Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Could you not change "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " to "eudaimonia"?

Ataraxia, apatheia -- is there a difference?

Ego-sould is the seed of birth and death but is not the true man.

What happened to your hat?
😵

Originally posted by karoly aczel
some opinions are worth listening to...you just got to know which ones!

LOL, typically I bet it is the ones we tend to agree or favor after a
fashion more times than not; however, the open minded will from
time to time find one whose position they would normally disagree
with and have to stop and change their minds.
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
During a given conversation -during whatever we do, that is- we have to evaluate constantly; however it's enough to sit quietly doing nuffin😵

Yes, well said. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Could you not change "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " to "eudaimonia"?

Ataraxia, apatheia -- is there a difference?

I would say that apatheia (dispassion) refers strictly to emotional disturbance, whereas ataraxia refers to undisturbed mind more broadly.

Originally posted by black beetle
I am fine, thank you🙂

I may become the vehicle wherein everything is completely perfect and meaningful: as I establish myself in the original condition of the natural state I focus on the perfection process rather than on the generation process and then Space/ Time and Awareness they become inseparable. Then, as I realize the gnosis of the insepara ...[text shortened]... onia during afterlife -and therefore he accepted the Christian approach. What a noise😵

Yes, that is the kind of “bridge” to something like Zen that I meant. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
I would say that apatheia (dispassion) refers strictly to emotional disturbance, whereas ataraxia refers to undisturbed mind more broadly.

"Apatheia" is amongt else a philosophicl organon used by the Stoics (it means we have to use Logos in order to control Pathos).

However in modern Greek "ataraxia" and "apateia" have the same meaning -being anyway cool at every mind/ body level.

Originally posted by black beetle
"Apatheia" is amongt else a philosophicl organon used by the Stoics (it means we have to use Logos in order to control Pathos).

However in modern Greek "ataraxia" and "apateia" have the same meaning -being anyway cool at every mind/ body level.

I think that if it could be demonstrated that God, by adhering to his own standards of justice, could be declared just, for then we could subject the assertion that God is whimiscal, malicious, vindictive etc etc to refutation, thus verifying our original premise that God is just. however i am aware that the only practical way to do this for the theologian is to look at certain aspects of his personality as recorded in scripture. which is not to everyone's taste, and even if it was possible, so much is open to interpretation, the task seems insurmountable. but what do you guys think, is this the way to 'establish or demonstrate', that God is Just? for at present i can think of no other 😕

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think that if it could be demonstrated that God, by adhering to his own standards of justice, could be declared just, for then we could subject the assertion that God is whimiscal, malicious, vindictive etc etc to refutation, thus verifying our original premise that God is just. however i am aware that the only practical way to do this for the the ay to 'establish or demonstrate', that God is Just? for at present i can think of no other 😕

I think God is just because He does what He says the way He says it,
and if He lays down standards those standards are followed to the
letter, if their are exceptions those are pronouced and known. I
disagree with those that think punishment and awards are reasons for
saying justice isn't being served.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think God is just because He does what He says the way He says it,
and if He lays down standards those standards are followed to the
letter, if their are exceptions those are pronouced and known. I
disagree with those that think punishment and awards are reasons for
saying justice isn't being served.
Kelly

yes kellyjay, this is fine and good, on a personal level, however when i was thinking about it, it presented some problems that i need to think more about if they are to be resolved, for example, if we state that God is just because he adheres to his own standards, we need to demonstrate that those standards are just in the first instance, for even among thieves there is honour, but it does not make stealing just! in the case of a judicial matter which may warrant punishment, we need to establish so many points, it was not arbitrarily given, its was not vindictive, its basis was sound and just etc etc etc.

Originally posted by black beetle
"Apatheia" is amongt else a philosophicl organon used by the Stoics (it means we have to use Logos in order to control Pathos).

However in modern Greek "ataraxia" and "apateia" have the same meaning -being anyway cool at every mind/ body level.

Thank you, my archangel friend.

