Help Me Connect the Dots

[Iamblichus]

Alright, so here goes.

I'll start by explaining what it is I have come to understand about the world, and then end with my questions.

First, I have come to understand that all living things possess a soul. Which is the motive principle with them.
That this soul, must be by virtue of its immaterially been created by something higher.

By virtue of this I have arrived at the concept of the unmoved-mover of Aristotle, or Dao, of the Daoists. However there is nothing to suggest that this unmoved-mover is not potentially the biblical God, both the Aristotelian, and Daoist traditions have a history of people interpreting it as such. In many/near all respects I am a believer in Philosophical Daoist and Aristotelian thought, this however not a religious principle in the slightest.

Which leaves me wondering about the unmoved mover in a religious sense, as the presence of a creator suggest to me that a strictly atheistic view is non-viable, it also makes a polytheistic view of creation sort of unviable.

Which leaves surprisingly few options open to exploration, as to the nature of this unmoved mover.

To further complicate this concept, let me introduce the idea of forms. Particularly that humanity has a set form, a natural state so to speak, and transition from that state results in all sorts of unpleasantness in our lives.

I can see the biblical equivalent, We are created in Gods image and to move away from Gods image is to sin. But thats really as far as I've managed to get.

The potential existence of God.

Now I've given you all the background I can think to... care to lend me a hand. Where does Christ, and the love of God fit into this picture?

All I've been able to think of so far is the Christ is the intermediary between the unmoved divine mind and mankind, and by connecting with Christ we reconnect with the divine mind, and our original purpose. (I have a number of problems with this idea, but it seems like it might be approaching something accurate)

Does that make sense? Am I speaking heresy here?

Thanks for you time and thoughts... I've sort of had a number of epiphanies in determining what I think tonight and I'm trying to work through them.

I feel kind of like this -> right now.

 

[drich0150]

Alright, so here goes.

I'll start by explaining what it is I have come to understand about the world, and then end with my questions.

I will try and work with in the frame work that you provided but some of the questions or principles you believe in are not found in scripture.

First, I have come to understand that all living things possess a soul.

Actually only "we" possess a soul. This is the "made in the image of God" part of us.

Which is the motive principle with them.
That this soul, must be by virtue of its immaterially been created by something higher.

By virtue of this I have arrived at the concept of the unmoved-mover of Aristotle, or Dao, of the Daoists. However there is nothing to suggest that this unmoved-mover is not potentially the biblical God, both the Aristotelian, and Daoist traditions have a history of people interpreting it as such. In many/near all respects I am a believer in Philosophical Daoist and Aristotelian thought, this however not a religious principle in the slightest.

Which leaves me wondering about the unmoved mover in a religious sense, as the presence of a creator suggest to me that a strictly atheistic view is non-viable, it also makes a polytheistic view of creation sort of not viable.

Which leaves surprisingly few options open to exploration, as to the nature of this unmoved mover.

These are the parameters i will try and work in.
​

To further complicate this concept, let me introduce the idea of forms. Particularly that humanity has a set form, a natural state so to speak, and transition from that state results in all sorts of unpleasantness in our lives.

The bible identified this "form" as being a slave to sin.

I can see the biblical equivalent, We are created in Gods image and to move away from Gods image is to sin. But thats really as far as I've managed to get.

We are created in God's image meaning we have all been issued a spiritual essence or a soul.

Sin is another matter completely.
Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God.
Evil is the malicious intent to commit sin.
Not all sin is Evil but all Evil is Sin.
Free Will is the ability to be outside, or to have a will independent of the expressed will of God. In essence Free Will is the ability to Sin.

Evil is the proof of the existence of freewill.

The potential existence of God.

Now I've given you all the background I can think to... care to lend me a hand. Where does Christ, and the love of God fit into this picture?

God's love is made evident in the freedom we have to choose a will outside that of God's expressed will. This independent will has been given to us so that we may choose to spend eternity with or without Him. Unfortunately however the simple act of choosing to be outside of the expressed will of God even once disqualifies us from the righteousness required in being with God. Enter Christ and His atoning sacrifice. Now because He pays the debt we incur from the sin we commit we are made righteous or worthy to be with God again. So after our sin debt is paid we only have our desire to either be with God or without Him the determines the fate of the believer.

All I've been able to think of so far is the Christ is the intermediary between the unmoved divine mind and mankind, and by connecting with Christ we reconnect with the divine mind, and our original purpose. (I have a number of problems with this idea, but it seems like it might be approaching something accurate)

What are your problems?

