on discussing god and religion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:45 pm

No, this is you imagining that you understand my motivation and intention here better than I do myself. But, then, admittedly, one way or another, we all seem forced to make leaps of this sort.
I have been here for almost 7 years and I've seen many people try various arguments and approaches with you. None have had even a slight effect on you - not even an infinitesimal reconsideration of your position.
What then are the minimal requirements that the Christian is required to have in order to convince either Non-Christians or atheists that in fact Jesus Christ died for our sins?

What is not in dispute however is the existence of all those grains of sand.
Notice how you shift from considering questions where reason and judgement could be methodically applied, to questions which are easily settled or almost impossible to settle. IOW, shifting from work and philosophy to the relaxed, safe and comfortable.

I think that you now find your dilemma easy and comfortable.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:49 am

Further words can now be suffocating and counter-productive. Values and love have been written, gestured and shown sufficiently. We need to back away, continue to live our values and love that other, and let that other be free.
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:28 pm

phyllo wrote:
No, this is you imagining that you understand my motivation and intention here better than I do myself. But, then, admittedly, one way or another, we all seem forced to make leaps of this sort.
I have been here for almost 7 years and I've seen many people try various arguments and approaches with you. None have had even a slight effect on you - not even an infinitesimal reconsideration of your position.


Again, what are you arguing here? That because I am still an atheist and still entangled in my dilemma that proves that I will never be willing to take into consideration the arguments of others? You just know this?

And here I am entangled in a dilemma that fractures and fragments "me" to the point that I am unable to "take a stand" regarding moral and political commitments. Why? Because even to the extent that I take political leaps to one or another position, I still recognize them for the "existential contraptions" that [from my frame of mind here and now] they are. Also, as I get closer and closer to the dreaded oblivion I have nothing to make that go away. Whereas most religious folks are able to think themselves into believing it's not really oblivion at all.

On the contrary, it is one or another rendition of salvation itself. Paradise for some.

Again, there are folks who do have the comfort and the consolation of being able to connect those dots between here and now and there and then. They know what the "right thing to do" is. And they know "in their head" that if they do the right thing they are Heaven bound.

And the only reason I created this thread was that, way back when, zinnat had promised me that he would eventually get around to that part himself.

So, sure, I can see why I have absolutely nothing to gain at all in having others reconfigure my bleak and somber frame of mind with an argument that yanks me up out of this grim hole that I'm in.

What then are the minimal requirements that the Christian is required to have in order to convince either Non-Christians or atheists that in fact Jesus Christ died for our sins?

What is not in dispute however is the existence of all those grains of sand.


phyllo wrote: Notice how you shift from considering questions where reason and judgement could be methodically applied, to questions which are easily settled or almost impossible to settle. IOW, shifting from work and philosophy to the relaxed, safe and comfortable.


Notice how that more or less revolves around the distinction that I am always making between the world of either/or and the world of is/ought. The world of empirical rerality and the world of value judgments and religious convictions. As that relates to our capacity to demonstrate that what we believe about reality in either world is something that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

So, with regard to "reason and judgement" that can be "methodically applied" to Jesus Christ, let the Christians among us demonstrate why and how reasonable men and women should believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins.

And though this may well be "impossible" to settle, I can only keep pointing out that with so much at stake -- immortality, salvation, divine justice -- it would seem incumbent upon Christians to come up with the most convincing argument of all.

Do you have one?

phyllo wrote: I think that you now find your dilemma easy and comfortable.


Think again.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21864
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:39 pm

pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:
Further words can now be suffocating and counter-productive. Values and love have been written, gestured and shown sufficiently. We need to back away, continue to live our values and love that other, and let that other be free.



Yes, you really do believe that don't you? And, in believing it, it affords you ample peace of mind.

I get that part.

But what on earth does it have to do with the points that I am raising on this thread?

Looks like we're stuck: https://youtu.be/V2f-MZ2HRHQ
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21864
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:52 pm

iambiguous wrote:
pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:
Further words can now be suffocating and counter-productive. Values and love have been written, gestured and shown sufficiently. We need to back away, continue to live our values and love that other, and let that other be free.



Yes, you really do believe that don't you? And, in believing it, it affords you ample peace of mind.

I get that part.

But what on earth does it have to do with the points that I am raising on this thread?

Looks like we're stuck: https://youtu.be/V2f-MZ2HRHQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYMLMj-SibU
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:17 pm

When one accepts death on a philosophical level it can make it easier to accept it on a physical one when the time comes


Maybe.

But here I am getting closer and closer and closer to the abyss. And if my own understanding of it is correct this means that for all of eternity I will be utterly detached from...

