Why not--Maltheism? (Religion)

by dhw, Thursday, June 30, 2011, 16:52 (4895 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt: [...[ all I'm doing is approaching the normal subject of God from a completely different direction.-I have no problem understanding this approach. My problem is only in following some of your logic. For instance, in your original post you claimed that "there is no prime cause, unless the prime cause itself was destruction." Had you stopped at the statement that there is no prime cause, I would have stated that we have absolutely no way of testing such a pronouncement. I'd prefer to say that we can never know if there was a prime cause, or what it was. However, the idea that the prime cause itself may be destruction remains illogical, especially when you defend it by saying that "the act of creating our universe [...] had to result in an equal act of destruction." How can a result be the prime cause? -MATT: I get the feeling that you are repulsed by the majority of the topic of "dark gods". -I thought I had made it clear that if I did believe in a god or gods, it or they would have to be a mixture of light and dark. I have never advocated an all-good God, and I would never advocate an all-bad God, since both concepts are so clearly in conflict with the mixed world we know. I'm afraid I laughed at David's suggestion that God answered about 50% of prayers, since that just about fits in with what I would have expected of a half-good, half-bad God, or of an impersonal universe. Toss the coin, and your chances are 50/50.-I suspect that in fact your post is directed far more at David than at me, but he too has made it clear that he has no time for the established religions. In any case, no matter what approach you adopt, I would like it to be argued with a degree of consistency, so if you regard it as your role (much appreciated, I might add) to play the devil's advocate, you must forgive me if I play the role of critic. As for the currently favoured theory concerning the end of the universe, let's meet up 1000 years from now and see if it's still the favourite. -You find the anthropomorphization of God repulsive, but have ignored the argument I have presented in favour not of an all-good God, but of a God whose mixed nature is reflected in the beings it has created, just as many works of literature reflect elements of their author. How does one consciously create love and hate, kindness and cruelty, if one has absolutely no knowledge of such things? Why is this concept repulsive?-Incidentally, all religions do not tell you to "bottle this rage": "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, / Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, / Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21, 23-25). There are some pretty juicy responses to wrong in the Koran as well. -My main point, though, was to express my distaste for both the RHP and the LHP, and for the view that denies value to anything not eternal. This has nothing to do with texts and everything to do with substance. But of course I know you are still my kindly Buddhist friend. I'm only playing along with you!