home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   talk.religion.buddhism      All aspects of Buddhism as religion and      111,200 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 109,407 of 111,200   
   Tang Huyen to Sanford M. Manley   
   God (was Re: Cortana says:)   
   16 Aug 16 08:15:04   
   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: tanghuyen@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/15/2016 9:55 AM, Sanford M. Manley wrote:   
      
   > Ha! Ha! HA! I finally caught him. Just like   
   > a pokemon. Tang is a Christian. (not that there   
   > is anything wrong with that)   
      
   Ha! Ha! HA!   
      
   You have made the same error as Fu, namely   
   to limit the word "God" to the one in Jewish   
   mythology, iow to push the "mono" claim all   
   the way to the very word "God", though the   
   Book itself allows other "Gods", but calls   
   them "false Gods".   
      
   I have said many times that when I talk about   
   God, I mean the Stoic God. Previously I wrote   
   (24 Oct 2009):   
      
   <>   
      
   As the former contributor Lee Rudolph said   
   about a "supreme being": <>. So, why   
   bother devoting time and energy to fight such a   
   fatuous idea? Why not let it wallow in its inanity   
   of its own accord and you (Sanfie dear) live your   
   life independently from it, without regard to it?   
      
   But returning to Lee's idea of the impossibility   
   of assigning any non-fatuous meaning to the   
   notion of any hierarchy among such "being"s   
   which is such that there need or could be any   
   "supreme" member of that hierarchy, one can   
   reverse that trope and use it positively: God,   
   and here I mean the Stoic God, is the total   
   whole, the thing of all things, therefore is too   
   big and diffuse to have any non-fatuous   
   meaning assigned to him, because we can   
   have a non-fatuous concept of something   
   lesser than the whole, a part of the whole, but   
   the whole is too big and diffuse to fit into any of   
   our concept. Even to point to any such whole is   
   a measure of desperation, insofar as it points to   
   nothing that we can point to. Just that is the   
   Stoic God, the referenceless ultimate.   
      
   The bottom drops out, all footing slips away,   
   and such state is the Stoic God -- also the   
   Buddha's emptiness. "What and what they think   
   it, it is otherwise."   
      
   Tang Huyen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca