Something I found which was written by a Christian Mystic

Northclare

God is an atheist in that he doesn't believe in our divine images of him.
He is an atheist.
Atheism of this kind can be a complete kind of purification.
Letting go of all images of God can clear the way to renewed credence in God.

How can we see that for all its splendour,the Bible has long been a chief source of atheism among us ?
So what to do.
Outright secession wouldn't be good for us.
But neither is allegiance to what isn't working for us, good for us.

Maybe we should risk resurrective release from Biblical preconception.

Onesimus

Something I found which was written by a Christian Mystic

Yup that looks more like it.

Northclare

Onesimus wrote: »

Something I found which was written by a Christian Mystic

Yup that looks more like it.

Typical of you,you haven't a clue about Christian Mysticism have you ?

There's wisdom in that writing,and that mystic has way more depth in one strand of his DNA than you have in your response.

:S

martinedwards

Northclare wrote: »

God is an atheist in that he doesn't believe in our divine images of him.

I disagree with this.

manys a strict sect says "no images of God"

like the Jews for instance.......

doesn't make them athiests.

and if the opening set up statement of the piece is flawed theen it all falls down.

Maybe we should risk resurrective release from Biblical preconception.

the Bible is what God gave us to know him.

any other "resurrective release" needs to be cross referenced to the bible to see if it can be supported.

the reason the reformation happened was that over centuries of decline and abuse the church had drifted miles away from the bible. Luther asked for these flaws to be discussed and explained.

I'll stick with the bible, and a God who believes in himself, thanks!

doctoremma

Northclare wrote: »

God is an atheist in that he doesn't believe in our divine images of him.

I suspect if God exists, he might well be a theist, otherwise he wouldn't believe he existed himself. I'm with Descartes on this one.

Or perhaps, by some rational thinking on the manner of faith and belief, he poofs himself out of existence?

Northclare

Well if God is God almighty then he doesn't need to believe in God because he is God.

Is it not better to leave God look after Gods business,some mystics say it's better to let go of God,then you might have a better of getting to know God.

None of us have ever seen God,we don't know what God looks like so why should we conceive images of God if we don't know what God looks like.

The mystics writings are not dismissing God they are more about experiencing God on a much deeper level.

I do think there's more ways to God than one way......

Northclare

doctoremma wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

God is an atheist in that he doesn't believe in our divine images of him.

I suspect if God exists, he might well be a theist, otherwise he wouldn't believe he existed himself. I'm with Descartes on this one.

Or perhaps, by some rational thinking on the manner of faith and belief, he poofs himself out of existence?

Dr Emma in all fairness if I said black was black you would say it was pink.

doctoremma

Northclare wrote: »

Dr Emma in all fairness if I said black was black you would say it was pink.

Don't flatter yourself. I'm still reeling from your last assault.

doctoremma

To clarify (although I don't believe it necessarily as at least one other poster - who believes in god - has reached a similar conclusion):

Anyone who says someone is atheist because they don't believe in images is misunderstanding or misusing the word "atheist" (and its etymological group). It sets up the whole passage up ona false premise. I get what the message is supposed to be but it's superfluously wordy and almost like an attempt to sound clever.

Northclare

doctoremma wrote: »

To clarify (although I don't believe it necessarily as at least one other poster - who believes in god - has reached a similar conclusion):

Anyone who says someone is atheist because they don't believe in images is misunderstanding or misusing the word "atheist" (and its etymological group). It sets up the whole passage up ona false premise. I get what the message is supposed to be but it's superfluously wordy and almost like an attempt to sound clever.

Well the guy who wrote that was fairly clever alright,it's not a dig at Christianity or Atheism.

The same writer wrote,
Doctor: You see her eyes are open.
Gentlewoman: Ay but their sense is shut.
Doctor:What is it she does now ?Look how she rubs her hands.
Gentlewoman:It is an accustomed action with her,to seem thus washing her hands.
I have known her to continue in this a quarter of an hour.

doctoremma

Northclare wrote: »

Well the guy who wrote that was fairly clever alright,it's not a dig at Christianity or Atheism.

