minddancer - theology



Texts that have refined themselfs in my diary or in discussion.

200528



170317 ¶ Beauty is energy, low entropy, high order of arrangement, harmony. Gregorian chorus is not erotic, it is spiritual, and the spirit has no body. The body is erotic. But body can be beautiful as well as spirit can be. And the gregorian chorus is also beautiful. So you can move the form of beauty one over the other and they will fit, compose, they will be related, they will be complementary in the spiritual view, in the understanding. That is why I think you can also interpret the gregorian chant as a hymn in honor of the human body, in honor of the beloved female body. But chant itself is not corporeal. It is spiritual, and the spirit can contain carnality within itself, for carnality is the work of the spirit. But the form of beauty is something beyond matter, it is an abstraction, a concept, it can exist without body. But it does not exclude corporality. It is friendly to her. An evil spirit does not like the body of a man, despises it, wants to destroy it, change it, remove it, mix it with something else. Attempting to mix corporeality with something that is only its form is an example of such action of an evil spirit. The attempt to impose to the chorus the erotic meaning is also such an example. Choral is suitable for erotic but is not an eroticism. The spirit of God is suitable for eroticism, but it is not an eroticism. He created eroticism, respected it, maybe even will allowe it somehow in heaven, but it is not necessary for him. Or otherwise. Erotic is the creation of ghosts. God gave this power to man and it is connected with eroticism. But God can create ghosts also without people, without human bodies, just like he creates angels, and then he does not need human eroticism for that. He has something that is the greatest pleasure and meaning of eroticism, but this something, this creating of ghosts, it does not have to be associated with eroticism, eroticism does not have to be the essence of it. Human eroticism is only one of the possible packages for the divine act of creating spirits. In the case of angels, the packaging is different, because in this creation human bodies are not involved. Perhaps this difference is one of the reasons for the rebellion of the angels. I write here incoherently, but I think that is the way to write about it. In this entry you can see an intuitive clarification of the concept. The result for me is still hazy. I saw only the fact that creating angels was one of the possible instances of creating spirits. But still I will not say that eroticism is not important. I guess that, this and that is important. I understand it now as through fog. I have not grasped the essence of my concept, I forewarn.

170614 ¶ The human body is like an electronic circuit. Complicated, multifactorial. ¶ God is an engineer who enjoys the fact that his inventions are used. ¶ He does it only for glory. Just like people. ¶ Praise be to God not only for the happiness of man someday achieved but also for what He already did.

170618 ¶ Suppose I renounce the pride and the affairs of Satan but I regret him. ¶ Do I do well? Can I do that? How to understand it? ¶ Would I like my wife's rapist to live with us? What husband would I be then? ¶ Would I like my husband's enemy to live with us? What wife would I be then? ¶ God can be a wife and husband for all, different for everyone. ¶ The most appropriate analogy between God and soul is husband and wife. This analogy is in the Bible in two places. [Sol, Eph]

170627 ¶ God spoke to the Israelites from amongst the cherubim's wings on the ark. ¶ These cherubims were gold sculptures. Into what shape were their wings arranged? ¶ Because if in the shape of triangle, then some today's symbols would get interesting meaning.

170708 ¶ I suppose you can define good as giving life and evil as taking life. ¶ I also suppose that the fundamental right of creatures is a good, because creating someone is giving himself to him. In other words, a good is the first decision that God has made while creating us, that is why it is the fundamental law of our nature. ¶ My third conjecture, which I could describe as a specific way out of atheism, is that if there was nothing in the beginning, then in that absolute nothingness, only the truth can first come into being, and the lie could not, because it needs the truth to exist first, the truth which it denies. ¶ Similarly is with a good understood as giving. Or a gift. First you need to receive something to be able to be deprived of it. It is impossible to take form someone who has not received anything yet. It is impossible to do evil when nothing else has been created yet. ¶ From these three assumptions, I see that good does not need evil to exist.

170815 ¶ The thoughts I like:
* The Trinity Alliance: The Father does not humiliate the Son. The Creator does not humiliate the creature.
* Phenomenological similarities: beauty ~ harmony ~ ordering ~ low entropy ~ high energy.
* Mercy is creation. This is why the devil can not create. [Conclusion from: Dz.300, Dz.85, wny, creare. Inspiration.]
* Definitions for AI: truth = information about what exists; goodness = giving life; beauty = high energy and order;

170822 ¶ Would I pray if I knew that God does not exist? ¶ I think so. I would pray to God to exist. 'God, please, do exist'. I like the idea of God as a means to achieve immortality. I do not abandon this idea. Others, like transhumanism, may also be good. ¶ Would I agree to disappear after death, if only in this way could I save the suffering of others? If I could extend my existence after death only at the expense of others? What is worth such an existence? ¶ I'm not talking here about extending my life at the expnese of someone, about delaying death. I have so strong emotions about this issue that I do not take it's analysis. It's too chaotic for me, too complex. I do not even know if what I write is not an excuse. Even this reflection on reality without God obscures my thoughts. ¶ In these cases, so uncertain, only feeling remains for a man, to decide. But for sure a rule of creativity is good. To give life and not to take it. The survival instinct will do its thing anyway. ¶ Survive. Thanks to my own ideas, rather than at the expense of others. ¶ If in the face of death only a feeling remains for a man as a mean to choose his way, than I want that in my case it wolud be the feeling of love. Because it is the most pleasant. Just for that. I do not care, what others think of this. Do not bother with the other's opinion this is a good attitude. Thanks to that I do not try to rule others, I leave them free to have their own views. I do not take their life away.¶ So, if God is not there and I'm going to disappear, then at least I want to be pelased, to have a nice feelings. ¶ So, rather epicureanism than skepticism. Rather existence of God than His inexistence. Rather a body from cells than from nanites.

170912 ¶¶ God this is a cool idea. I like it. ¶ What is God? God is something I want to be. God is something I do not understand and I'm fine with it. ¶ It is more important that He exists than I understand Him. ¶¶ It is not even about immortality. ¶ I am about the truth. He is the truth. That's why I need him. ¶ I can even disappear after death if the truth about me is preserved. ¶ That is why people like to have children, and like to teach them their ways. ¶¶ When someone is without children, then God is the one who preserves the truth about him. ¶ When then. If then. How does a computer work? Like a chaff cutter. How does a man work? Like a spring. ¶ Human's will is an unpredictable spring. Will creates information. Mercy creates from nothing. ¶ When a man knows what will be, he loses his will like Paul Atreides.

contents:
170317 creation of ghosts
170614 Engineering of God
170618 borders of forgiveness
170627 shape of the ark
170708 independence of good
170815 philosophical formulas
170822 cells or nanites
170822 I just want you to be
170927 amoris laetitia

minddancer
1990-...
CC BY-SA 2.5

home