Does that make sense? Am I speaking heresy here?

Heresy is openly teaching a false doctrine, in the face of biblical truth. You are only asking questions as far as I am aware.

Thanks for you time and thoughts... I've sort of had a number of epiphanies in determining what I think tonight and I'm trying to work through them.

I feel kind of like this -> right now.

Keep asking and seeking and you will find what you are looking for.

 

[Iamblichus]

I will try and work with in the frame work that you provided but some of the questions or principles you believe in are not found in scripture.

Granted.

The bible identified this "form" as being a slave to sin.

I was referring to the state of man in eden, as being the form granted to man. Or at least that is how I understood it. Could you explain why that would be incorrect.

Actually only "we" possess a soul. This is the "made in the image of God" part of us. We are created in God's image meaning we have all been issued a spiritual essence or a soul.

Sin is another matter completely.
Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God.
Evil is the malicious intent to commit sin.
Not all sin is Evil but all Evil is Sin.
Free Will is the ability to be outside, or to have a will independent of the expressed will of God. In essence Free Will is the ability to Sin.

Evil is the proof of the existence of freewill.

On the soul. I believe that man is the only creature granted a rational soul, and reason. That the intellectual part of our soul is how we are created in the image of the divine. Or at least that's theoretically what I believe. (I'm having trouble brining what I believe in line with my understanding of the world. Despite my beliefs being based on logic and observation of the world.)

So would I be right to say sin, is a divergence from the natural state (eden)?

God's love is made evident in the freedom we have to choose a will outside that of God's expressed will. This independent will has been given to us so that we may choose to spend eternity with or without Him. Unfortunately however the simple act of choosing to be outside of the expressed will of God even once disqualifies us from the righteousness required in being with God. Enter Christ and His atoning sacrifice. Now because He pays the debt we incur from the sin we commit we are made righteous or worthy to be with God again. So after our sin debt is paid we only have our desire to either be with God or without Him the determines the fate of the believer.

I think I understand the concept of why Christ matters, in a Christian view. I'm just not sure why he is necessitated in the logic I've followed thus far. Which is the result of being unable to determine the nature of the divine mover. I have no reason to believe he is anything but indifferent to us...I'd like to think that we are cared for but.. I have no reason to suggest that is true.

What are your problems?

The first has to with the early problem with God caring. Should God not care the intermediary would not exist.
The second major problem is the idea of us being led back to this truer state of freedom, oneness with the divine mind. Leading us away from Sin back to Eden. I can't see it as being accomplished by Christ. He forgives our sins, but I don't see how he helps us do away with them.

Glad to hear it isn't heretical though I imagine I will never end up catholic, with my beliefs apparently being so different.

 

[oi_antz]

The second major problem is the idea of us being led back to this truer state of freedom, oneness with the divine mind. Leading us away from Sin back to Eden. I can't see it as being accomplished by Christ. He forgives our sins, but I don't see how he helps us do away with them.

This is answered in Hebrews 10

11 Under the old covenant, the priest stands and ministers before the altar day after day, offering the same sacrifices again and again, which can never take away sins. 12 But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down in the place of honor at God’s right hand. 13 There he waits until his enemies are humbled and made a footstool under his feet. 14 For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy.

15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies that this is so. For he says,

16 “This is the new covenant I will make
with my people on that day,[c] says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”

Notice in here that under the new covenant God writes His law on the mind and heart of His people. What this means is that effectively our conscience convicts us whenever we transgress His law. It actually hurts to sin, the separation from God while we are carrying a burden of guilt is unbearable. Gradually Jesus brings us into perfection:

14 For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy.

- Being made holy. This happens according to Jesus' discipline hence the term "disciple of Christ".

Notice that Jesus doesn't make it too hard to overcome the sin in our life, we only need to be willing to be holy and He will take care of the rest. For this to work, you need to enter a relationship with Jesus whereby He is the Lord and you are a servant to Him. When He teaches you, you need to take heed. And this last's a lifetime and beyond, eventually the world will only be populated with people who hail Jesus as Lord.

28 Then Jesus said, “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light.”

I can imagine you would feel like one who is weary from seeking the truth. Jesus is saying here that He will not make matters difficult, but He will give you rest and will present you perfect to God even as you are transitioning into holiness.

Glad to hear it isn't heretical though I imagine I will never end up catholic, with my beliefs apparently being so different.