The same writer wrote,
Doctor: You see her eyes are open.
Gentlewoman: Ay but their sense is shut.
Doctor:What is it she does now ?Look how she rubs her hands.
Gentlewoman:It is an accustomed action with her,to seem thus washing her hands.
I have known her to continue in this a quarter of an hour.

In which parts of your opening post are you quoting Shakespeare?

Penn

Northclare wrote: »

Well the guy who wrote that was fairly clever alright,it's not a dig at Christianity or Atheism.

It's not that it's a dig at Christianity or Atheism, it's that it's a misuse of the word Atheist. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods. Therefore, God could not possibly be an atheist.

18AD

Penn wrote: »

An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods. Therefore, God could not possibly be an atheist.

Where does that conclusion come from? Is it because God isn't a person, so he can't be an atheist because only people are atheists?

Or maybe because God can't have beliefs because he only has knowledge, so he can't be an atheist?

Or both?

doctoremma

18AD wrote: »

Where does that conclusion come from? Is it because God isn't a person, so he can't be an atheist because only people are atheists?

Or maybe because God can't have beliefs because he only has knowledge, so he can't be an atheist?

Or both?

God is a god, and assuming he believes himself to exist, he must therefore believe in the existence of at least one god (himself). Therefore, he cannot be an atheist.

Gumbi

doctoremma wrote: »

18AD wrote: »

Where does that conclusion come from? Is it because God isn't a person, so he can't be an atheist because only people are atheists?

Or maybe because God can't have beliefs because he only has knowledge, so he can't be an atheist?

Or both?

God is a god, and assuming he believes himself to exist, he must therefore believe in the existence of at least one god (himself). Therefore, he cannot be an atheist.

He knows everything. If you know that you exist, then it follows that you believe that you exist (I would argue that belie is not a choice). Therefore, God is not an atheist.

18AD

So belief = knowledge? Or rather knowledge entails belief? That seems suspect.

If I know I have an apple I don't also believe I have an apple. Belief entails some doubt. In fact all the definitions (on dictionary.com ) of belief entail some uncertainty.

doctoremma

18AD wrote: »

So belief = knowledge? Or rather knowledge entails belief? That seems suspect.

If I know I have an apple I don't also believe I have an apple. Belief entails some doubt. In fact all the definitions (on dictionary.com ) of belief entail some uncertainty.

Gumbi's correction was better then my original.

It's fair to assume that god absolutely KNOWS that he exists.

So god has no beliefs of a theistic nature. Therefore, not atheist. Or even theist.

PDN

Northclare wrote: »

The mystics writings are not dismissing God they are more about experiencing God on a much deeper level.

I do think there's more ways to God than one way......

I think you're confusing depth with new-ageish psychobabble.

It's like the quote in another thread about the moon burning a hawk in flight. It sounds 'spiritual' and profound - but when you were asked what it meant you didn't have a clue. And no-one has a clue what it means, because it's meaningless twaddle.

Human beings have an inbuilt attraction to any kind of mysterious 'knowledge' that puts them in an elite. This was the essence of ancient Gnosticism.

The problem is that the Emperors New Clothes effect can cause us to hear something that it is nonsense, yet to say, "Wow! This must be really deep because I don't understand it - but it sure sounds good."

So I'll be the little boy who shouted out that the king was naked.

The moon doesn't burn hawks.

People who reject images of God aren't atheists.

If somebody could explain exactly what they meant by "resurrective release from Biblical preconception" then we could probably discuss it. But I suspect it is a phrase that is deliberately couched as ambiguously as possible so as to sound spiritual, but yet to evade any discussion.

Gumbi

18AD wrote: »

So belief = knowledge? Or rather knowledge entails belief? That seems suspect.

If I know I have an apple I don't also believe I have an apple. Belief entails some doubt. In fact all the definitions (on dictionary.com ) of belief entail some uncertainty.

