Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Nietzsche - God is Dead

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 12:53:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Do you agree that modernity has killed God? Is this a good or a bad thing? If it is bad, how will you wipe the blood clean?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
imperialchimp
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 3:45:16 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 12:53:00 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Do you agree that modernity has killed God?

Not yet...

Is this a good or a bad thing?

Probably good.

If it is bad, how will you wipe the blood clean?
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!
keithprosser
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 6:58:37 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I have never been able to fathom why continental philosophers are deliberately obscure in their writings. I have no idea what 'God is dead' is supposed to mean, or what 'wipe the blood clean' means for that matter.

Libraries have tomes and tomes with conflicting interpretations of what Neitzsche wrote and he has been claimed by just about every political school there is as one of theirs, because - like the bible - one can read into Neitzsche's impenetrable aphorisms and metaphors whatever you want to find.

Ambiguity? Is it likely that every one on DDO will agree what 'modernity' is?

Why not ask a well defined question?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 10:10:11 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 6:58:37 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I have never been able to fathom why continental philosophers are deliberately obscure in their writings. I have no idea what 'God is dead' is supposed to mean, or what 'wipe the blood clean' means for that matter.

Libraries have tomes and tomes with conflicting interpretations of what Neitzsche wrote and he has been claimed by just about every political school there is as one of theirs, because - like the bible - one can read into Neitzsche's impenetrable aphorisms and metaphors whatever you want to find.

Ambiguity? Is it likely that every one on DDO will agree what 'modernity' is?

Why not ask a well defined question?

Nietzsche?
Who said anything about him?
He was a footnote in the Death of God movement.

It seems to me the OP was quite clear, until you muddied the waters with your silly meanderings.
If you don't understand the question, that should have been your clue you could not give an intelligent response.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 10:31:57 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Nietzsche?
Who said anything about him?
He was a footnote in the Death of God movement.

Err... Nietzche is, like, in the title of the thread?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 10:42:57 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 10:31:57 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Nietzsche?
Who said anything about him?
He was a footnote in the Death of God movement.

Err... Nietzche is, like, in the title of the thread?

Err...yeah, I said that.
But if you don't understand the question............
keithprosser
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 10:57:32 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I have an understanding of the question, but I doubt that everyone would have the same understanding of it.

Whatever specific thing Rob is asking can be expressed without the Nietzschean metaphors. Clear language opens things out and reduces the temptation to spend more effort on the sound than the sense, which Nietzscheans are occasionally prone to do!
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 11:39:44 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 10:57:32 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I have an understanding of the question, but I doubt that everyone would have the same understanding of it.

Whatever specific thing Rob is asking can be expressed without the Nietzschean metaphors. Clear language opens things out and reduces the temptation to spend more effort on the sound than the sense, which Nietzscheans are occasionally prone to do!

"I have no idea what 'God is dead' is supposed to mean,"

I do not see any ambiguity in that.
The language is clear, sure enough.
Obbe
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 1:01:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 10:10:11 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:58:37 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I have never been able to fathom why continental philosophers are deliberately obscure in their writings. I have no idea what 'God is dead' is supposed to mean, or what 'wipe the blood clean' means for that matter.

Libraries have tomes and tomes with conflicting interpretations of what Neitzsche wrote and he has been claimed by just about every political school there is as one of theirs, because - like the bible - one can read into Neitzsche's impenetrable aphorisms and metaphors whatever you want to find.

Ambiguity? Is it likely that every one on DDO will agree what 'modernity' is?

Why not ask a well defined question?

Nietzsche?
Who said anything about him?
He was a footnote in the Death of God movement.

It seems to me the OP was quite clear, until you muddied the waters with your silly meanderings.
If you don't understand the question, that should have been your clue you could not give an intelligent response.

In what way is God dead? Was God alive before?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 1:37:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 1:01:09 PM, Obbe wrote:
At 11/4/2016 10:10:11 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:58:37 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I have never been able to fathom why continental philosophers are deliberately obscure in their writings. I have no idea what 'God is dead' is supposed to mean, or what 'wipe the blood clean' means for that matter.