Don't close your mind so fast, you might still learn something from people who are catholic

 

[Iamblichus]

This is answered in Hebrews 10

Notice in here that under the new covenant God writes His law on the mind and heart of His people. What this means is that effectively our conscience convicts us whenever we transgress His law. It actually hurts to sin, the separation from God while we are carrying a burden of guilt is unbearable. Gradually Jesus brings us into perfection.

Alright, so Christ, if one accepts him, as our conscience who leads us back to the state intended by God. That seems reasonable... and answers my question about his role.

I can imagine you would feel like one who is weary from seeking the truth. Jesus is saying here that He will not make matters difficult, but He will give you rest and will present you perfect to God even as you are transitioning into holiness.

Don't close your mind so fast, you might still learn something from people who are catholic

Seeking the truth is necessarily wearying, because to any question there are a multitude of answers. However seeking the truth is ultimately the only thing which is gratifying, as constantly learning is the only way we may grow, to do that one needs to keep an open mind.

I'm basically willing to learn from anyone and everyone, as well as everything in the world. I think that everything holds some reflection of the truth of the universe and thus offers us some lesson.


So I guess the only really query left, is what necessitates the unmoved mover, be this loving being? Why should I think he is anything but indifferent to us? Or essentially, this creator being I've concluded must exist, why is he necessarily the God of Abraham?

 

[bling]

A God that has been around forever would have the best of the best by all standards. Of all God’s attributes the best “Love” would be the greatest, controlling all other attributes (Love is the most power force in all universes). God which is described as Love would be compelled by His Love to make beings that could Love like He Loves. Unfortunately, Godly type Love cannot be directly programmed into the being (instinctive) for that love would be a robotic type of love. If God forces the Love on the being (take it or I torture you) that would not be Loving on God’s part and again would not be Godly type Love. God has to allow (give up some of his power) beings to have free will and choose (it must be a real choice and not forced) Love over some likely alternative (in our case it is the perceived pleasures of sin for a season).

We have the earthly objective (that can only be done on earth) of obtaining Godly type Love so we can Love God and others with all our heart, soul, mind and energy. Love is defined by all Christ said and did (you can also look at 1 Cor. 13 and 1 John 4.) Obtaining Love is accepting it as a free undeserving and unconditional gift (Charity). Man due to survival instincts does not like to accept charity especially from a Giver that paid a huge price. The easiest way to accept it is to accept God’s forgiveness (…he that is forgiven much will Love much&#8230

God’s objective is the most unselfish objective (an attribute of Godly Love) in that God is doing all He can to help people (those willing to accept His help since they have free will) to fulfill their objective. That “all” includes allowing Christ to go to the cross, satan to roam the earth, tragedies of all kinds, some unwilling individuals to go to hell, and even sinning.

Christ shows us what Love really is, so we know if we want it or not and His going to the cross shows us that God/Christ Love us.

People that repeatedly refuse God’s Love and want selfish type love will not be happy in heaven since it is one huge Love feast.

 

[Iamblichus]

@ bling
I'm not quite sure I understand your argument. I understand how the Catholic God is described as being a loving being.

I'm just not sure why the unmoved-mover must be a loving being. (As that is the understanding of a creator I've been able to attain thus far.) If the unmoved-mover must be a loving being then it follows that He would be like the Abrahamic God. However what necessitates there being a personal cause to the universe that loves us, rather then a cause that just gave us a push at let us go.

 

[ElijahW]

I wouldn’t compare Aristotle’s unmoved mover to the Dao. The Unmoved mover only moves, it doesn’t create or is it the source of the universe. I think the UM would be more similar to non being found in the 11th stanza of the Tao Te Ching. The Tao would be more similarly compared to Plato’s, (Aristotle’s teacher) understanding of the Logos or the Good God concept. Aristotle rejects Plato’s theory of the forms and wasn’t the influence on Jewish philosophy that Plato was.

Now in regards to Christ; it can be spoken of as referring to the spiritual entity that has existed since the beginning of time and also the physical personification of that spirit found in the man Jesus Christ. This spiritual entity is the Mind or Word or Image of God. God, from the Platonic understanding and Taoist and Paul, was unknowable. While the Word of God was what your soul was interacting with to produce the ideas you see in your head. So you are correct in that Christ is the intermediary between man and God… but I don’t think so much with Aristotle’s unmoved mover though.