He believes because he knows. You cannot disbelieve what you know to be true.

doctoremma

18AD wrote: »

If I know I have an apple I don't also believe I have an apple. Belief entails some doubt. In fact all the definitions (on dictionary.com ) of belief entail some uncertainty.

This will descend into solipsism but I'm not sure you can actually "know" you have an apple. I mean, you "know" that you have an apple in as meaningful as sense as any - your brain perceives an apple in your hand - but can you objectively "know" you have an apple. Hence, I'd be happy to say that I "believe" that I possess an apple, short of absolutely "knowing" I have an apple.

18AD

doctoremma wrote: »

Gumbi's correction was better then my original.

It's fair to assume that god absolutely KNOWS that he exists.

So god has no beliefs of a theistic nature. Therefore, not atheist. Or even theist.

I think that would make him a gnostic.

doctoremma wrote:

This will descend into solipsism but I'm not sure you can actually "know" you have an apple. I mean, you "know" that you have an apple in as meaningful as sense as any - your brain perceives an apple in your hand - but can you objectively "know" you have an apple. Hence, I'd be happy to say that I "believe" that I possess an apple, short of absolutely "knowing" I have an apple.

You'd be right. Poor comparison on my part. But I'd assume that for God there would be none of this solipsistic doubt or worry of being a brain in a vat.

Gumbi wrote:

He believes because he knows. You cannot disbelieve what you know to be true.

You don't believe something because you know it. If we go by a possibly outdated definition of knoweledge as justified true belief you see that here belief comes before knowledge. But I doubt that God has to justify his knowledge to anyone. I'd say rather the question of God having beliefs doesn't make sense. Because if he has knowledge he doesn't believe in his knowledge, as that would mean he had some possible doubts about them. But he doesn't disbelieve it either. Belief simply doesn't enter the picture at all.

Doctor DooM

18AD wrote: »

I think that would make him a gnostic.

A Gnostic Theist. He'd be sure he exists, being him. As opposed to a Gnostic Atheist, who would be sure god doesn't exist.

Gnosticism and Theism are not opposite ends of the same axis.

Onesimus

Northclare wrote: »

Typical of you,you haven't a clue about Christian Mysticism have you ?

There's wisdom in that writing,and that mystic has way more depth in one strand of his DNA than you have in your response.

:S

No I am very much in the dark when it comes to Christian Mysticism. But I know rambling Philosophy when I see it.

Anyway, who is this Christian mystic and whats the source of his/her poem? where did you get it?

Did you write this yourself perhaps and have given yourself the title of all holy mystical man of north clare?

Gumbi

18AD wrote: »

doctoremma wrote: »

Gumbi's correction was better then my original.

It's fair to assume that god absolutely KNOWS that he exists.

So god has no beliefs of a theistic nature. Therefore, not atheist. Or even theist.

I think that would make him a gnostic.

doctoremma wrote:

This will descend into solipsism but I'm not sure you can actually "know" you have an apple. I mean, you "know" that you have an apple in as meaningful as sense as any - your brain perceives an apple in your hand - but can you objectively "know" you have an apple. Hence, I'd be happy to say that I "believe" that I possess an apple, short of absolutely "knowing" I have an apple.

You'd be right. Poor comparison on my part. But I'd assume that for God there would be none of this solipsistic doubt or worry of being a brain in a vat.

Gumbi wrote:

He believes because he knows. You cannot disbelieve what you know to be true.

You don't believe something because you know it. If we go by a possibly outdated definition of knoweledge as justified true belief you see that here belief comes before knowledge. But I doubt that God has to justify his knowledge to anyone. I'd say rather the question of God having beliefs doesn't make sense. Because if he has knowledge he doesn't believe in his knowledge, as that would mean he had some possible doubts about them. But he doesn't disbelieve it either. Belief simply doesn't enter the picture at all.

Is belief not a subset of knowledge? As in, there are many things I believe that I can never be certain of. But those few things of which I am certain I believe in, too. Does that make sense?

Doctor DooM

Gumbi wrote: »

Is belief not a subset of knowledge?

Nope.