Libraries have tomes and tomes with conflicting interpretations of what Neitzsche wrote and he has been claimed by just about every political school there is as one of theirs, because - like the bible - one can read into Neitzsche's impenetrable aphorisms and metaphors whatever you want to find.

Ambiguity? Is it likely that every one on DDO will agree what 'modernity' is?

Why not ask a well defined question?

Nietzsche?
Who said anything about him?
He was a footnote in the Death of God movement.

It seems to me the OP was quite clear, until you muddied the waters with your silly meanderings.
If you don't understand the question, that should have been your clue you could not give an intelligent response.

In what way is God dead? Was God alive before?

Well, if something died, it must have been alive.
That shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

Sometimes what we don't say is as telling as what we do say.
For example, by what you do not say, I know you do not think God died, because you do not think He was alive.

You would also not think He is dead, since that would require existence.
See how I figured all of that out, and you didn't even have to say it.
Obbe
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 1:48:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 3:50:46 AM, Obbe wrote:
God is alive and well on the street where you live.

But I also said this^
keithprosser
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 2:54:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 11:39:44 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/4/2016 10:57:32 AM, keithprosser wrote:

"I have no idea what 'God is dead' is supposed to mean,"

I do not see any ambiguity in that.
The language is clear, sure enough.

It is very clear syntactically. If it was, say, 'David Bowie is dead', there is no real problem. But equally clearly 'God is dead' carries an enormous amount of semantic and cultural 'baggage' that overwhelms the clear syntax. 'God is dead' sacrifices meaning for pithiness - prioritising sound over sense is acceptable in poetry but I find it annoying in the context of philosophy.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 3:16:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 2:54:49 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 11/4/2016 11:39:44 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/4/2016 10:57:32 AM, keithprosser wrote:

"I have no idea what 'God is dead' is supposed to mean,"

I do not see any ambiguity in that.
The language is clear, sure enough.

It is very clear syntactically. If it was, say, 'David Bowie is dead', there is no real problem. But equally clearly 'God is dead' carries an enormous amount of semantic and cultural 'baggage' that overwhelms the clear syntax. 'God is dead' sacrifices meaning for pithiness - prioritising sound over sense is acceptable in poetry but I find it annoying in the context of philosophy.

Well there you go.
You know more than all of those PhD theologians.
And you don't even understand the question.

Or, maybe, you don't know near as much as you seem to think you do.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 3:47:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I will stand aside and allow the debate to commence. Perhaps the meaning will become clear to me so I can join in next time.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 4:04:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
My first research paper was titled "Is God Dead?", inspired by the April 1966 Time magazine cover. I no longer have copies of that paper, or the 3x5 notecards I used to collect information, but I do have some of the hard copy of magazine articles.

From The Reverend William Hamilton (March 9, 1924 " February 28, 2012), a "Christian Atheist" theologian.
Transcribed from the hard copy of August 1966 Playboy magazine.

The death of god has happened. to those of us with gods, and to those without. To the indifferent, the cynical and the fanatical. God is dead, whatever that means.

There are ten possible meanings for the phrase "death of God" in use today (1966).

1) It might mean that there is no God, and that there never has been. This position is traditional atheism of the old-fashioned kind, and it does seem hard to see how it could be combined, except very unstably, with Christianity or any of the Western religions.

2) It might mean that there was a God to whom adoration, praise, and trust were appropriate, possible and even necessary, but that there is now no such God. This is the position of the death-of-god or radical theology. It is an atheist position, but with a difference. If there was a god, and if there now isn"t, it should be possible to indicate why this change took place, when it took place and who was responsible for it.

3) It might mean that the idea of God and the word God itself both are in need of radical reformation. Perhaps totally new words are needed; perhaps a decent silence about God should be observed, but ultimately, a new treatment of the idea and word can be expected, however unexpected and surprising it may turn out to be.

4) It might mean that our traditional liturgical and theological language needs a thorough overhaul; the reality abides, but classical modes of thought and forms of language may well have had it.