Now, not all ideas come from God, only those that come from spiritual entities that extend from God, like Wisdom (Sophia) and Reason (Logos). Ideas that become intermingled with matter and the opinion of others, are considered unclean or demonic because they rely on opinion and sensory. An understanding of God that is produced from an idol, compared to one produced by reason and wisdom, would be an example of the differences between the two kinds ideas.

With Jesus it isn’t about the ideal understanding of God that is the big deal but the ideal understanding of the king of Israel that he represents. At the time there were a lot of bad examples of how man should rule over other men but Jesus decides to serve man and sacrifice his life as their king to try to fix society. In doing so he aligns himself correctly with the correct understanding of what a king would need to be like in order to create a correct understanding of a kingdom that would lead to eternal life and the resurrection of the dead. He doesn’t do the will and errors of the men around him but aligns himself with wisdom reason and love to do the will of God.

 

[Iamblichus]

I wouldn’t compare Aristotle’s unmoved mover to the Dao. The Unmoved mover only moves, it doesn’t create or is it the source of the universe. I think the UM would be more similar to non being found in the 11th stanza of the Tao Te Ching. The Tao would be more similarly compared to Plato’s, (Aristotle’s teacher) understanding of the Logos or the Good God concept. Aristotle rejects Plato’s theory of the forms and wasn’t the influence on Jewish philosophy that Plato was.

I think you're right. My understanding of the unmoved mover has clearly moved. I figured I'd check back to see and nowhere does Aristotle mention some of the ideas I thought he did. I must be ascribing some of the neoplatonic ideas to him. Alright, I'd say my concept of a creator is then most similar to the Dao. I have some issues with the Platonic Good, as it considers the world as ultimately entirely illusory, while I think we can arrive at truth from our living and examination of our life within the world.

I don't think my idea is a divergence from Daoist philosophy so I'm inclined to say that the Good isn't a perfect comparison with Dao, but likely a more apt one then the unmoved mover.

Now in regards to Christ; it can be spoken of as referring to the spiritual entity that has existed since the beginning of time and also the physical personification of that spirit found in the man Jesus Christ. This spiritual entity is the Mind or Word or Image of God. God, from the Platonic understanding and Taoist and Paul, was unknowable. While the Word of God was what your soul was interacting with to produce the ideas you see in your head. So you are correct in that Christ is the intermediary between man and God… but I don’t think so much with Aristotle’s unmoved mover though.

Now, not all ideas come from God, only those that come from spiritual entities that extend from God, like Wisdom (Sophia) and Reason (Logos). Ideas that become intermingled with matter and the opinion of others, are considered unclean or demonic because they rely on opinion and sensory. An understanding of God that is produced from an idol, compared to one produced by reason and wisdom, would be an example of the differences between the two kinds ideas.

I'm not sure I agree with this demonization of the sensory, when applied to the Dao, or my understanding of Christian thought. Maybe you'll be able to correct me though. But isn't the idea that we can understand God both through these entities and through his works, ie. the world. Or in Daoist philosophy we learn by doing/living, and that our way is relative to our being, and thus our perception?

With Jesus it isn’t about the ideal understanding of God that is the big deal but the ideal understanding of the king of Israel that he represents. At the time there were a lot of bad examples of how man should rule over other men but Jesus decides to serve man and sacrifice his life as their king to try to fix society. In doing so he aligns himself correctly with the correct understanding of what a king would need to be like in order to create a correct understanding of a kingdom that would lead to eternal life and the resurrection of the dead. He doesn’t do the will and errors of the men around him but aligns himself with wisdom reason and love to do the will of God.

This is a really cool thought. Thanks for sharing. =)
Sorry for question you, but I'd like to understand, my conception was that this world matters in approaching and understanding of the divine, and it isn't strictly a contemplative internal thing. Ie. that we can't understand without having experience to draw on. I'd be much obliged if you could either correct my understanding or show how it aligns with what you've said.

Thank you very much.

 

[bling]

@ bling
I'm not quite sure I understand your argument. I understand how the Catholic God is described as being a loving being.

I'm just not sure why the unmoved-mover must be a loving being. (As that is the understanding of a creator I've been able to attain thus far.) If the unmoved-mover must be a loving being then it follows that He would be like the Abrahamic God. However what necessitates there being a personal cause to the universe that loves us, rather then a cause that just gave us a push at let us go.

A little “push” suggest a very simple universe if that is all it needed. If there is one thing we learn from science it has been “the more we know the more we realize we do not know.” That suggest an extremely complex universe requiring extreme intelligence (well designed) to make it work.

