Escape Artists
October 02, 2014, 07:26:56 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Religion in PC020: Cup and Table  (Read 4275 times)
galatea
Silent
*
Posts: 1


« on: August 19, 2008, 12:53:26 PM »

What I'm kind of confused about is that if God's blood is in the world, that means that Christ came, and so God never really abandoned the world in the first place. Or am I misunderstanding?
« Last Edit: August 26, 2008, 07:27:53 PM by Heradel » Logged
wintermute
Hipparch
******
Posts: 930


What Would Batman Do?


« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2008, 01:19:13 PM »

What I'm kind of confused about is that if God's blood is in the world, that means that Christ came, and so God never really abandoned the world in the first place. Or am I misunderstanding?
It's not exactly a Christian metaphor. "God's blood" is basically an artefact created at the beginning of time and has nothing to do with Christ. It might as well have been God's soap-on-a-rope, really.
Logged

Science means that not all dreams can come true
Void Munashii
Matross
****
Posts: 267


twitter.com/VOIDMunashii


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2008, 03:58:37 PM »

What I'm kind of confused about is that if God's blood is in the world, that means that Christ came, and so God never really abandoned the world in the first place. Or am I misunderstanding?
It's not exactly a Christian metaphor. "God's blood" is basically an artefact created at the beginning of time and has nothing to do with Christ. It might as well have been God's soap-on-a-rope, really.

  But who would want to snort god's dried up soap? urgh!
Logged

"Mallville - A Journal of the Zombie Apocalypse"
http://mallvillestory.blogspot.com
hautdesert
Editor
*****
Posts: 313


« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2008, 04:29:41 PM »

  But who would want to snort god's dried up soap? urgh!


Mmmm, Zestfully clean!
Logged
deflective
Hipparch
******
Posts: 1171



« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2008, 07:14:00 PM »

And I loved the ending. I loved how both doctors wanted to use their one wish with god to have him tell them why he left, while Sigmund simply asked him not to leave. There's a world of difference in that alone.

to be fair, they didn't have the ability to travel back to the beginning of time either.
Logged
Sandikal
Matross
****
Posts: 287


« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2008, 08:03:48 PM »

What I'm kind of confused about is that if God's blood is in the world, that means that Christ came, and so God never really abandoned the world in the first place. Or am I misunderstanding?

The question of whether or not God has abandoned the world or is still here is a matter of divisiveness amongst people.  I think this story leaves that question unanswered.  I think that's fine. 

I do have to say that  I was really lukewarm about this story until the end.  I liked how everyone who wanted to find the cup for his or his own purposes didn't get to it.  Instead, the one person who had no idea what he wanted out of God found it and the only thing he could think of was to ask God to stay.  I loved that ending. 
Logged
csrster
Palmer
**
Posts: 31


« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2008, 03:40:39 AM »

As far as I know, only monotheistic religions call their god God, and I know of no monotheistic religion that believes God created and then abandoned the world.

There's a very slight parallel to the kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum.

Ogion the Silent
Logged
stePH
Actually has enough cowbell.
Hipparch
******
Posts: 3783

Cool story, bro!


« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2008, 08:05:44 AM »

As far as I know, only monotheistic religions call their god God, and I know of no monotheistic religion that believes God created and then abandoned the world.

There's a very slight parallel to the kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum.

Ogion the Silent

And again, there's Deism.
Logged

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising
eytanz
Moderator
*****
Posts: 4658



« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2008, 08:22:20 AM »

As far as I know, only monotheistic religions call their god God, and I know of no monotheistic religion that believes God created and then abandoned the world.

There's a very slight parallel to the kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum.

Ogion the Silent

And again, there's Deism.

Ryos's quote could be used to describe Deism, though I doubt most Deists would accept that God abandoned the universe - abandonment, as portrayed in the story, implies that there was some expectation of God playing a different role. And of course, the ending of the story (and quite a few other elements in it) are very strongly non-Deist in outlook. There's nowhere to fit a Holy Grail in Deism.
Logged
stePH
Actually has enough cowbell.
Hipparch
******
Posts: 3783

Cool story, bro!


« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2008, 09:54:00 AM »

Ryos's quote could be used to describe Deism, though I doubt most Deists would accept that God abandoned the universe - abandonment, as portrayed in the story, implies that there was some expectation of God playing a different role. And of course, the ending of the story (and quite a few other elements in it) are very strongly non-Deist in outlook. There's nowhere to fit a Holy Grail in Deism.

I was simply responding to ryos stated unawareness of any monotheistic belief that God created the universe and then abandoned it.  Deism fits that description (taking no further action regarding it constitutes "abandonment" to me.) The Holy Grail wasn't even in my thoughts.
Logged

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising
hautdesert
Editor
*****
Posts: 313


« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2008, 10:04:52 AM »


As far as I know, only monotheistic religions call their god God, and I know of no monotheistic religion that believes God created and then abandoned the world.

When I've read translations of, say, Greek stuff--The Iliad, say, or some of the plays--I've not infrequently run across references to "God."  Usually meaning Zeus, but still.

Romans did the same thing--I've read that a lot of educated Romans believed that the gods were essentially aspects or servants of one God.  These gods had real existence, and as a consequence were worshipped by other peoples under different names, but ultimately traced their origin and purpose back to "God."

I've also read things by Hindu writers referring to God.  The introduction to my paperback translation of the Baghavad Gita (I haven't gotten any farther than the introduction, yet!), for instance, refers to God fairly frequently and clearly means Vishnu/Krishna.  I suspect that a Shaivite would be comfortable referring to Shiva as "God" in the same way.
Logged
eytanz
Moderator
*****
Posts: 4658



« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2008, 11:12:15 AM »

Ryos's quote could be used to describe Deism, though I doubt most Deists would accept that God abandoned the universe - abandonment, as portrayed in the story, implies that there was some expectation of God playing a different role. And of course, the ending of the story (and quite a few other elements in it) are very strongly non-Deist in outlook. There's nowhere to fit a Holy Grail in Deism.

I was simply responding to ryos stated unawareness of any monotheistic belief that God created the universe and then abandoned it.  Deism fits that description (taking no further action regarding it constitutes "abandonment" to me.)

Not really - taking no further action isn't abandonment if no further action is required. I didn't abandon my high school studies, even though I took no further action regarding them ever since I graduated.
Logged
slic
Hipparch
******
Posts: 712


Stephen Lumini


« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2008, 03:44:45 PM »

Not really - taking no further action isn't abandonment if no further action is required. I didn't abandon my high school studies, even though I took no further action regarding them ever since I graduated.
True, though the analogy is strained.  I think there can be an arguement to be made that further action would be helpful at least, if not required, for something like the Universe. I know I could use some guidance every once in a while.

It also depends on your defintion of "required" - does a 10 year old require her parents?  With the basic necessities available (food, shelter, etc.), she certainly can feed, dress and reasonably take care of herself.  What about 15,16,17?  When is someone completely self-sustaining?
Logged
JoeFitz
Matross
****
Posts: 253



« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2008, 04:06:17 PM »

(taking no further action regarding it constitutes "abandonment" to me.)

Of course, if the perfect watchmaker (i.e. God) makes a perfect watch (i.e. the universe), taking further action would be a paradox.
Logged
eytanz
Moderator
*****
Posts: 4658



« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2008, 05:12:17 PM »

Not really - taking no further action isn't abandonment if no further action is required. I didn't abandon my high school studies, even though I took no further action regarding them ever since I graduated.
True, though the analogy is strained.  I think there can be an arguement to be made that further action would be helpful at least, if not required, for something like the Universe. I know I could use some guidance every once in a while.

How do you know whether you require guidance? That would assume that you know your purpose in the universe.

Quote
It also depends on your defintion of "required" - does a 10 year old require her parents?  With the basic necessities available (food, shelter, etc.), she certainly can feed, dress and reasonably take care of herself.  What about 15,16,17?  When is someone completely self-sustaining?