5) It might mean that the Christian story is no longer a saving or a healing story. It may manage to stay on as merely illuminating or instruction or guiding, but it no longer performs its classical functions of salvation or redemption. In this new form it might help us cope with the demons, but it cannot abolish them.

6) It might mean that certain concepts of God, often in the past confused with the classical Christian doctrine of God, must be destroyed: for example, God as problem solver, absolute power, necessary being, the object of ultimate concern.

7) It might mean that men do not today experience God except as hidden, absent, silent. We live, so to speak, in the time of the death of god, though that time will doubtless pass.

8) It might mean that the gods men make, in their thought and action (false gods or idols in other words), must always die so that the true object of thought and action, the true God, might emerge, come to life, be born anew.

9) It might have a mystical meaning; God must die in the world so that he can be born in us. In many forms of mysticism the de4ath of Jesus on the cross is the time of that worldly death. Thi9s is a medieval idea that influenced Martin Luther, and it is probably this complex of ideas that lies behind the German corale "God Himself Is Dead" that may well be the historical source of for our modern use of "death of God".

10) Finally, it might mean that our language about God is always inadequate and imperfect.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 4:09:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
One of Hamilton's points was that the Jews, the original "God's chosen people", suffered through the holocaust, not unlike Biblical accounts of other events, and when they were finally set free, rescued, no one claimed it was the work of God.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 9:22:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 6:58:37 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I have never been able to fathom why continental philosophers are deliberately obscure in their writings. I have no idea what 'God is dead' is supposed to mean, or what 'wipe the blood clean' means for that matter.

You should be illuminated soon, keep reading.

Libraries have tomes and tomes with conflicting interpretations of what Neitzsche wrote and he has been claimed by just about every political school there is as one of theirs, because - like the bible - one can read into Neitzsche's impenetrable aphorisms and metaphors whatever you want to find.

Ambiguity?

I think the beginning of your sentence got cut off?

Is it likely that every one on DDO will agree what 'modernity' is?

People on DDO (and everywhere) have trouble agreeing on definitions of lots of words.

Why not ask a well defined question?

Because philosophy is inherently not well-defined. Philosophy is our attempt to take ideas that resist definition and try and explain them. Plato spent the entire Republic trying to define what justice is. What is virtue? Evil? God? There is no well-defined scientific approach to these, we must make philosophical ideologies in order to explain them.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 9:29:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 9:22:20 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
<stuff>

I'll answer when I finish with WW's sources...

Sorry.
Philosophy101
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 11:47:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 6:58:37 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I have never been able to fathom why continental philosophers are deliberately obscure in their writings. I have no idea what 'God is dead' is supposed to mean, or what 'wipe the blood clean' means for that matter.

Libraries have tomes and tomes with conflicting interpretations of what Neitzsche wrote and he has been claimed by just about every political school there is as one of theirs, because - like the bible - one can read into Neitzsche's impenetrable aphorisms and metaphors whatever you want to find.

I disagree with your interpretation on Nietzsche; I think his aphorisms are quite penetrable. There may be disagreements, but it is quite clear he developed a will to power and that he was quite anti-religious. As for the aphorism "God is dead," I believe he was trying to say in the hearts of men God had died and that's where he always resided in the first place. I don't necessarily believe this is the case because God seems to be live and kicking in the modern world, if not relegated to Sunday service.

Ambiguity? Is it likely that every one on DDO will agree what 'modernity' is?

Why not ask a well defined question?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 5:43:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 4:04:01 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
My first research paper was titled "Is God Dead?", inspired by the April 1966 Time magazine cover. I no longer have copies of that paper, or the 3x5 notecards I used to collect information, but I do have some of the hard copy of magazine articles.


From The Reverend William Hamilton (March 9, 1924 " February 28, 2012), a "Christian Atheist" theologian.
Transcribed from the hard copy of August 1966 Playboy magazine.

The death of god has happened. to those of us with gods, and to those without. To the indifferent, the cynical and the fanatical. God is dead, whatever that means.

There are ten possible meanings for the phrase "death of God" in use today (1966).

1) It might mean that there is no God, and that there never has been. This position is traditional atheism of the old-fashioned kind, and it does seem hard to see how it could be combined, except very unstably, with Christianity or any of the Western religions.

