Saturday, August 29, 2009

Interview with God (part II)

Part II

Interviewer: What about divine intervention? We often hear about the suffering of innocents and we are told that it is the "will of God". Can this be true?

God: In fact, I leave fate of each and every individual to random chance. I don't interfere because how can I favor one individual above the other? I am not a fickle god.
To selectively give misfortune to one individual whilst giving misfortune to another isn't my style. I give life, shouldn't that be enough?. Then I let the random elements take their course. I see beauty in that, don't you?

Interviewer: If everything is random then why should humans acknowledge your existence?
God: I don't need humans to validate or acknowledge my existence. It makes no difference to me either way.

Interviewer: The question of the soul. Do humans have a soul?
God: Some do and some don't.

Interviewer: What about spirituality?
God: Those people who want a dialogue with me are free to do so. If others don't want that, then so be it.
The fact is that I gave humans the freedom of choice, they have no limitations except what the forces of random luck throw up to either assist or hinder their pursuits.

Interviewer:So, you're saying that morality is an option?
God: Indeed it is. That's why the righteous person doesn't have any advantage over the criminal in their lot. Fate is random and non - discriminatory.

Interviewer: So what is the meaning of life?
God: Ah, if I answered that then there would be no questions left. There are as many answers as there are stars in the universe. I give you the choice to do as you like, to pursue meaning or not, to be moral or not. I do not judge, interfere or manipulate or give favor. The misconception is that I am a meddlesome God, like those gods of Greek mythology.

Interviewer: So you don't need people to worship you?
God: Why would I? Do I have a huge ego that needs to be nourished? Do I have insecurities that need to be reassured? Don't be silly.

21 comments:

beamish said...

"My God isn't short on cash, mister." - Bono (of U2)

Lexcen said...

Tell that to Benny Hinn.

Jen aka Pinky said...

Some don't have a soul?
How is that...possible?
I can see how some neglect the soul.

How do you define soul, Lex?

Jen aka Pinky said...

THE soul, not soul.

That would be a post about something else entirely! ;-)

beamish said...

You hear about Benny Hinn all the way down under in Australia?

I didn't realize that his "ministry" was so widespread.

Lexcen said...

A new age definition of the term "Soul" by philosopher Jed Kay. The collective influence of all individual parts that make up a whole. Soul is a relative term and can apply to almost any compound object that is formed up from smaller independent objects. For example: a persons soul is the collective influence of their memories, age, logical perception and all other physical and mental aspects that make them a whole person. All these aspects and their resulting effects combined, influence how he or she will make decisions on a day to day basis. The Soul of a country is the collective influence of all the people, events, geographic aspects, weather etc. The Soul of a certain genre of music is the collective influence of each instrument, how each musician plays their instrument, singing style etc. In short, without consciousness I doubt that there can be a soul. If individuals have no conscience then they are devoid of soul. I would not consider an extremely evil individual to have a soul. Hitler or Stalin for example. Can you imagine them having eternal life? Can you imagine them being re-incarnated for example?

FJ said...

Sounds like Jed has been adapting Platonisms and substituting the word "soul" for the "genera" (as opposed to the "species" which differentiates) being classified in the taxonomy.

Jen aka Pinky said...

That's not how I define the soul.

And yes, I can imagine Hitler having an eternal life. Where? I don't know.

The segues into the topic of: Are we all capable of evil? And how evil is too evil? Where is that line drawn?

It is extremely frightening to witness an individual who seems to have no conscience. And it seems to me that this problem is increasing in frequency.

Lexcen said...

FJ, do all species have a soul?
If not then why not?
Jen, the thought of Hitler having an eternal life as well as a soul scares me.

FJ said...

As a Platonist I'd have to answer in the affirmative. All living creatures have a measure of soul in them.

FJ said...

Although I don't believe in the monad per se, (I'm more inclined to go with the eternal Platonic elements), here's the essential ontological concept (ontology being a theory of being).

Essence preceeds Existence. ;-)

FJ said...

...and here's the Platonic equivalent (from Timaeus)

And so the thought of God made a God in the image of a perfect body, having intercourse with himself and needing no other, but in every part harmonious and self-contained and truly blessed. The soul was first made by him—the elder to rule the younger; not in the order in which our wayward fancy has led us to describe them, but the soul first and afterwards the body. God took of the unchangeable and indivisible and also of the divisible and corporeal, and out of the two he made a third nature, essence, which was in a mean between them, and partook of the same and the other, the intractable nature of the other being compressed into the same. Having made a compound of all the three, he proceeded to divide the entire mass into portions related to one another in the ratios of 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 8, 27...

FJ said...

The real difference between Platonic Theory and Leibniz's monadology is that Leibniz calls his monad G_d (which Plato correspondingly labels a mixed compound of "essence") and Plato places G_d as different/distinct and outside/apart from the universe as it's cause.

from the Jowett Summary of Plato's, "Philebus"

to determine which of them partakes most of the higher nature, we must know under which of the four unities or elements they respectively fall. These are, first, the infinite; secondly, the finite; thirdly, the union of the two; fourthly, the cause of the union. Pleasure is of the first, wisdom or knowledge of the third class, while reason or mind is akin to the fourth or highest.

FJ said...

The Egyptian equivalent to Western/ more Platonic concepts of soul would likely be the triangular "ka" as opposed the the more "rectangular" earthly elements of the physical body or the divine "circular".

Jen aka Pinky said...

It scares me, too, Lex.

I think that some people abandon their soul (spirit) to the extreme. At that point it seems like nothing good can come from the person. No reason, kindness, sympathy, or mercy.

But I believe that each person is born with a soul.

FJ said...

Christians are more inclined to think of "soul" as the Egyptian "ba" and think of the Holy Spirit as "ka"... Platonists just think of soul as "ka".

FJ said...

The Muslims like to think they can "stretch" their "triangular" souls.

Westerners think more in terms os souls being equal and the "physical body" being stretched. ;-)

Although some Westerners also think that soul come in "rectangular" and "semi-circular" shapes (note the window shapes on the 1st floor) depending the amount to which the "truth" bends to "justice". ;-)

Lexcen said...

FJ, there's nothing like a start to my morning than to read the depth and breadth of your knowledge on The Soul;-)

FJ said...

erratum above - "triangular" vice "rectangular".

Rectangles/ squares are "earthly" elements.

FJ said...

tmw does the "Christian" soul much better than I can... you should get her to tell you what she knows on the subject.

FJ said...

Platonists like me are more into sacred geometry.

Labels