To explain all the logic behind an all Loving Creator would take a lot of time and we could get lost in the process, so let me ask you some questions:

1. What would it take for you to believe the creator is all loving?
2. How could we proof that the Christian God does not exist?
3. If the Creator is not all Loving why has He not become all Loving?
4. How long has this “unmoved-mover” been around and do you see him as still learning something and if so what would he not know and why would He not have learned it yet?

 

[Iamblichus]

A little “push” suggest a very simple universe if that is all it needed. If there is one thing we learn from science it has been “the more we know the more we realize we do not know.” That suggest an extremely complex universe requiring extreme intelligence (well designed) to make it work.

I'm not saying it wasn't designed, my idea was more then maybe he designed it then let it go, (gave it a little push.) Because I agree complexity is the best argument for a creator.

To explain all the logic behind an all Loving Creator would take a lot of time and we could get lost in the process, so let me ask you some questions:

1. What would it take for you to believe the creator is all loving?

I am unsure. I wish I knew this, it would make the investigation much easier. I'd be content with a negation of the idea of an uncaring God based on evidence. If that helps?

2. How could we proof that the Christian God does not exist?

Another hard one, one would have to negate the idea of a caring God based on examples. I guess.

3. If the Creator is not all Loving why has He not become all Loving?

Because he's unchanging...? I don't know, is there a reason humanity should its effect its creator to love it?

4. How long has this “unmoved-mover” been around and do you see him as still learning something and if so what would he not know and why would He not have learned it yet?

As long as creation at least, likely prior. I'm going to drop the term unmoved mover though as Elijah make some good points as to why its not valid, and move to the term creator. Based on my understanding I'm going to say that this creator most likely would know everything. Though wouldn't learn? This is sort of the crux of the problem. If the creator can change, that would mean he is effect by his creation, I'm particularly fond of this idea. If he can be effected by his creation then he would most likely be loving. However the idea of the Creator as mutable and effected by creation is a problematic one, as it means the Creator isn't perfect and unchanging. To be perfect and unchanging however the creator cannot be moved by his creation.

Do you see the dilemma?

 

[bling]

I'm not saying it wasn't designed, my idea was more then maybe he designed it then let it go, (gave it a little push.) Because I agree complexity is the best argument for a creator.


I am unsure. I wish I knew this, it would make the investigation much easier. I'd be content with a negation of the idea of an uncaring God based on evidence. If that helps?


Another hard one, one would have to negate the idea of a caring God based on examples. I guess.

Because he's unchanging...? I don't know, is there a reason humanity should its effect its creator to love it?

As long as creation at least, likely prior. I'm going to drop the term unmoved mover though as Elijah make some good points as to why its not valid, and move to the term creator. Based on my understanding I'm going to say that this creator most likely would know everything. Though wouldn't learn? This is sort of the crux of the problem. If the creator can change, that would mean he is effect by his creation, I'm particularly fond of this idea. If he can be effected by his creation then he would most likely be loving. However the idea of the Creator as mutable and effected by creation is a problematic one, as it means the Creator isn't perfect and unchanging. To be perfect and unchanging however the creator cannot be moved by his creation.

Do you see the dilemma?

Yes, I see the dilemma and this comes up with Open Theism Philosophy. The bottom line is we just cannot get our arms around perfection with change. If the creator is perfect and we are not perfect and we are all very different than the perfect would have to at least react differently to each individual causing change in relation to our in perfect actions. I do not know how this all works, but I do not understand the Creator to be in our time frame (space/time continuum). We already seem to show our time is very relative, but that does not mean God does not have his own time.

If the creator is unchanging perfection, than why the creation in the first place?

If the Creator needed humans to have free will in order to fulfill some objective than the Creator could have given humans this ability.

Let’s go back to the questions:

If we could show how everything that has happened and is happening best fit the alternative of the Creator being most benevolent would that not also mean the most logical alternative is a benevolent creator?

I agree that the strongest physical evidence for a Creator is the complexity of both life and this universe. Scientific knowledge has not helped the agnostic and atheist in these areas.

I also agree with you that one of the greatest arguments against the Christian God is the apparent lack of caring that seems to be in some situations?

If the creator is extremely “smart” than he does not do anything for nothing, but has a extremely logical (perfect) reasons for doing everything.

So what is the reason for making this universe the way it is?

If the Creator is also the ultimate Lover (selfless), than He would not be doing anything for his own sake but always doing stuff for the sake of others.