2) It might mean that there was a God to whom adoration, praise, and trust were appropriate, possible and even necessary, but that there is now no such God. This is the position of the death-of-god or radical theology. It is an atheist position, but with a difference. If there was a god, and if there now isn"t, it should be possible to indicate why this change took place, when it took place and who was responsible for it.

3) It might mean that the idea of God and the word God itself both are in need of radical reformation. Perhaps totally new words are needed; perhaps a decent silence about God should be observed, but ultimately, a new treatment of the idea and word can be expected, however unexpected and surprising it may turn out to be.

4) It might mean that our traditional liturgical and theological language needs a thorough overhaul; the reality abides, but classical modes of thought and forms of language may well have had it.

5) It might mean that the Christian story is no longer a saving or a healing story. It may manage to stay on as merely illuminating or instruction or guiding, but it no longer performs its classical functions of salvation or redemption. In this new form it might help us cope with the demons, but it cannot abolish them.

6) It might mean that certain concepts of God, often in the past confused with the classical Christian doctrine of God, must be destroyed: for example, God as problem solver, absolute power, necessary being, the object of ultimate concern.

7) It might mean that men do not today experience God except as hidden, absent, silent. We live, so to speak, in the time of the death of god, though that time will doubtless pass.

8) It might mean that the gods men make, in their thought and action (false gods or idols in other words), must always die so that the true object of thought and action, the true God, might emerge, come to life, be born anew.

9) It might have a mystical meaning; God must die in the world so that he can be born in us. In many forms of mysticism the de4ath of Jesus on the cross is the time of that worldly death. Thi9s is a medieval idea that influenced Martin Luther, and it is probably this complex of ideas that lies behind the German corale "God Himself Is Dead" that may well be the historical source of for our modern use of "death of God".

10) Finally, it might mean that our language about God is always inadequate and imperfect.

My interpretation would be different than these. To me, God is a concept that goes along with mother nature, naturality, morality, sustainability, goodness, and consciousness. When we say Christianity believes in a "man in the sky," I think that is sort of a bastardization of the concept (strawman). Can I give a strict definition? maybe, maybe not.

"God is dead" is the lamentation that the natural good in our environment is being replaced with artificiality, which is based on immorality. It's fuzzy I know, I can give you infinite examples to demonstrate this but it does not lend to generalization. I was just listening to goo goo dolls on the ride over here and the lyrics were "when reruns all become our history." That is a subtle example of the infinite examples I could use in virtually any subject you can give that reflects Nietzsche's idea. TV is a great example of artificiality that infests our society, instead of living our own lives to the fullest we subsidize it with the social lives of models in front of a camera, like avatars to hide our less-than-desireable lives.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 8:07:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 5:43:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:04:01 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
My first research paper was titled "Is God Dead?", inspired by the April 1966 Time magazine cover. I no longer have copies of that paper, or the 3x5 notecards I used to collect information, but I do have some of the hard copy of magazine articles.


From The Reverend William Hamilton (March 9, 1924 " February 28, 2012), a "Christian Atheist" theologian.
Transcribed from the hard copy of August 1966 Playboy magazine.

The death of god has happened. to those of us with gods, and to those without. To the indifferent, the cynical and the fanatical. God is dead, whatever that means.

There are ten possible meanings for the phrase "death of God" in use today (1966).

1) It might mean that there is no God, and that there never has been. This position is traditional atheism of the old-fashioned kind, and it does seem hard to see how it could be combined, except very unstably, with Christianity or any of the Western religions.

2) It might mean that there was a God to whom adoration, praise, and trust were appropriate, possible and even necessary, but that there is now no such God. This is the position of the death-of-god or radical theology. It is an atheist position, but with a difference. If there was a god, and if there now isn"t, it should be possible to indicate why this change took place, when it took place and who was responsible for it.

3) It might mean that the idea of God and the word God itself both are in need of radical reformation. Perhaps totally new words are needed; perhaps a decent silence about God should be observed, but ultimately, a new treatment of the idea and word can be expected, however unexpected and surprising it may turn out to be.

