Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #12064

Subject: "objective proofs?" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
osoclasi
Charter member
993 posts
Wed Jul-18-01 07:24 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "objective proofs?"
In response to In response to 28


          

>HTP
>
>>1) Is this the God in which
>>you believe in?
>
>Do I believe that God is
>IMMANENT and TRANSCENDENT? Yes.

Response: Good.
>
>>
>>2) If so why? Give me
>>some plusible evidence at your
>>convience.
>
>Please clarify this question. What is
>"plausible evidence?"


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
>>evil?
>
>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.
>
>Examples:
>
>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.

This
>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
>Afrakan concepts."

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
>and TRANSCENDENT."

Response: Correct
>
>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
>continent.



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.
>

------------
En arche en 'o logos, kai 'o logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en logos

  

Printer-friendly copy


God is IMMANENT [View all] , Solarus, Sat Jul-07-01 01:42 PM
 
Subject Author Message Date ID
Thought in Action
Jul 07th 2001
1
RE: Thought in Action
DonQuijote
Jul 07th 2001
4
All of the Above
Jul 08th 2001
5
      confusion
DonQuijote
Jul 08th 2001
6
           I'll be back
Jul 17th 2001
24
RE: Thought in Action
KemetShakur
Jul 18th 2001
30
probably the dopest post you've done......
Jul 07th 2001
2
oh yeah...check your inbox.
Jul 07th 2001
3
Gnostics
Jul 08th 2001
7
RE: Gnostics
IllipticallyDefined
Jul 08th 2001
8
Diversity in ONE
Jul 09th 2001
9
Diversity in ONE(Cont.)
Jul 09th 2001
10
      good work
utamaroho
Jul 09th 2001
11
Umm...
Jul 10th 2001
12
*shaking head*
utamaroho
Jul 10th 2001
13
Wasn't going to say anything
Jul 10th 2001
14
      i can see you right now...
utamaroho
Jul 10th 2001
16
No disrespect
Jul 10th 2001
15
      hahahahahaha
utamaroho
Jul 10th 2001
17
Afrakan in the New world
Jul 10th 2001
18
up
Jul 11th 2001
19
Purpose of Rituals
Jul 11th 2001
20
this puts me in mind
Jul 18th 2001
35
Why is this post down???
Jul 12th 2001
21
Hell NO
Jul 16th 2001
22
RE: God is IMMANENT
Jul 16th 2001
23
I need to print this out
Jul 17th 2001
25
I have some questions
Jul 17th 2001
26
Answers
Jul 18th 2001
28
damn...
utamaroho
Jul 18th 2001
29
if I may...
Jul 18th 2001
33
word
utamaroho
Jul 18th 2001
34
it just aggravates me
Jul 18th 2001
36
RE: it just aggravates me
Jul 18th 2001
40
      thank u
Jul 19th 2001
42
           your welcolm
Jul 19th 2001
55
                I get that...
Jul 20th 2001
78
RE: word
Jul 18th 2001
39
RE: if I may...
Jul 18th 2001
38
      this is true...
Jul 19th 2001
43
           RE: this is true...
Jul 19th 2001
56
                RE: this is true...
Jul 20th 2001
79
      limited view
Jul 19th 2001
41
      why can't he SEE that...
Jul 19th 2001
44
           the problem is........
Jul 19th 2001
45
                the thing is...
utamaroho
Jul 19th 2001
47
                this statement right here:
Jul 19th 2001
51
                     RE: this statement right here:
utamaroho
Jul 19th 2001
52
                very good example:
Jul 19th 2001
48
                Point taken
Jul 19th 2001
49
                I don't claim to be "afrikan"
Jul 19th 2001
50
      Concept
Jul 19th 2001
53
      RE: Concept
Jul 19th 2001
60
           The Scriptures are Subjective
Jul 19th 2001
64
           RE: The Scriptures are objective
Jul 19th 2001
67
                there are so many points in this response
utamaroho
Jul 19th 2001
68
                     the light is still on you
Jul 19th 2001
70
                          imagine this
utamaroho
Jul 19th 2001
71
                               RE: imagine this
Jul 19th 2001
73
           reprint.
Jul 19th 2001
65
                RE: reprint.
Jul 19th 2001
69
      Objectivity
Jul 19th 2001
54
           RE: Objectivity
Jul 19th 2001
57
                GOD-FUCKING-DAMMIT!
utamaroho
Jul 19th 2001
58
                This reaction doesn't help.
Jul 19th 2001
59
                watch your language
Jul 19th 2001
61
                     you're right
utamaroho
Jul 19th 2001
62
                     Clarification
Jul 19th 2001
66
                          RE: Clarification
Jul 19th 2001
72
                RE: Objectivity
Jul 19th 2001
63
Not directed toward me but
Jul 18th 2001
31
      NO
Jul 18th 2001
32
Searching for Something That is Already Within
Jul 18th 2001
27
Thought for this HOLI-DAY
Jul 19th 2001
46
osoclasi
Jul 20th 2001
74
Correction
Jul 20th 2001
75
RE: osoclasi
Jul 20th 2001
76
Wonderful post.
Wise_7
Jul 20th 2001
77
^
Jul 26th 2001
80

Lobby Okay Activist Archives topic #12064 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com