Why not--Maltheism? (Religion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 18:34 (4895 days ago) @ dhw

Many thanks to Matt for yet again opening up interesting new avenues for exploration.
> 
> ... years of love and happiness that she had spread around her.
> -This story is indeed sad... here in Omaha, lax drunk driving laws has lead to something of 300 people in the city who have had 4+ DWI convictions. They're finally trying to do something about it...-> ... There is no prime cause, unless the prime cause was itself destruction[/i]." I find this logic impossible to follow. You can't destroy something until it exists, so how can the prime cause be destruction? 
> -It has to be; the fundamental nature of our cosmos is dissolution. The act of creating our universe--for it to make any sense with the laws of physics--had to result in an equal act of destruction. If a theology is to make any sense of this--it must conclude that either the universe was a result of another dying, or the creator dying. -Or phrased another way--the "singularity" that was the beginning of the Big Bang, had only two "choices." Stay put, or release its energy. As everything in the universe is a release of energy into abyss, it is clear that the universe is moving inevitably to its own cold death. This is underlined by observations in modern physics, where eventually there will be no energy in it at all. -> The extreme concept of an evil god seems to me exactly on a par with, and just as unrealistic as, the extreme concept of a loving god. The forces of creation and destruction balance each other in both life and the cosmos, and this is probably the best clue we have as to the nature of a possible god, the inference being that it is the same mixture as we find within our human selves: full of light, full of darkness, creature and creator in the same image. 
> -Ah, but my implicit point was exactly this: we are humans, so we humanize our Gods. The opposite of a human God is an inhumane monster; we don't want to fathom that we were created by evil. Why not? LHP religions are right: Predatory urges are as much a part of being human as being altruistic. Fury to the point of Murder was not only discussed by The Bard. It was also discussed by Poe... -Mad tragedy. Born of Chaos. -And the cycle of creation and destruction are not in balance at all; every act of order results in more total chaos/disorder/entropy. The balance--from the beginning--of our universe--is one tilted towards inevitable death. Without an injection of energy from the Sun; our balance is destroyed. And, it eventually will be destroyed. -> The dichotomy also fits in perfectly with an impersonal universe. Instead of a conscious good and evil god, you have the same balance without any god at all, or with an absent or dead god. Matt writes: "This is in fact one form of divinity I have discussed in the past: the universe is the result of a dead God. Any order that exists has come at the expense of its own dissolution, but even its own efforts are eventually wasted." Wasted? The conclusion is up to you. Either you are angry at the death of the child, or you are thankful for the 13 years of happiness. (You can be both, of course. Most of us probably view life as a tragicomedy.) Jon Nödtveidt's killing of another man and then of himself was a waste, and so was the killing of Amy, but her life was not. Those who knew her will remember her, there will be unconscious influences, for instance on her brother who may one day have a family of his own, ripples spread, destruction is followed by creation. So long as there is a present and a future, how can we say even a dead God's efforts are wasted? 
> -As for the dying God's efforts being wasted... eventually our universe will expand to the point where we no longer see stars. The universe becomes black, stars become so far apart that new stars can never be born. This universe is as finite as you or I; only over a timescale that we cannot truly fathom. You might consider this nihilistic, but even my own life will be meaningless about 2 generations after I pass. The same for our universe. Everything we hold dear--everything we cherish--is destined to be forever gone. Meaning; only has meaning for life. Sentient life. -> Worship of chaos and destruction? What is the point? Why worship anything? Being here with the opportunity to flicker for an instant seems to me an end in itself, and it is one which I embrace with relish, whether there is or isn't a god, whether it's good or evil, good and evil, indifferent or dead.-Worship? I don't recall speaking of worship. You must be talking about Jon's lyrics. To him, his religion reflected his understanding of the world. To what cruel vision, I know not--but I've studied his writings and the writings of those he followed. There is logic in what they teach, it's just abhorrent to my "civilized" morals. But I think David lacks that darker vista. There is no reason that any of these versions of religion are any less likely than the one he and I were both raised with. They are counter-values to what makes a good society. However, their exploration and psychological discoveries are just as important when discussing theology and mankind. -Don't worry. I'm not running off to become Crowley!

--
\"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.\"