Your position on naturalism

[rado84]

I'm a physical naturalist - a guy who believes men and women should be walking the earth completely natural - as nature meant for us to be: without clothes.

[robvalue]

People sure are uptight about wearing clothes.

Oh no, someone saw a naked person! It's all over!

[Ignorant]

[Ignorant]

Are you defining God, or saying one of His aspects or properties? [1] It would seem strange for "being, itself" to manifest as a burning bush, or to play party tricks with jugs of water. [2]  It would make much more sense for "a" being to do so. [3]

But "being" is a -ness that should be global-- any individual being, if it is separate, should not be "being, itself." [4] And since Jesus had place locality, and spoke as an individual entity rather than a global property, it would seem that Jesus must have been a man, somewhat like me, and cannot have been God in the sense that you are here defining it. [5]

1) Well, I don't think god is definable in a full sense. Like I've said elsewhere in the thread, the "closest" we get are things like, "being, itself", "goodness, itself", "truth, itself", "love, itself" etc. These are not aspects or properties. These are intended to say something about god's nature, but not everything. Saying everything about it is impossible.

2) YES! These are very strange things, indeed! There is a reason the Greco-Roman culture thought it was foolishness ! "But we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Cor 1:23). But to say it is strange is not to say it is something being-itself can't do. Even so, those things involve Judeo-Christian revelation, and so they move beyond the purely philosophical description of nature and god. I am not sure that is where this thread intended to go.

3) I'm not sure I follow you. What about a-being lends itself to doing strange things, over and against being-itself?

4) Yep. I agree.

5) Welcome to the central Christian mystery of the Incarnation: Being-itself united a human-nature to itself. Jesus is being-itself united to a human-being in a single person. It's the strangest of things. Being-itself lives, speaks, acts, IS... ALL as the man united to-itself as a single, divinely human person. Jesus is BOTH being-itself and a human-being, united in a person.

Had you encountered Jesus in 1st century Palestine, there would have been no purely rational way, in principle, to conclude that Jesus is being-itself in additition to being human. That would require faith. But the fact that such a movement requires faith would not therefore mean that "being, itself" doesn't exist.

[Ignorant]

Thank you for your observation.

You really don't like having your equivocations called out, do you?

I don't mind it at all, actually. In fact, I welcome it. But so far you have only made comments about my posts in general. Do you have a particular equivocation you'd like to talk about?

[bennyboy]

If "god is being, itself" and "god is love, itself," then "being is love, itself." I don't see why a human emotion would apply to non-human aspects of being. Can you elaborate?

[Ignorant]

If "god is being, itself" and "god is love, itself," then "being is love, itself."  I don't see why a human emotion would apply to non-human aspects of being.  Can you elaborate?

Perhaps love is more than merely human emotion? Can love describe certain action? Can love be something you do?

If love is merely a human emotion felt passively, then your difficulty is well understood. If there is more to love than mere human emotion, then maybe that's a step in the right direction.

What do you think?

[Whateverist]

This all sounds very Platonic, the idea that every instance of something owes its existence to the pure, genuine thing which is not an instance but the pure form itself. I've never found Plato very convincing in this.

[bennyboy]

If "god is being, itself" and "god is love, itself," then "being is love, itself."  I don't see why a human emotion would apply to non-human aspects of being.  Can you elaborate?

Perhaps love is more than merely human emotion? Can love describe certain action? Can love be something you do?

If love is merely a human emotion felt passively, then your difficulty is well understood. If there is more to love than mere human emotion, then maybe that's a step in the right direction.

What do you think?

I think "love" is a label for the strong feelings we have toward people.  If there's some other thing than that, it needs another name.

[Ignorant]

Perhaps love is more than merely human emotion? Can love describe certain action? Can love be something you do?

If love is merely a human emotion felt passively, then your difficulty is well understood. If there is more to love than mere human emotion, then maybe that's a step in the right direction.

What do you think?

I think "love" is a label for the strong feelings we have toward people.  If there's some other thing than that, it needs another name.

Well if that is the case, then "love, itself" cannot be equated with "being, itself", and your objection is a good one.