So for who’s sake is this universe the way it is?

 

[ElijahW]

I think you're right. My understanding of the unmoved mover has clearly moved. I figured I'd check back to see and nowhere does Aristotle mention some of the ideas I thought he did. I must be ascribing some of the neoplatonic ideas to him. Alright, I'd say my concept of a creator is then most similar to the Dao. I have some issues with the Platonic Good, as it considers the world as ultimately entirely illusory, while I think we can arrive at truth from our living and examination of our life within the world.

I don't think my idea is a divergence from Daoist philosophy so I'm inclined to say that the Good isn't a perfect comparison with Dao, but likely a more apt one then the unmoved mover.

Not a perfect comparison, just in that they are unknowable, constant and creators. The universes that they are creating are different, so they are going to be understood as having different natures. The Tao is creating more of the Aristotelian understanding of the universe where everything is understood to be as material substance in motion or immaterial substance at rest… being and non being.

With Plato the universe is divided the same way but isn’t understood as a substance that is providing the means of motion but a collection of ideals/forms that is the basis of the form and structure of the matter we see. Forms that we can’t perceive with our senses but can with our minds. So what we see in our thoughts actually exist but the problem is that God is the source of these ideas and is different from them, so that means we can never conceive of God, making him unknowable. In Taoism, the Tao is unknowable, not as much (I think) because it is the source of ideas but what it is doing is so complex it can’t be put into a single thought.

I'm not sure I agree with this demonization of the sensory, when applied to the Dao, or my understanding of Christian thought. Maybe you'll be able to correct me though. But isn't the idea that we can understand God both through these entities and through his works, ie. the world. Or in Daoist philosophy we learn by doing/living, and that our way is relative to our being, and thus our perception?

The Taoist philosophy isn’t about leaning but about not being distracted by the ideas and just doing what needs to be done.

With Christian/Platonic philosophy we can come to understand God by understanding the creation but recognizing that God is different from what was created and building our understanding from that. As Gnostic Jesus said "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.” You have to know what is in front of you to reason out what is hidden from you. But you can’t let yourself think that only what you can see and touch exists and deny what you can’t see because you rely on your senses over reason.

 

[Iamblichus]

Let’s go back to the questions:

If we could show how everything that has happened and is happening best fit the alternative of the Creator being most benevolent would that not also mean the most logical alternative is a benevolent creator?

Granted, I can accept that.

I agree that the strongest physical evidence for a Creator is the complexity of both life and this universe. Scientific knowledge has not helped the agnostic and atheist in these areas.

As a biology student I can say my knowledge of science helped me conclude there has to be something more. But that's just me.

I also agree with you that one of the greatest arguments against the Christian God is the apparent lack of caring that seems to be in some situations?

Seems to be, one of those arguments that comes up time and time again. Does suggest a sort of hands off approach. (Which doesn't necessarily I realize denote a lack of care.)

If the creator is extremely “smart” than he does not do anything for nothing, but has a extremely logical (perfect) reasons for doing everything.

So what is the reason for making this universe the way it is?

If the Creator is also the ultimate Lover (selfless), than He would not be doing anything for his own sake but always doing stuff for the sake of others.

So for who’s sake is this universe the way it is?

I can see where this line of thinking leads...I agree, the creator must have a reason for the creation of things. However I'm not sure that speaks to him being the ultimate lover. It could equally be so he can revel in the glory he has wrought.

My prime problem with this line of thought is that is leads to the supremacy of man. Which I'm not sure of, I think that our reason indicates a closeness to the divine, though not necessarily a superiority to anything else, after all everything was created with a purpose, which makes everything equally important in the Creators eyes.

So either our creator created it out of Selfless love, For a purpose, or for his own Glory.

 

[Iamblichus]

Not a perfect comparison, just in that they are unknowable, constant and creators. The universes that they are creating are different, so they are going to be understood as having different natures. The Tao is creating more of the Aristotelian understanding of the universe where everything is understood to be as material substance in motion or immaterial substance at rest… being and non being.

With Plato the universe is divided the same way but isn’t understood as a substance that is providing the means of motion but a collection of ideals/forms that is the basis of the form and structure of the matter we see. Forms that we can’t perceive with our senses but can with our minds. So what we see in our thoughts actually exist but the problem is that God is the source of these ideas and is different from them, so that means we can never conceive of God, making him unknowable. In Taoism, the Tao is unknowable, not as much (I think) because it is the source of ideas but what it is doing is so complex it can’t be put into a single thought.
The Taoist philosophy isn’t about leaning but about not being distracted by the ideas and just doing what needs to be done.

