Chirazolam the Enduring

@moonbus said
Yes, there is a difference because I'm assuming there is a God who has a message for man but does't impose any sanctions for non-compliance or disbelief and is "content to abide." So, I'm exploring a nuanced difference by asking Christians here whether they would follow commandments (instructions, guidelines) even if there were no eternal consequences and no "requirement" to do so.

Your example of a God has a point, the example of a God in the OP is pointless.

@caesar-salad said
Maybe some Christians do need both the carrot and the stick: the carrot for the Easter bunny, and the stick for egg-rolling races.

As for Chirazolam, I'm not sure It would have a message for humankind or the cosmic diversity of critterkind, or that It even intends to lead by example.

What is the point of the god in your OP?

@divegeester said
What is the point of the god in your OP?

I don't understand what kind of answer you might be looking for.

Could you provide more context for your question?

@caesar-salad said
Maybe some Christians do need both the carrot and the stick: the carrot for the Easter bunny, and the stick for egg-rolling races.

As for Chirazolam, I'm not sure It would have a message for humankind or the cosmic diversity of critterkind, or that It even intends to lead by example.

I can imagine several gradations.

a) There is a personal God who has a message for man and exacts retribution for non-compliance and offers rewards to those who comply. He may or may not have a "chosen people."

b) There is a personal God who has a message for man but without eternal consequences for compliance or non-compliance. As in my hypothetical Christianity-without-immortality example.

c) There is a God but without a message for man; that is, an impersonal God who gets the universe going and answers KellyJay's question but otherwise does not concern Himself with humankind at all. This, I think, is what is commonly called "the God of the philosophers", and is certainly not the God of Abraham.

d) There is a cosmic order which impacts on humans but does not care about them. This is what the law of karma in Buddhism amounts to. There is intelligibility in it, but no intelligence.

e) There is a pantheon of gods and higher beings, some of whom mean well for us, some of whom ignore us, some of whom torment us, and others which are ambiguous and inscrutable.




Whether one person or another finds any of these pointless could be established by a survey.

@moonbus said
Do you do any? I mean generally, not just this morning.

The Ghost is occupationally prolific. (Just in case my manager is reading).

f) At the other extreme is thorough-going atomism, formulated already in ancient Greek times: there is no objective order at all, much less any deity; objectively, there are only random atomic collisions. Any semblance of order is subjective.

@caesar-salad said
... does not require your worship or your attention.

... imparts no wisdom or guidelines for behavior.

... has no verbiage to remember or preserve or distribute, which is just as well, because verbiage and its attendant folkways only occur in some of the habitats and venues throughout the Cosmos.

... is content to abide, just so, without ambitions or expectation ...[text shortened]... though of course things do happen somehow anyway.

... by any other name would do and be the same.

...then, who gives a fvck about him?

@caesar-salad said
Chirazolam was just posited to suggest alternative ways of relating to the Divine even if still personified through the human story-making and story-seeking lens.

P.S. -- it's not clear if you were joking with me in a friendly way or an antagonistic way re: triazolam.

More snark than anything.

@caesar-salad said
I don't understand what kind of answer you might be looking for.

Could you provide more context for your question?

See BDP’s reply two posts above this one, apply that to your OP, reread and report back.

@divegeester said
See BDP’s reply two posts above this one, apply that to your OP, reread and report back.

Oh you -- lolling about in your metaphysical pram, thinking you can give other people orders. 😉

@bigdoggproblem said
...then, who gives a fvck about him?

OK, Cujo. Have you had your distemper shot this year?

@caesar-salad said
Oh you -- lolling about in your metaphysical pram, thinking you can give other people orders. 😉

Amazing retort.

@divegeester said
Your example of a God has a point, the example of a God in the OP is pointless.

So, what is your problem with pointlessness?

@caesar-salad said
So, what is your problem with pointlessness?

What problem, there is no problem.

The premise in your OP is a god which is pointless. An inert being devoid of intent, acknowledgeable presence or intervention in the affairs of such being whom might refer to it as a “god”. In effect pointless.

There is no problem.