4) It might mean that our traditional liturgical and theological language needs a thorough overhaul; the reality abides, but classical modes of thought and forms of language may well have had it.

5) It might mean that the Christian story is no longer a saving or a healing story. It may manage to stay on as merely illuminating or instruction or guiding, but it no longer performs its classical functions of salvation or redemption. In this new form it might help us cope with the demons, but it cannot abolish them.

6) It might mean that certain concepts of God, often in the past confused with the classical Christian doctrine of God, must be destroyed: for example, God as problem solver, absolute power, necessary being, the object of ultimate concern.

7) It might mean that men do not today experience God except as hidden, absent, silent. We live, so to speak, in the time of the death of god, though that time will doubtless pass.

8) It might mean that the gods men make, in their thought and action (false gods or idols in other words), must always die so that the true object of thought and action, the true God, might emerge, come to life, be born anew.

9) It might have a mystical meaning; God must die in the world so that he can be born in us. In many forms of mysticism the de4ath of Jesus on the cross is the time of that worldly death. Thi9s is a medieval idea that influenced Martin Luther, and it is probably this complex of ideas that lies behind the German corale "God Himself Is Dead" that may well be the historical source of for our modern use of "death of God".

10) Finally, it might mean that our language about God is always inadequate and imperfect.

My interpretation would be different than these. To me, God is a concept that goes along with mother nature, naturality, morality, sustainability, goodness, and consciousness. When we say Christianity believes in a "man in the sky," I think that is sort of a bastardization of the concept (strawman). Can I give a strict definition? maybe, maybe not.

"God is dead" is the lamentation that the natural good in our environment is being replaced with artificiality, which is based on immorality. It's fuzzy I know, I can give you infinite examples to demonstrate this but it does not lend to generalization. I was just listening to goo goo dolls on the ride over here and the lyrics were "when reruns all become our history." That is a subtle example of the infinite examples I could use in virtually any subject you can give that reflects Nietzsche's idea. TV is a great example of artificiality that infests our society, instead of living our own lives to the fullest we subsidize it with the social lives of models in front of a camera, like avatars to hide our less-than-desireable lives.

We should not be surprised if some things changed in 50 years.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 8:52:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/4/2016 12:53:00 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Do you agree that modernity has killed God? Is this a good or a bad thing? If it is bad, how will you wipe the blood clean?

I do not agree that modernity killed God, religion killed God. Religion failed to adapt to the newfound truths and it is because of this that the idea of God has become synonymous to the idea of being ignorant.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 10:53:54 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Erwin Schrodinger, discoverer of wave mechanics was deeply influenced by the philosophical wisdom of the East. Schrodinger read widely and thought deeply the teachings of Hindu scriptures. He was particularly fascinated by Vedanta and Upanishads and developed a kinship with Budha and his techniques.
"I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experiences in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, god and eternity."
"Austrian physicist, awarded Nobel prize in 1933
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
~ ~
To the end of his life, Darwin insisted that one could be "an ardent theist and an evolutionist."
http://www.christianitytoday.com...

~ ~
It is possible to believe in both evolution and the Catholic church"s teaching on creation, Pope Francis has said, as he cautioned against portraying God as a kind of magician who made the universe with a magic wand.
"The big bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it," the pope said in an address to a meeting at the pontifical academy of sciences.
"Evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution presupposes the creation of beings which evolve."
Francis, 77, said it was easy to misinterpret the creation story as recounted in the book of Genesis, according to which God created heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh.
"When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything," he said.
"But it is not so. He created beings and let them develop according to internal laws which He gave every one, so they would develop, so they would reach maturity."

https://www.theguardian.com...
~~ ~
Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science " that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. Proponents of this view are sometimes described as Christian Darwinists.