I believe a taxi driver is going to pick me up after work tonight. He's never let me down before.

I don't know for sure he will though.

sbsquarepants

Northclare wrote: »

God is an atheist in that he doesn't believe in our divine images of him.
He is an atheist.
.

Northclare wrote: »

Well if God is God almighty then he doesn't need to believe in God because he is God.

God can't "believe" anything. If he is all knowing - he knows all, belief is not possible when you know for a fact. When i was younger i believed in santa, now i don't - Why? because i know the facts, belief is no longer an option.
Same thing applies to god. If there is a god, he doesn't believe anything, presume anything, assume anything, wish for, hope for or worry about anything. That's the thing about omniscience - you know the outcome of everything - i bet he doesn't even bother watching the world cup!

dvae

god dose not want images made of himself, because god wants all worship to be directed towards him and not a statue or picture.

Gumbi

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

God is an atheist in that he doesn't believe in our divine images of him.
He is an atheist.
.

Northclare wrote: »

Well if God is God almighty then he doesn't need to believe in God because he is God.

God can't "believe" anything. If he is all knowing - he knows all, belief is not possible when you know for a fact. When i was younger i believed in santa, now i don't - Why? because i know the facts, belief is no longer an option.
Same thing applies to god. If there is a god, he doesn't believe anything, presume anything, assume anything, wish for, hope for or worry about anything. That's the thing about omniscience - you know the outcome of everything - i bet he doesn't even bother watching the world cup!

I'm tryin to work my way round the terminology here. You don't know for certain that Santa does not exist - you just believe that he doesn't based on the lack of evidence.

Of the few things one can be sure of, is it not fair to say that one must believe on them because thy know them to be true?

Gumbi

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

Is belief not a subset of knowledge?

Nope.

I believe a taxi driver is going to pick me up after work tonight. He's never let me down before.

I don't know for sure he will though.

Sorry, I meant the other way around.

18AD

Nay. Belief implies uncertainty.

Knowledge implies certainty.

You can't believe something you know for certain. That would mean you are uncertain of your certainty.

Northclare

Well Eckhart said, A God I can understand isn't a God I have no interest in.
And for him does that close the Bible does it not ?
Even if it leaves it open as tribal history,it closes it as theology...

I'm reading Night Journey to Buddh Gaia by John Moriarty....

It's some read it Goes right through the ages of legend, myths,mysticism religion etc

John died with the sacrament of the God he grew up with.

If you have an interest in Christianity and It's mysticism etc Night Journey to Buddh Gaia is well worth the read.

I was very sick there a few year's ago almost at deaths door, I started to read Johns Books and felt like he listened to me, because a lot of his writing seems to mirror my questioning.

Not for everyone but I like his books.

sbsquarepants

Gumbi wrote: »

I'm tryin to work my way round the terminology here. You don't know for certain that Santa does not exist - you just believe that he doesn't based on the lack of evidence.

Of the few things one can be sure of, is it not fair to say that one must believe on them because thy know them to be true?

It's easy to get lost in semantics with these type of discussions, but i feel safe enough saying i "know" santa doesn't exist, but in any case my point is that absolute knowledge expressly forbids belief - belief has to involve some level of faith, it has to be a prediction of sorts. If you know everything, it's not a belief, it's just another thing you know.

Gumbi

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

I'm tryin to work my way round the terminology here. You don't know for certain that Santa does not exist - you just believe that he doesn't based on the lack of evidence.

Of the few things one can be sure of, is it not fair to say that one must believe on them because thy know them to be true?

It's easy to get lost in semantics with these type of discussions, but i feel safe enough saying i "know" santa doesn't exist, but in any case my point is that absolute knowledge expressly forbids belief - belief has to involve some level of faith, it has to be a prediction of sorts. If you know everything, it's not a belief, it's just another thing you know.

I don't think I agree here. I also feel safe in "knowing" that Santa doesn't exist. I am, however, using "know" in a practical sense. I can't declare with absolute certainty that he doesn't exist, because I don't know that.
Belief doesn't necessarily imply uncertainty. Sure, for almost everything, it does. But not all.

