Keep It Real wrote:Maybe it could mean "the highest power". Higher than you or I at least.

Actually, if one tries to synthesize those attributes of the divine that the earliest extant strata in the earliest texts on actual founders most often have in common (extracted thanks to modern scholars trained in analyzing ancient texts and languages to the frequent discomfort of the fundies in every creed), the one attribute that most uniformly emerges in the earliest strata is a sort of communal love that appears to transcend family, tribe, class, etc. This is further unwrapped in the OP to this old thread ----

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 28933.html

--- That OP is quite long, unfortunately, so the "Readers' Digest" version of it is that it's striking how these earliest strata do not uniformly deal with an afterlife, do not all deal with any sort of abode, scary or cozy, for an afterlife, do not all deal with an omnipotent entity of some kind, do not all deal with a "creator", do not all deal with fulminations on "sin", do not all deal in any sort of woo explanations for natural phenomena, etc. These are all largely secondary -- if even cited at all, for that matter. What's stressed, again and again, is the notion that the divine somehow or other "mandates", in some way, due consideration and care for the vulnerable, the left out, the marginalized, the friendless, etc. That's where the earliest strata essentially "come from".

On the other side of the coin, the almost robotoid nostrums about the afterlife, "damnation", "creation", "supernatural" origins, "sin", omnipotence, etc., usually emerge in the later textual strata, when institutions and institutionalization become geared to establishing brute power over others at any cost, once the original founder is no longer around to embarrass the opportunistic power brokers who infest the later history of every creed once the founder is safely dead and out of the way.

It is for these reasons that, whether or not one takes the notion of deity as either a fiction or grounded in reality, the notion of deity as primarily centered in caring for the "other" is still the one notion that better fits the apparent jotted-down experience of those who have actually been documented as pioneering the most self-generated and original notions re deity through the ages. If deity is anything real at all -- a big IF -- then deity is more likely, given the written record from the most pioneering founder figures, to be some sort of force engaged in gluing community together, rather than in generating the cosmos or in supervising afterlifes, etc. Given such a predominant attribute, it even makes good -- relative -- sense to suppose that whatever deity is, it's just as likely to be some sort of entity that is post-cosmos rather than pre-cosmos.

For all these reasons, that's why it's relatively less asinine to make a claim that "God is love" than it is to make the tired claim that God is omnipotent, or a "creator", or a "punisher", or blah-blah-blah.

Stein

Stein wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Maybe it could mean "the highest power". Higher than you or I at least.

Actually, if one tries to synthesize those attributes of the divine that the earliest extant strata in the earliest texts on actual founders most often have in common (extracted thanks to modern scholars trained in analyzing ancient texts and languages to the frequent discomfort of the fundies in every creed), the one attribute that most uniformly emerges in the earliest strata is a sort of communal love that appears to transcend family, tribe, class, etc. This is further unwrapped in the OP to this old thread ----

Utter bollocks.

Stein wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/reflections-on-deism-t28933.html

--- That OP is quite long, unfortunately, so the "Readers' Digest" version of it is that it's striking how these earliest strata do not uniformly deal with an afterlife, do not all deal with any sort of abode, scary or cozy, for an afterlife, do not all deal with an omnipotent entity of some kind, do not all deal with a "creator", do not all deal with fulminations on "sin", do not all deal in any sort of woo explanations for natural phenomena, etc. These are all largely secondary -- if even cited at all, for that matter. What's stressed, again and again, is the notion that the divine somehow or other "mandates", in some way, due consideration and care for the vulnerable, the left out, the marginalized, the friendless, etc. That's where the earliest strata essentially "come from".

On the other side of the coin, the almost robotoid nostrums about the afterlife, "damnation", "creation", "supernatural" origins, "sin", omnipotence, etc., usually emerge in the later textual strata, when institutions and institutionalization become geared to establishing brute power over others at any cost, once the original founder is no longer around to embarrass the opportunistic power brokers who infest the later history of every creed once the founder is safely dead and out of the way.

It is for these reasons that, whether or not one takes the notion of deity as either a fiction or grounded in reality, the notion of deity as primarily centered in caring for the "other" is still the one notion that better fits the apparent jotted-down experience of those who have actually been documented as pioneering the most self-generated and original notions re deity through the ages. If deity is anything real at all -- a big IF -- then deity is more likely, given the written record from the most pioneering founder figures, to be some sort of force engaged in gluing community together, rather than in generating the cosmos or in supervising afterlifes, etc. Given such a predominant attribute, it even makes good -- relative -- sense to suppose that whatever deity is, it's just as likely to be some sort of entity that is post-cosmos rather than pre-cosmos.

For all these reasons, that's why it's relatively less asinine to make a claim that "God is love" than it is to make the tired claim that God is omnipotent, or a "creator", or a "punisher", or blah-blah-blah.

Stein

Wow. What a deeply thought through posting. Profound. 101 ludicrous models are generated for deity -- whatever that is -- and when an OP cites the one attribute that those who claim direct encounter with it are consistent on, the rest of us are evidently not supposed to unwrap that further because Mr. almighty and powerful and infallible YOU might deem it too ludicrous for serious discussion. Now, THAT'S a bully's charter, for sure, and you're the FUCKING BULLY.

Stein

Stein wrote:Wow. What a deeply thought through posting.

I see no point in adressing blindly asserted nonsense in any detail.
You're making the claims Stein, it's up to you to defend them, not me to disprove them.

Stein wrote: Profound. 101 ludicrous models are generated for deity -- whatever that is -- and when an OP cites the one attribute that those who claim direct encounter with it are consistent on,

Appeal to popularity and confirmation bias fallacies.
Alien abductees are also very consitent on certain aspects. Doesn't mean they were actually abducted by aliens.

Stein wrote:the rest of us are evidently not supposed to unwrap that further because Mr. almighty and powerful and infallible YOU might deem it too ludicrous for serious discussion. Now, THAT'S a bully's charter, for sure, and you're the FUCKING BULLY.

It's also directly extracted from your rectum since I said nothing of the sort.
I'll let it slide this once, but if you once again start making shit up about me claims or positions I will report said post.
I've asked you to cease doing so in past threads, I will not do so ad infinitum again.
You're free to believe and discuss whatever you want, just as I'm free to point out when your posts consist of nothing but blindly asserted nonsense and logical fallacies.