1] the folks I love
2] the music I love
3] the films I love
4] the books I love
5] the art I love
6] the food I love
7] the programs on PBS that I love
8] the discussions I love
9] the emotions I love
10] everything else that I love

So, I ask myself, in that context how on earth can I learn to accept death on a philosophical level.

And I presume that, for all of eternity, you in turn will become utterly detached from all of the things that you love.

How then do you manage to put that into perspective philosophically?

From my frame of mind it all comes down to this: That [sooner or later] even all of the things that I love will be no match for all of the accumulating pain and suffering that comes attached to a body getting older and older and older.

Indeed, it can even become so lopsided that you literally beg to die.

Unless of course you've got one of another religious narrative to fall back on.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21864
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:44 pm



Okay, what does that have to do with the points that I am raising?

Look, you have the comfort and the consolation embedded in your own rendition of God. And all that this implies when connecting the dots between before and after the grave.

So, for all practical purposes, you win. :wink: [-o< :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21864
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Jun 11, 2017 2:16 pm

The finite consciousness of thought is unaware that it is shared by all humans. Thus, we aren’t aware that our consciousness is part of a “universal consciousness.” Thought also unaware of the illusionary concepts it creates and stories which substantiate them. The fragmentation of thought causes part of it to deduce the illusionary concepts created by another part of it to be real and accurate. Consequently, they become part of the universal consciousness. We perceive these illusions are real and accurate because they are in accord or agreement with our perception, which is our authority.

Over seven billion people share a common consciousness. This consciousness contains billions of thoughts, all of which are oblivious of each other. In other words, thought is fragmented. The fragmentation of thought causes it to unknowingly create illusions and stories which substantiate them that in conflict and oppose other illusions it has created. Because thought sees them as being real they become part of whose perception is in accord with them.

We are oblivious of how many illusionary concepts comprise our perception. We become aware of them when we become disturbed, upset, or angry about any concept that conflicts with our perception. That’s because we are emotionally attached to illusionary concepts. Whereas, there is no emotional attachment with real concepts. Every emotional disagreement, debate, or argument we have is counterproductive. It creates conflict, perpetuates thought’s illusionary concepts, and prevents us from examining our perception. And, everyone loses because illusion versus illusion equals illusion.

Could this be any more abstract?

Can it be illustrated with specific incidents which occur to real people?

It's all in the head, isn't it?
The debate between atheists and those who believe in God is an example of the two illusions perpetuating what thought created. Human’s perception of atheism and God are creations of thought. Consequently, it is an unsolvable debate because illusion versus illusion equals illusion. The debate between them has been going on for thousands of years and will continue to go on until we realize both are illusions created by thought. The realization of this gives new meaning to the duality of thought.
Those guys over there have illusions. But what I'm writing about illusions is not an illusion. :lol:
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:02 pm

phyllo wrote:
The finite consciousness of thought is unaware that it is shared by all humans. Thus, we aren’t aware that our consciousness is part of a “universal consciousness.” Thought also unaware of the illusionary concepts it creates and stories which substantiate them. The fragmentation of thought causes part of it to deduce the illusionary concepts created by another part of it to be real and accurate. Consequently, they become part of the universal consciousness. We perceive these illusions are real and accurate because they are in accord or agreement with our perception, which is our authority.

Over seven billion people share a common consciousness. This consciousness contains billions of thoughts, all of which are oblivious of each other. In other words, thought is fragmented. The fragmentation of thought causes it to unknowingly create illusions and stories which substantiate them that in conflict and oppose other illusions it has created. Because thought sees them as being real they become part of whose perception is in accord with them.

We are oblivious of how many illusionary concepts comprise our perception. We become aware of them when we become disturbed, upset, or angry about any concept that conflicts with our perception. That’s because we are emotionally attached to illusionary concepts. Whereas, there is no emotional attachment with real concepts. Every emotional disagreement, debate, or argument we have is counterproductive. It creates conflict, perpetuates thought’s illusionary concepts, and prevents us from examining our perception. And, everyone loses because illusion versus illusion equals illusion.

Could this be any more abstract?


He quipped...sarcastically?

The irony then revolving around the fact it really is hard to imagine a frame of mind more abstract.

In other words, is what he proposes here true?

Imagine this...

Someone is up on the podium and he notes all of this for us. We wonder: How is this applicable to the life that I live from day to day?...to my interactions with others?...to particular contexts in which I find myself entangled in conflicts with others?

And [of course] how do my thoughts and feelings about God and religion become [for all practical purposes] intertwined in it?