Northclare

Onesimus wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Typical of you,you haven't a clue about Christian Mysticism have you ?

There's wisdom in that writing,and that mystic has way more depth in one strand of his DNA than you have in your response.

:S

No I am very much in the dark when it comes to Christian Mysticism. But I know rambling Philosophy when I see it.

Anyway, who is this Christian mystic and whats the source of his/her poem? where did you get it?

Did you write this yourself perhaps and have given yourself the title of all holy mystical man of north clare?

What's this mystical man from North Clare thing about,looks like your getting personal now,typical behavior of a Catholic who throws a personal dig.

With you being all holier than other posters on this forum, why the dig about my geographic location and mysticism ?

I'll tell you one thing your knowledge of Christian mysticism and it's importance leaves a lot to be desired.

There's more to Christianity than Rosaries and worshiping statutes and Idols etc

sbsquarepants

Gumbi wrote: »

I don't think I agree here. I also feel safe in "knowing" that Santa doesn't exist. I am, however, using "know" in a practical sense. I can't declare with absolute certainty that he doesn't exist, because I don't know that.
Belief doesn't necessarily imply uncertainty. Sure, for almost everything, it does. But not all.

Aren't you contradicting yourself there?
You're saying you can't declare with absolute certainty that santa doesn't exist and that you use the word "know" only in a practical sense because you don't actually know - therfore you believe. And the reason you believe, rather than know for a stone cold irrefutable fact is the uncertainty? But then you say belief doesn't imply uncertainty?

By the way - I could be reading you all wrong - i've only just walked into work and at this point of the morning certainty is not my strong point!!:)

sbsquarepants

Northclare wrote: »

What's this mystical man from North Clare thing about,looks like your getting personal now,typical behavior of a Catholic who throws a personal dig.

With you being all holier than other posters on this forum, why the dig about my geographic location and mysticism ?

I'll tell you one thing your knowledge of Christian mysticism and it's importance leaves a lot to be desired.

There's more to Christianity than Rosaries and worshiping statutes and Idols etc

I't not often i find myself standing up for hardcore christians, but i think in this case you're barking up the wrong tree. I've read your passage a few times and i have to say, i find nothing deep or mysterious about it - it's basically meaningless waffle as far as i can tell.
Who is the author by the way? I wouldn't mind googling them to see if i'm being fair or not in that assesment!

Northclare

Well if you're saying its meaningless waffle,then thats a reflection of you ability to read something and process it somewhere up there along with your version of meaningless waffle.

Scroll up fgs....

PDN

Northclare wrote: »

Well if you're saying its meaningless waffle,then thats a reflection of you ability to read something and process it somewhere up there along with your version of meaningless waffle.

Scroll up fgs....

If you don't think it's meaningless waffle, then why not try explaining it in your own words. That way others might even discuss it with you.

Northclare

PDN wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Well if you're saying its meaningless waffle,then thats a reflection of you ability to read something and process it somewhere up there along with your version of meaningless waffle.

Scroll up fgs....

If you don't think it's meaningless waffle, then why not try explaining it in your own words. That way others might even discuss it with you.

Hi PDN sorry but I put it up here so someone who knows a bit about mysticism might translate it,maybe I should have worded it better.

sbsquarepants

You've a peculiar way of asking for help NorthClare, that's for sure!

Northclare

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You've a peculiar way of asking for help NorthClare, that's fo sure!

Thanks Sbsquarepants every Cripple has his walk,and I'm sure of that...

In future ill make sure I present my posts better,afterall I'm not great with a pen

doctoremma

I tried Googling parts of the original post but only got a hit to this thread. NC, you claim the same writer penned the Macbeth lines quoted in later post. Are you therefore saying that the original OP was written by Shakespeare? Or is it YOUR interpretation of something Shakespeare wrote? Obviously, it might be easier to have the discussion you desire if we have the original passage to see what we think it means.

