Hi Bill,
Thanks for your reply.
The idea of God is as notional as Devil.But we are
comfortable dealing with the notion of God.
It is like "Rajja sarpa Branti"( in Sanskrit)- mistaking
the rope for snake( an illusion).
But both the Rope and Snake are notional, like Abraham's
two voices- One that tells him to sacrifice Isaac and the
other not to.
It is in the duality of these notions Abraham is
operating,irrespective of outcome.
My reference of devil is only a metaphor(Semantic
illusion),where I for one can be Devil or Evil.In the
context of which one can say even the devil needs some
compassion.
Not that I for one deserve it, but it is the need of
Humanity- A Grace by which it can redeem it self.It is
needed for those who are in power, for those who have
children and invest in future.
Like Jesus saying- "Women of Jerusalem, don't cry for me.
Cry for yourselves and for your children too!
The established authoritarian view at the time of Jesus
considered him to be Evil, hence he was Tortured and
crucified.
One can't say with certainty, whether Spinoza's God as
Watch maker cab held accountable for Human deeds.But his
clock does not tell Humanity in which direction it is
moving,but our( common) senses can tell.
regards,
Indrakaran.
--- bill harris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Indra,
Speaking strictly in the subjunctive, the Spinozan God-
as- watchmaker would not be held accountable for human
deeds. Closeness, of course, was never the issue.
As for the devil, my Satinology is so weak as not to be
worthy of an opinion in this particular; although I might
refer you to Kolakowskowi's "Conversations" for further
insight..as well as Twain, of course!
According to Weil, "gravity" is the property that
godliness struggles against; which is to say that grace
defies physical laws. Echoes of this resound through
Classical Greek lexicology with distinctions such as
"anthropion" to "anyer".
In any case, I believe, personally, that all concepts of
god--without exception--fall under the genre of
narratology. To speak of god in concrete terms is to
indulge in nonsense.
Ciao, Bill
Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 25 Apr 2008 -
Special issue (#2008-158)/Narratology.
Hi Bill,
It is true that we are not closer to God because we do
good and it is also true that God is also held
accountable for "Evil".
On the other hand even the Devil is in need of good at
times.Where as "humans" as such might be a lost cause, like
in the case of other species and Good is the gravity that
possibly holds and makes it possible for humans to have
a meaningful existence, if at all there is any.
In that case Good becomes more relevant to human existence
in its concrete reality as opposed to imaginary constructs
with in the narratology.
regards,
Indrakaran.
--- bill harris
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
However, a Spinozan-styled theology might be just as
viable. In this regard, God isn't just responsible for
grace 'n goodness. As the Great Dutch Master observed,
the three stated "omnis" would hold god accountable for
evil, as well. In this case, there would be no ontic
distinction between acts of good and those of evil, and
therefore we are not closer to god because we do good.
Perhaps Veerhoven best exemplifies this attitude, although
I understand him to be, personally, a deeply-committed
Christian.
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|