The Nature of this Conflict (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 16:34 (5228 days ago) @ dhw

"Rabbi David" has admonished me for saying that a watered-down God without attributes doesn't serve much of a purpose. He thinks I want "a soft and fuzzy father figure" to nurture me through life, though he realizes that I personally "don't need such a figure to enjoy life."
> 
> Indeed I don't. My life until now has been wonderfully fulfilling, I count myself very lucky, and am happy to use and enjoy whatever abilities Chance or God has given me. Perhaps the time will come when I would appreciate a fuzzy father, but no, that is not what lies behind my remark at all. What I was trying to say was that a God without attributes was irrelevant to our lives. A God without attributes is impersonal. Your "tough-loved God" has attributes; if he expects me to "rise above the challenges", he has attributes; if he is "out there, still watching", he has attributes; and above all if he corresponds to the vision of a loving God that Frank believes in, he has attributes. My remark was made against the deist God and against the concept of a universal intelligence pure and simple. This was what I understood by George's description of a vague, ineffectual, watered-down version. To put it bluntly, if God is not interested in his creations, what is the point in having him there? If he is interested, then he has attributes.-I'd have to say that as someone who prefers a more visceral God, that I also think the propensity to destroy is something that I find intriguing. I find a God that throws things at you in order to trip you up to be a more comforting notion than Grandfather. Every time you succeed you beat God. (My Teutonic heritage peeking through again.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"