12107, objective proofs?|
Posted by osoclasi, Wed Jul-18-01 07:24 PM
>>1) Is this the God in which
>>you believe in?
>Do I believe that God is
>IMMANENT and TRANSCENDENT? Yes.
>>2) If so why? Give me
>>some plusible evidence at your
>Please clarify this question. What is
Response: Inother words what are some objective proofs of the God you believe in. Like for the God of the bible I might use the cosmological argument of the teleological argument to prove the existance of God. What are some of yours? This way God doesn't become subjective.
>>3) How does this God handle
>What is "evil?" I can
>tell by the way in
>which you are asking these
>questions that you are conceiving
>"God" from the confines of
>your Christian perspective.
Response: Evil is not a substance but a corruption of the good substance that God made. Evil is like rust on a car, It is the lack of anything good. It exist only in another but not in itself.
>1) You said "this God,"
>where "this" implies specifity.
>To specify "God" for all
>Afrakans is erroneous. From
>the beginning, I implied that
>"God is IMMANENT..." was only
>a "concept" not any particular
>"diety." In comparison I
>used the "God is SEPARATE
>from His creations" - concept
>found among "Western" religions (eg.
>Judaism,Christianity, Islam, ancient Greek religion,
>etc.). Correct if I
>am wrong but "Gods" within
>these religions are not all
>the same. Is Jehovah
>the same as Allah to
>you? Or is Allah
>the same as Zeus?
Response: No God of the bible is not the God of Islam or Zues. However if God is immanent is only a concept and not a being then I guess this is subjective.
>Afrakans all the Divine by different
>names and may also possess
>varying conceptions of IT.
>I even pointed this out
>in the post "Diversity in
>ONE (cont.)" :
Response: No I didn't see that sight, I didn't come on this sight until "origins of Christianity". Actually I don't even read all of the post. I just look for the ones that look like it is talking about theology and even then I might miss it.
>"In closing, let me say that
>two Akan philosophers that I
>referenced, Kwasi Wiredu and Kwame
>Gyeke, both agree on the
>Akan consensus of “two heads
>are better than one.” This
>statement implies that no one’s
>explanation is taken as final.
Response: That was cool.
>Even among one group there ideas
>varied, which is acceptable within
>Afrakan theology as explained here:
>From "Diversity in ONE"
>"One of the major effects of
>the “God is IMMANENT” concept,
>is “diversity.” “Diversity” in the
>sense that one’s concept of
>the divine and the universe
>INCLUSIVE versus being mutually EXCLUSIVE.
Response: But that makes it subjective. If I have a concept of God and you have a concept of God then there is no objective reasoning to agree with either one of us. My view of God is objective.It's not my own reasoning
>If God is truly IMMANENT
>and TRANSCENDENT then any conception
>of IT can POTENTIALLY be
>valid. *POTENTIALLY meaning that if
>the conception of “God” does
>not further establish an adequate
>order and structure for the
>optimal survival for its adherents
>then it is useless.
Response: But whatever has potiential needs to be actualized or effected by another. And since God is the cause of all things there is nothing beyond him to actualize any potiential. Nor can God actualize his own potiential to exist, since this would mean he caused his own existance.
>diversity causes little if not
>any emphasis on the either-or
>dichotomy in the conception of
>ideas that is found in
>Western thought. Thus right or
>wrong is not defined by
>some unchanging abstract source, but
>rather it is defined by
>the consensus of the group.
>This simple but pivotal point
>can be seen in a
>number of discrepancies, misconceptions, and
>misunderstandings held between Western and
Response: Yes, this is very insightful and I follow you, but I still need something objective.
>So I am interpreting that you
>mean "Show me something that
>furnishes proof that is worthy
>to believe in, concerning your
>assertion that God is IMMANENT
>Well according to my (Afrakan) standards
>"suitable" proof (each post has
>been designed to show how
>this concept resides within various
>Afrakan belief systems) has already
>been submitted throughout this entire
>post. To the Afrakan, proof
>is determined by functionability for
>the group and whether or
>not the group accepts it.
> Because there is no
>either/or dichotomy in thinking, then
>any answer is potentially suitable
>as long as it is
>functional, viable and acceptable to
>the group's standards and survival.
Response: Ok, I follow you.
>Now assuming that you are a
>Christian stemming from a Western
>cultural ethos, thereby subjected to
>either/or dichotomy and "God is
>SEPARATE"-concept, I would then estimate
>that "plausible evidence" to you
>concerning "God is IMMANENT...", would
>be documentation of IT speaking
>these words to the people
>and then being transcribed in
>some fashion. Well according
>to the Afrakan oral tradition,
>there is such a story
>that might be of value.
> It was transcribed and
>translated from Yoruba by
>Awotunde Ifaseeyin Karade. However
>realize that this is only
>ONE example from the Ifa
>tradition of the Yoruba and
>several more exist around the
Go here: http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/DCForumID1/3291.html#27
>3) You asked about "evil."
>If you read all of
>the posts then you would
>have some idea of how
>at least ONE particular Afrakan
>tradition views "evil."
Response: That's my bad . I have not even touched what the others are saying I just read you initial obne and responded to that. I'll look at the rest in a sec.
>From "Afrakan in the New World":
>"To identify Eshu with evil is
>to misunderstand the basic principles
>of Yoruba philosophy. Unlike the
>European, the Yoruba does not
>conceive the world as a
>conflict between good and evil,
>light and darkness, God and
>devil. He is realistic and
>recognizes that all forces-even divine
>forces- have destructive as well
>as constructive possiblities. The secret
>of life, then and the
>purpose of orisha worship is
>to establish a constructive relationship
>with these powers."
Response: Ok, but I was talking about all of the evils in the world. You know suffering, sickness, is this God all good, is he mixed, just a description of what you were talking about (his nature).
>I KNOW you are using your
>own concept of "evil" and
>superimposing it onto an Afrakan
>theological/philsophical perspective within your question.
> That can't be done
>as you will only be
>confused and beguiled and no
>serious discussion or understanding can
>be grasped. "How God handles
>evil" does not even make
>sense to me.
Response: Ok, I get you, but if you can answer the question about evil in this world, and suffering, morals etc.