This view is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church USA, and some other mainline Protestant denominations;[2] virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures. Various biblical literalists have accepted or noted openness to this stance, including theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham. A 2007 poll showed that acceptance among American Buddhists, Hindus and Jews was higher than among any Christian groups (graph below). One recent survey, conducted by physicist Max Tegmark, on "of how different US faith communities view origins science, particularly evolution and Big Bang cosmology." Although "Gallup reports that 46% of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago", it found "only 11% belong to religions openly rejecting evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:51:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 8:07:36 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/5/2016 5:43:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:04:01 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
My first research paper was titled "Is God Dead?", inspired by the April 1966 Time magazine cover. I no longer have copies of that paper, or the 3x5 notecards I used to collect information, but I do have some of the hard copy of magazine articles.


From The Reverend William Hamilton (March 9, 1924 " February 28, 2012), a "Christian Atheist" theologian.
Transcribed from the hard copy of August 1966 Playboy magazine.

The death of god has happened. to those of us with gods, and to those without. To the indifferent, the cynical and the fanatical. God is dead, whatever that means.

There are ten possible meanings for the phrase "death of God" in use today (1966).

1) It might mean that there is no God, and that there never has been. This position is traditional atheism of the old-fashioned kind, and it does seem hard to see how it could be combined, except very unstably, with Christianity or any of the Western religions.

2) It might mean that there was a God to whom adoration, praise, and trust were appropriate, possible and even necessary, but that there is now no such God. This is the position of the death-of-god or radical theology. It is an atheist position, but with a difference. If there was a god, and if there now isn"t, it should be possible to indicate why this change took place, when it took place and who was responsible for it.

3) It might mean that the idea of God and the word God itself both are in need of radical reformation. Perhaps totally new words are needed; perhaps a decent silence about God should be observed, but ultimately, a new treatment of the idea and word can be expected, however unexpected and surprising it may turn out to be.

4) It might mean that our traditional liturgical and theological language needs a thorough overhaul; the reality abides, but classical modes of thought and forms of language may well have had it.

5) It might mean that the Christian story is no longer a saving or a healing story. It may manage to stay on as merely illuminating or instruction or guiding, but it no longer performs its classical functions of salvation or redemption. In this new form it might help us cope with the demons, but it cannot abolish them.

6) It might mean that certain concepts of God, often in the past confused with the classical Christian doctrine of God, must be destroyed: for example, God as problem solver, absolute power, necessary being, the object of ultimate concern.

7) It might mean that men do not today experience God except as hidden, absent, silent. We live, so to speak, in the time of the death of god, though that time will doubtless pass.

8) It might mean that the gods men make, in their thought and action (false gods or idols in other words), must always die so that the true object of thought and action, the true God, might emerge, come to life, be born anew.

9) It might have a mystical meaning; God must die in the world so that he can be born in us. In many forms of mysticism the de4ath of Jesus on the cross is the time of that worldly death. Thi9s is a medieval idea that influenced Martin Luther, and it is probably this complex of ideas that lies behind the German corale "God Himself Is Dead" that may well be the historical source of for our modern use of "death of God".

10) Finally, it might mean that our language about God is always inadequate and imperfect.

My interpretation would be different than these. To me, God is a concept that goes along with mother nature, naturality, morality, sustainability, goodness, and consciousness. When we say Christianity believes in a "man in the sky," I think that is sort of a bastardization of the concept (strawman). Can I give a strict definition? maybe, maybe not.

"God is dead" is the lamentation that the natural good in our environment is being replaced with artificiality, which is based on immorality. It's fuzzy I know, I can give you infinite examples to demonstrate this but it does not lend to generalization. I was just listening to goo goo dolls on the ride over here and the lyrics were "when reruns all become our history." That is a subtle example of the infinite examples I could use in virtually any subject you can give that reflects Nietzsche's idea. TV is a great example of artificiality that infests our society, instead of living our own lives to the fullest we subsidize it with the social lives of models in front of a camera, like avatars to hide our less-than-desireable lives.

We should not be surprised if some things changed in 50 years.

For the better? Or worse?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:31:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 11:51:34 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/5/2016 8:07:36 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/5/2016 5:43:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:04:01 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
My first research paper was titled "Is God Dead?", inspired by the April 1966 Time magazine cover. I no longer have copies of that paper, or the 3x5 notecards I used to collect information, but I do have some of the hard copy of magazine articles.