I would think that my homework analogy of the human/god relationship is *far* less strained than the parent/daughter analogy. Parents and their children, for one, are of the same species, and children ultimately grow up to be equal to their parents.
Logged
slic
Hipparch
******
Posts: 712


Stephen Lumini


« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2008, 11:24:25 PM »

Of course, if the perfect watchmaker (i.e. God) makes a perfect watch (i.e. the universe), taking further action would be a paradox.
I think a general knowledge of the Bible shows that God has indeed acted.  However, I believe you are implying that God doesn't act unless He sees the need.  To me, this is the real question alot of people have. Why does He not intervene now? 
Tying this back to the story, that would be my question.  Best intentions or mysterious plans we can't possibly understand, either way many of us feel abandoned - as did characters in the story.  Free will or otherwise, a clear, unquestionable sign from Him would go a long way to getting people to fix many ills, and knowing that, I wonder if He really does care. 
I would think that my homework analogy of the human/god relationship is *far* less strained than the parent/daughter analogy. Parents and their children, for one, are of the same species, and children ultimately grow up to be equal to their parents.
Based on your comments, your interest in Escape Pod, and a general nature, I will assume you to be intelligent and curious.  So while you didn't sit in on classes at your high school after graduating, you didn't cease all learning.  It's fair to say that you couldn't have learned all the information in all the classes available.  Therefore, simply working, living, interacting you have taken action, you have learned about at least some of your studies.  Also knowledge is without need, and you never had an inherent, what I believe to be an inherent, responsibility to the knowledge that you learned. These are some reasons why I feel the anaolgy is strained.  In my defence the language of the Bible is rife with the similarity of human families to a person's relationship with God.  We are refered to as His children.  We are to consider ourselves all brothers and sisters. As for the rest of the comment, I'd want to better understand your definition of equal before wading into that debate.

I'm sorry to go back to my analogy, but let me put my feelings this way.  My kids have free will, and they are required to do their own homework, I let them make their own mistakes.  Nevertheless, I still help them study when they ask, I still teach them things if it seems they don't understand. I could leave them to their own devices, and I know they would muddle through, gradute and go on with their lives, but what kind of parent would I be if I didn't help them when I could.
Logged
eytanz
Moderator
*****
Posts: 4658



« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2008, 02:59:39 AM »

slic - both myself and JoeFitz are trying to present a Deist point of view. It's a bit silly to counter with the bible, any more than if someone was trying to explain the basic principles of Christianity and I would argue the explanation must be wrong because it contradicts the Quoran.

Now, as for my homework analogy - I certainly agree that it *is* strained and only partially works. I'm just saying that it's a lot closer to a Deist view of the world than the Parent/Daughter analogy; I would certainly agree that the latter is the more sensible one from a Judeo-Christian point of view.

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that it's possible to have a world view where A - god created the world, B - that was the last direct intervention by god, and C - it cannot be classified as abandonment. I agree with you that taking such a view requires one to reject the bible, but there are approximately 4 billion people in the world that reject that particular text (though very few of them are Deists), so that shouldn't be too difficult to imagine.
Logged
slic
Hipparch
******
Posts: 712


Stephen Lumini


« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2008, 06:55:41 AM »

eytanz - Thanks for the clarification.  Looks like I missed the main point earlier.  As I understood Deist, it did include abandonment (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=deist), but looking a bit deeper that is only one interpretation.

It is good to remember there are many other ways of believing in God.
Logged
wintermute
Hipparch
******
Posts: 930


What Would Batman Do?


« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2008, 11:26:43 AM »

Eytanz: To continue the semantic quibbling, I'd argue that a significant portion (more than half?) of the non-Christians in the world have not rejected the Bible, any more than the majority of non-Scientologists have rejected Dianetics; rather, they've never been exposed to them to the extent that rejection or acceptance is possible.
Logged

Science means that not all dreams can come true
eytanz
Moderator
*****
Posts: 4658



« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2008, 12:05:16 PM »

Eytanz: To continue the semantic quibbling, I'd argue that a significant portion (more than half?) of the non-Christians in the world have not rejected the Bible, any more than the majority of non-Scientologists have rejected Dianetics; rather, they've never been exposed to them to the extent that rejection or acceptance is possible.

Yeah, good point (and actually, the "rejection vs. non-acceptance" is sort of the same distinction as the "abandonment vs. non-involvement" distinction, so I should have been more aware of it). I certainly did not mean "actively reject", but rather "fail to include in their belief system".
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!