

God has no material form, yet is ever present in every material form...God has a form that is not material, yet is also formless, timeless, space-less, etc....God can create a stone so heavy He can't lift it yet He is lifting it in the same place at the same time...

None of this makes sense to a limited thinker...just as a third dimension makes no sense to a circle drawn on a flat sheet of paper...







Quote from jem:

You might try reading a little history on this one - there is no doubt maimonides was from the sephardic school of thought and at times critiquing Christian belief in a trinity. We already knew that. What I proposed is that he was twisting logic to get away from the fact that the bile does point to trinity...



New International Version (©1984)
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."



By the way I pointed out a specific piece of twisted logic in the quote you chose.

1. You have not established that who wrote the quote nor have you shown the logic was not twisted. As it most certainly was.... unless you think maimonides was arguing for your belief that God is a totality. Which is very inconsistent with other things he stated.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top