From The Reverend William Hamilton (March 9, 1924 " February 28, 2012), a "Christian Atheist" theologian.
Transcribed from the hard copy of August 1966 Playboy magazine.

The death of god has happened. to those of us with gods, and to those without. To the indifferent, the cynical and the fanatical. God is dead, whatever that means.

There are ten possible meanings for the phrase "death of God" in use today (1966).

1) It might mean that there is no God, and that there never has been. This position is traditional atheism of the old-fashioned kind, and it does seem hard to see how it could be combined, except very unstably, with Christianity or any of the Western religions.

2) It might mean that there was a God to whom adoration, praise, and trust were appropriate, possible and even necessary, but that there is now no such God. This is the position of the death-of-god or radical theology. It is an atheist position, but with a difference. If there was a god, and if there now isn"t, it should be possible to indicate why this change took place, when it took place and who was responsible for it.

3) It might mean that the idea of God and the word God itself both are in need of radical reformation. Perhaps totally new words are needed; perhaps a decent silence about God should be observed, but ultimately, a new treatment of the idea and word can be expected, however unexpected and surprising it may turn out to be.

4) It might mean that our traditional liturgical and theological language needs a thorough overhaul; the reality abides, but classical modes of thought and forms of language may well have had it.

5) It might mean that the Christian story is no longer a saving or a healing story. It may manage to stay on as merely illuminating or instruction or guiding, but it no longer performs its classical functions of salvation or redemption. In this new form it might help us cope with the demons, but it cannot abolish them.

6) It might mean that certain concepts of God, often in the past confused with the classical Christian doctrine of God, must be destroyed: for example, God as problem solver, absolute power, necessary being, the object of ultimate concern.

7) It might mean that men do not today experience God except as hidden, absent, silent. We live, so to speak, in the time of the death of god, though that time will doubtless pass.

8) It might mean that the gods men make, in their thought and action (false gods or idols in other words), must always die so that the true object of thought and action, the true God, might emerge, come to life, be born anew.

9) It might have a mystical meaning; God must die in the world so that he can be born in us. In many forms of mysticism the de4ath of Jesus on the cross is the time of that worldly death. Thi9s is a medieval idea that influenced Martin Luther, and it is probably this complex of ideas that lies behind the German corale "God Himself Is Dead" that may well be the historical source of for our modern use of "death of God".

10) Finally, it might mean that our language about God is always inadequate and imperfect.

My interpretation would be different than these. To me, God is a concept that goes along with mother nature, naturality, morality, sustainability, goodness, and consciousness. When we say Christianity believes in a "man in the sky," I think that is sort of a bastardization of the concept (strawman). Can I give a strict definition? maybe, maybe not.

"God is dead" is the lamentation that the natural good in our environment is being replaced with artificiality, which is based on immorality. It's fuzzy I know, I can give you infinite examples to demonstrate this but it does not lend to generalization. I was just listening to goo goo dolls on the ride over here and the lyrics were "when reruns all become our history." That is a subtle example of the infinite examples I could use in virtually any subject you can give that reflects Nietzsche's idea. TV is a great example of artificiality that infests our society, instead of living our own lives to the fullest we subsidize it with the social lives of models in front of a camera, like avatars to hide our less-than-desireable lives.

We should not be surprised if some things changed in 50 years.

For the better? Or worse?

Different.
I was just pointing out that it is reasonable that a list from 50 years ago may need updated.
If God was dead then, and is still dead today, I do not see how the reason can be said to be better or worse.
The list from 1966 would be the reason for death - transition from existence to non-existent.
You comments address the continuation of affairs, not the transition.
Not the same.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 1:15:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 12:31:18 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:

I was just pointing out that it is reasonable that a list from 50 years ago may need updated.
If God was dead then, and is still dead today, I do not see how the reason can be said to be better or worse.
The list from 1966 would be the reason for death - transition from existence to non-existent.
You comments address the continuation of affairs, not the transition.
Not the same.

That is based on the assumption that the list -or more accurately one of the items on the list - is absolutely correct. If that is your objective to demonstrate, then you should start by picking one of the items on the list and defending it.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.