With Christian/Platonic philosophy we can come to understand God by understanding the creation but recognizing that God is different from what was created and building our understanding from that. As Gnostic Jesus said "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.” You have to know what is in front of you to reason out what is hidden from you. But you can’t let yourself think that only what you can see and touch exists and deny what you can’t see because you rely on your senses over reason.

Alright I think I understand what you've said about the material and contemplative. Essentially we need both right? As well as potentially some Grace.

I might be confused about Daoist philosophy, however the idea of being in a constant state of change, suggest to me a constant state of learning, of adapting to the world around us and going with the flow, along our natural path. I think that's what you've said too, just without the learning part...

Thanks for the comparison of the two. I'm definitely not a huge fan of Plato, and have never really been, his denial of the understandability of the material disturbs me. I much prefer the Aristotelian view, with some bits of Plato splashed in. I think I understand why I prefer the Daoist philosophy to Platonic now.

 

[drich0150]

I was referring to the state of man in eden, as being the form granted to man. Or at least that is how I understood it. Could you explain why that would be incorrect.

Man in Eden was netural. Eden repersented uninformed man, or man without a will of his own. It is our default or orgins, but it is not what was intended for us. (as we were always intended to choose our eternal fate for ourselves) If it were not the case, the tree of knoweledge would have never been planted in the center of the garden.

On the soul. I believe that man is the only creature granted a rational soul, and reason. That the intellectual part of our soul is how we are created in the image of the divine. Or at least that's theoretically what I believe. (I'm having trouble brining what I believe in line with my understanding of the world. Despite my beliefs being based on logic and observation of the world.)

how so?

So would I be right to say sin, is a divergence from the natural state (eden)?

I wouldn't say natural, I would point to orginal. Our sin became "natural" once we had knoweledge of good and evil.

I think I understand the concept of why Christ matters, in a Christian view. I'm just not sure why he is necessitated in the logic I've followed thus far. Which is the result of being unable to determine the nature of the divine mover.

Righteousness is the Nature of God.

I have no reason to believe he is anything but indifferent to us...I'd like to think that we are cared for but.. I have no reason to suggest that is true.

As being created in the image of God we share attributes of our personality. That is why believers are often times refered to as children, as He is the creator or Father. It was God who instilled the roles of a Father and Son upon us. He taught us what it means to be a Father, all the way down to the aspects of love a good father shares with his children. Because these roles were made Prevelant in the bible, and because we are to mirror these roles we are privy to the love of God.

The first has to with the early problem with God caring. Should God not care the intermediary would not exist.
The second major problem is the idea of us being led back to this truer state of freedom, oneness with the divine mind. Leading us away from Sin back to Eden.

I would disagree. Again eden repersents uninformed man. Only those who choose (Informed man) to go back to the relationship man had with God in eden will find the orginal intended "state of freedom" God intended for us to share. Not Eden, but Heaven.

I can't see it as being accomplished by Christ. He forgives our sins, but I don't see how he helps us do away with them.

Are you familiar with OT sacerfice?

Glad to hear it isn't heretical though I imagine I will never end up catholic, with my beliefs apparently being so different.

 

[ElijahW]

Alright I think I understand what you've said about the material and contemplative. Essentially we need both right? As well as potentially some Grace.

Need is kind of a strong word that would need explaining. Need for what and why? I think sure we need both to figure out the universe but that isn’t an issue within Christianity or Taoism. Grace comes into play with salvation but the Tao Te Ching doesn’t address any of that; though the internet says that some sects adopted ideas of an afterlife after Buddhism. Christianity is about getting the world prepared for the resurrection of the dead by our faith in Jesus as Lord that we have been Graced with and not earned.

I might be confused about Daoist philosophy, however the idea of being in a constant state of change, suggest to me a constant state of learning, of adapting to the world around us and going with the flow, along our natural path. I think that's what you've said too, just without the learning part...

“In pursuit of knowledge,
every day something is added.
In the practice of the Tao,
every day something is dropped.” #48

Daoism is more concerned about living in harmony with the world, than it is with understanding it. In Christianity the truth that needed to be shared was that Jesus was the Messiah, not a metaphysical truth or method to the reveal the truth. With Plato and the later Gnostics, there was a reacquiring/learning of the forms, that leads to salvation.