Northclare

doctoremma wrote: »

I tried Googling parts of the original post but only got a hit to this thread. NC, you claim the same writer penned the Macbeth lines quoted in later post. Are you therefore saying that the original OP was written by Shakespeare? Or is it YOUR interpretation of something Shakespeare wrote? Obviously, it might be easier to have the discussion you desire if we have the original passage to see what we think it means.

Sorry Dr Emma I meant to say John Moriarty penned the Macbeth lines a few page's after the quote about God being an Atheist.

Doesn't Dawkins say everyone is capable of being an Atheist,such as I don't believe in Thor.

Gumbi

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Gumbi wrote: »

I don't think I agree here. I also feel safe in "knowing" that Santa doesn't exist. I am, however, using "know" in a practical sense. I can't declare with absolute certainty that he doesn't exist, because I don't know that.
Belief doesn't necessarily imply uncertainty. Sure, for almost everything, it does. But not all.

Aren't you contradicting yourself there?
You're saying you can't declare with absolute certainty that santa doesn't exist and that you use the word "know" only in a practical sense because you don't actually know - therfore you believe. And the reason you believe, rather than know for a stone cold irrefutable fact is the uncertainty? But then you say belief doesn't imply uncertainty?

By the way - I could be reading you all wrong - i've only just walked into work and at this point of the morning certainty is not my strong point!!:)

When I say "I know Santa doesn't exist" I don't mean it literally. My actual claim is that I cannot ever know for for that Santa does not exist, but that all the evidence points to the fact that he doesn't, and therefore that is what I believe.

And I said, belief doesn't NECCESSARILY impl uncertainty. (Can't do italics as I'm on my iPhone )

doctoremma

Northclare wrote: »

Sorry Dr Emma I meant to say John Moriarty penned the Macbeth lines a few page's after the quote about God being an Atheist.

Not sure that we should be crediting Macbeth to the wrong author?

Northclare wrote: »

Doesn't Dawkins say everyone is capable of being an Atheist,such as I don't believe in Thor.

Well, it's a fairly obvious conclusion (just to avoid the accusation that people slavishly follow Dawkins). Sure, everyone is atheist with regard to the vast majority of gods, but I think the term "atheist" might be more reasonably used to describe someone who doesn't believe in ANY gods (I have recently stated my dislike for this "quantitative" argument for atheism).

Northclare

This is the voice of John Moriarty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84gO8cXeDfY&feature=channel&list=UL



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moriarty_(writer)

The Book I read


http://www.lilliputpress.ie/book/19088959/moriarty_john-night_journey_to_buddh_gaia.html

'White-water rafting with John Moriarty down the canyons of the collective psyche, readers will have their preconceptions and perceptions scoured to a dazzle ... Even dissenters like myself can be profoundly grateful to John Moriarty, for he has gone farther down the backstairs to hell and up the front steps to heaven than most of us dare to follow.' - TIM ROBINSON


http://www.johnmoriarty.info/publications/oneeveningineden.php

sbsquarepants

Gumbi wrote: »

When I say "I know Santa doesn't exist" I don't mean it literally. My actual claim is that I cannot ever know for for that Santa does not exist, but that all the evidence points to the fact that he doesn't, and therefore that is what I believe.

And I said, belief doesn't NECCESSARILY impl uncertainty. (Can't do italics as I'm on my iPhone )

I can see where you're going with it, but i still think it's a contradiction. Belief does imply uncertainty, even in this example. Now obviously in this case it's a tiny uncertainty, so small as we can dismiss for all intents and purposes in our human sphere of reference- but technically it's still there..... so i believe:)

Northclare

Some of Johns writing sums up Western Culture and why we think act and behave in the way we do.

After all Christianity has feast days around the same time as Pagan feast days etc.

He wrote a great book called Invoking Ireland thats well worth a read.

Maybe I spend too much time in the Burren walking the green roads,the beaches and have a lot of time to think thats why I like reading books by people like John Moriarty.

He once said he felt like he had to hand over his Passport when he arrived in Killarney after he came down from place he lived near Mangerton