Why not--Maltheism? (Religion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 23:51 (4682 days ago) @ dhw

dhw...-You seem to think this is more than exercise? Maybe I need to reintroduce myself! Rest assured I am still your kindly Buddhist friend. But no question or topic is taboo for me. While I appreciate your concern, all I'm doing is approaching the normal subject of God from a completely different direction. You could say its an exercise in Nietzschean Perspectivism... -I'm not approaching this from a moral vantage point, though these values always permeate discussions of religion. What I'm talking about is looking at our deity--at this point a highly abstract one--from the path less traveled. -You're already hinting at my direction when you discuss there being a balance of creation and destruction--though I will hold that the evidence is quite clear what the fate of the universe will be. Though this point is tertiary, I will discuss it first.-You bring up the Big Crunch. The Big Crunch was tossed out when investigations determined that the universe was accelerating three times the speed of light, and it was further determined that this expansion was accelerating... continued observations have confirmed this, and the cause appears to be our dark matter & energy within the universe. With only 4% of "normal" matter in the universe, any heat scenario is dead in its tracks. With these observations, I do not think there is a reasonable alternative than the "heat death" scenario. (objects so far apart that the sky turns black, and the average energy of the universe fades to absolute zero.) Multiverses & the like are out, because there is no observational evidence. -Gone is the discussion of prime cause. Chicken and egg, cause and effect. Consider what I said more poetry. -I get the feeling that you are repulsed by the majority of the topic of "dark gods" but you missed the central point I tried to make in the original post: The root belief is that all of these "dark, evil gods" are considered to be the essence of the creator tied to destruction. Especially in Hindu religion... (Google Maha Kali sometime.) But in that last response you're picking at the text but not the substance.-I bring up the topic because I mean to point out that it seems that for the most part, man seems to only consider that his Gods are good; that they benefit him in some way. In David's case, God cares enough for us to break all the normal rules in the universe to create us. Whatever he tries to say to the opposite, the direct suggestion is that man is special because we were created, that god loves us, and even if God only intervenes 50% of the time--he still clearly cares enough to only do enough work that it is hidden within the confines of chance. This suggests mischief at the most benign. Chaotic misanthropy on the opposite end of the spectrum. -I find this anthropomorphic deity (not singling you out David!) as repulsive as anthropomorphizing animals. It's one-sided. It turns the world on its head; it is a Platonic ideal. -Now I have to return a bit to morals. LHP religions take a view that believing only in the goodness of creation neglects reality. I actually fully agree with this. One must learn to accept the bad with the good. But our society primes us so much for the opposite that it becomes impossible to really explore this part of our nature. And no, I'm not saying "go out and hurt people," but study the psychology and the emotion behind these acts. When I'm wronged... I rage. All religious teachings tell you to bottle this rage... but a well known problem in game theory demonstrates that the winning strategy (indeed the one that seems to be most exercised when dealing with man) is the one where you initially reciprocate negative behavior and then offer to help on the next turn. (forgiveness.) -The answer (as usual) lies somewhere in the middle--but don't forget to explore those dark roads!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"