Originally posted by black beetle
"Apatheia" is amongt else a philosophicl organon used by the Stoics (it means we have to use Logos in order to control Pathos).

However in modern Greek "ataraxia" and "apateia" have the same meaning -being anyway cool at every mind/ body level.

EDIT: duplicate post. 🙁

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I think that if it could be demonstrated that God, by adhering to his own standards of justice, could be declared just, for then we could subject the assertion that God is whimiscal, malicious, vindictive etc etc to refutation, thus verifying our original premise that God is just. however i am aware that the only practical way to do this for the the ...[text shortened]... ay to 'establish or demonstrate', that God is Just? for at present i can think of no other 😕

It seems to me that that would establish God’s formal justice.

Your next post, too, reflects the kind of thinking I was after with the opening post. Even with your point about scriptural interpretation, well, just “thinking out loud”—

Suppose you developed a theory of God’s justice based solely on what scripture has to say about it (searching out and coordinating passages that refer to justice, or “being just”; even if someone disagreed about that particular concept of justice (or even the validity of using scripture as a basis), they might still have to concede that God’s actions meet the test of justness under that concept.

My eudaemonist/virtue-ethics offering is just one possibility; there are other philosophical theories of justice out there. You, at least, (if I remember your views on the subject rightly) are not burdened with having to try to defend some kind of eternal torment as being “just”.

________________________________________________

I thank one and all for your input on this thread. My own thinking on the subject is still formative, and you have all given me further aspects to think about. Thanks.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes kellyjay, this is fine and good, on a personal level, however when i was thinking about it, it presented some problems that i need to think more about if they are to be resolved, for example, if we state that God is just because he adheres to his own standards, we need to demonstrate that those standards are just in the first instance, for even a ...[text shortened]... it was not arbitrarily given, its was not vindictive, its basis was sound and just etc etc etc.

I personlly believe this is why evil wasn't just destroyed the second it
raised its head in God's creation. God is allowing it to play out as it is
and when judgment comes it will be shown plainly for what it is.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
It seems to me that that would establish God’s formal justice.

Your next post, too, reflects the kind of thinking I was after with the opening post. Even with your point about scriptural interpretation, well, just “thinking out loud”—

Suppose you developed a theory of God’s justice based solely on what scripture has to say about it (search ...[text shortened]... e subject is still formative, and you have all given me further aspects to think about. Thanks.

mmm, so what i think you are saying vistesd, is that given the restrictive nature of the data, (in this instance we can either draw from the natural world "assuming" it was created by God, (how i loathe assumptions) or scriptural references being our only other alternative),thus, it may indeed be conceded by an opposing party that yes, under such circumstances, God 'acted', justly. it is amazing, but of course, for how else is one supposed to collect data and validate a theory with regard to God, other than any inferences which may be drawn from the natural world on the basis that it it was created and/or the scriptural references that we have.

Yes you are entirely correct, with regard to eternal torment, for if given enough thought, it may even be possible to subject the idea to refutation, thus 'validating', its unjustness (is that a word?) 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes kellyjay, this is fine and good, on a personal level, however when i was thinking about it, it presented some problems that i need to think more about if they are to be resolved, for example, if we state that God is just because he adheres to his own standards, we need to demonstrate that those standards are just in the first instance, for even a ...[text shortened]... it was not arbitrarily given, its was not vindictive, its basis was sound and just etc etc etc.

If you were building a house you'd need standards of measurements
to build with as well as standards in direction too, if the builders of
that house all choose different standards or different ways of
describing the standards they were using the house would not be well
build at all if they were even able to complete it. One of the issues I
see with this discussion we are talking about justice and what is just,
true, and right...if these be nothing but varous and sundry points of
view about personal tastes with nothing but one point of view in
discussion with another it is a meaningless conversation, if there is a
thread where truth and justice really have something beyond man's
ability to change or alter we have justice that we may get some
enlightenment from as we get close to it, which would be where I do
believe God's truth and justice really are.
Kelly