Thanks for the comparison of the two. I'm definitely not a huge fan of Plato, and have never really been, his denial of the understandability of the material disturbs me. I much prefer the Aristotelian view, with some bits of Plato splashed in. I think I understand why I prefer the Daoist philosophy to Platonic now.

I’m not sure what your disagreement is with what Plato is suggesting about matter.

 

[Iamblichus]

Man in Eden was netural. Eden repersented uninformed man, or man without a will of his own. It is our default or orgins, but it is not what was intended for us. (as we were always intended to choose our eternal fate for ourselves) If it were not the case, the tree of knoweledge would have never been planted in the center of the garden.

I would disagree. Again eden repersents uninformed man. Only those who choose (Informed man) to go back to the relationship man had with God in eden will find the orginal intended "state of freedom" God intended for us to share. Not Eden, but Heaven.

That's an interesting idea, and I'm not about to argue with you about it. Chances are you are correct. In which case I would like to amend my comment to the natural state of man being the sate of man in heaven. Man as God intended.

how so?

I feel like there is a disconnect between what I'm saying and what I've come to accept. Logically I know there must be a creator, yet at the same time, a part of me rebels against the idea.

s
As being created in the image of God we share attributes of our personality. That is why believers are often times refered to as children, as He is the creator or Father. It was God who instilled the roles of a Father and Son upon us. He taught us what it means to be a Father, all the way down to the aspects of love a good father shares with his children. Because these roles were made Prevelant in the bible, and because we are to mirror these roles we are privy to the love of God.

This was a point I was expecting to come up, and as I'm seeking knowledge my aim isn't some much to contest it but to wonder if it is good enough. Namely based on what I know about the creator, I have to reason to assume that we are created in his image. Now lets assume I am however willing to assume we are created in the image of God. What necessitates that God stayed around to love us, and didn't just spawn us and abandon us. Perhaps I'm asking for what cannot be easily proven. But what evidence is there for a loving God? If we don't look at scripture but just at the world?

Are you familiar with OT sacrifice?

I'm afraid not...care to enlighten me?

 

[Iamblichus]

Need is kind of a strong word that would need explaining. Need for what and why? I think sure we need both to figure out the universe but that isn’t an issue within Christianity or Taoism. Grace comes into play with salvation but the Tao Te Ching doesn’t address any of that; though the internet says that some sects adopted ideas of an afterlife after Buddhism. Christianity is about getting the world prepared for the resurrection of the dead by our faith in Jesus as Lord that we have been Graced with and not earned.

“In pursuit of knowledge,
every day something is added.
In the practice of the Tao,
every day something is dropped.” #48

Daoism is more concerned about living in harmony with the world, than it is with understanding it. In Christianity the truth that needed to be shared was that Jesus was the Messiah, not a metaphysical truth or method to the reveal the truth. With Plato and the later Gnostics, there was a reacquiring/learning of the forms, that leads to salvation.
I’m not sure what your disagreement is with what Plato is suggesting about matter.

Need, as is we need both our experience of the world and contemplation to reach God... ...Yeah perhaps that isn't quite right. I think that they are need for the philosophical path to God but the path based on just Faith and Love they need not exist.

I'm going to drop the whole Daoism thing. While it fascinates me, I as a knowledge seeker am not to debate the ideas being offered to me. As well I don't feel I'm informed enough to offer a proper debate. Perhaps once I've spent more time with the Tao Te Ching, I'll start a thread in the other religions sub-forum.

Plato suggests that being (the forms) are the only thing we can truly grasp. I think this is wrong. I think the only thing we can understand is the world of becoming, which is to say the material.

 

[hedrick]

Now I've given you all the background I can think to... care to lend me a hand. Where does Christ, and the love of God fit into this picture?

The basic approach of the OP seems to be philosophical. I think the farthest you can get with that is to know that there's something beyond the material world (and not all philosophical approaches will even give you that), and I agree that monotheism is probably also a reasonable conclusion.

So we know that there's an ultimate, but we know almost nothing about it. Christianity, and in fact Judaism and Islam, say that this ultimate disclosed himself to us. For Judaism the disclosure was through Torah, and more broadly the covenant and the whole history of Israel's interaction with God about it. Christianity adds Christ, who is a more personal form of self-disclosure.

Love only makes sense if the ultimate is personal and in fact cares about us. It's unusual to get this from the Dao or a purely philosophical approach, although I think a few Buddhists may have done so. But for Christians this comes from that self-disclosure that separates us from the more purely philosophical approach.