Is this or is this not the single most important factor in attempting to adduce his meaning?

phyllo wrote:
The debate between atheists and those who believe in God is an example of the two illusions perpetuating what thought created. Human’s perception of atheism and God are creations of thought. Consequently, it is an unsolvable debate because illusion versus illusion equals illusion. The debate between them has been going on for thousands of years and will continue to go on until we realize both are illusions created by thought. The realization of this gives new meaning to the duality of thought.
Those guys over there have illusions. But what I'm writing about illusions is not an illusion. :lol:


No, "human’s perception of atheism and God are creations of thought" that arise in particular minds in particular sets of circumstances in particular historical and cultural contexts.

Right?

But not all that we exchange in discussions of God/No God is illusory. There are any number of things that we can demonstrate to others as in fact true about our own particular narrative.

I merely focus on those parts that seem [to me] to be considerably more problematic. We believe that what we claim to know here is true. But are we then able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are in turn obligated to share our own frame of mind? In other words, if they wish to be thought of as reasonable men and women themselves.

And how specifically do we then connect the dots [on this thread] between the behaviors that we choose here and now and that which we imagine the consequences of choosing them will be "on the other side".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21864
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:30 pm

Who is to say that when you die, you get all your marbles back-- you get back everything you loved that made you love worthy. Who is to say that death is the final triumph of nihilism? Yes the latter sounds too bleak to endure, even for a moment.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12292
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Some Guy in History » Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:22 pm

Ierrellus wrote:Who is to say that when you die, you get all your marbles back-- you get back everything you loved that made you love worthy. Who is to say that death is the final triumph of nihilism? Yes the latter sounds too bleak to endure, even for a moment.


When you play marbles with some people, they play for keeps and so it's impossible to get all of your marbles back. I think it's kind of like that.
Image

A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time. A man does not die of love or his liver or even of old age; he dies of being a man. Death is a distant rumor to the young. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.
User avatar
Some Guy in History
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Chakra Superstar » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:10 pm

iambiguous wrote:But here I am getting closer and closer and closer to the abyss. And if my own understanding of it is correct this means that for all of eternity I will be utterly detached from... everything that I love

“Someday I'll be a weather-beaten skull resting on a grass pillow,
Serenaded by a stray bird or two.
Kings and commoners end up the same,
No more enduring than last night's dream.”
― Ryokan

Death twitches my ear. ''Live,'' he says, ''I am coming.''
― Virgil

There is no fundamental difference between the preparation for death and the practice of dying,
and spiritual practice leading to enlightenment.
― Stanislav Grof
spacer
spacer
spacer
User avatar
Chakra Superstar
Thinker
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:42 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:32 pm

Ierrellus wrote:Who is to say that when you die, you get all your marbles back-- you get back everything you loved that made you love worthy. Who is to say that death is the final triumph of nihilism? Yes the latter sounds too bleak to endure, even for a moment.


That's not really my point though.

My point revolves more around the extent to which, whatever you say regarding before and after the grave, you either are or are not able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share it.

After all, if someone is able to show me that, in accepting Jesus Christ as my own personal savior, I will get all of my marbles back...an immortal surrounded by loved ones in paradise for all of eternity...I'd jettison nihilism in a heartbeat.

It always comes down to that distinction between believing what you do because it comforts and consoles you and believing what you do because not believing it can clearly be shown to be an unreasonable frame of mind.

But, sure, in the end what always counts is that which you are able to think yourself into believing.

For, among other things, all practical purposes.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21864
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:48 pm

My point revolves more around the extent to which, whatever you say regarding before and after the grave, you either are or are not able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share it.
Nobody is obligated to believe anything - it's a free universe.

Nobody is obligated to demonstrate anything - it's a free choice to do so.
But, sure, in the end what always counts is that which you are able to think yourself into believing.
Your thought are your own. Do with them what you will.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Some Guy in History » Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:34 pm

phyllo wrote:
My point revolves more around the extent to which, whatever you say regarding before and after the grave, you either are or are not able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share it.
Nobody is obligated to believe anything - it's a free universe.

Nobody is obligated to demonstrate anything - it's a free choice to do so.
But, sure, in the end what always counts is that which you are able to think yourself into believing.
Your thought are your own. Do with them what you will.


Prove that it is free. The burden of proof is on those who state the theory or the fact. Prove that we are free to believe anything and everything. Prove that we are free to choose. You are thus obligated for being hoisted upon the fact that you stated such as an absolute fact. You may not have started the mess but you are caught mainlining and spreading it. If you do not fulfill your social obligation, you may begin to understand why your life is messed up and why it seems like life is fucking you. If you do fulfill it, you might realize the same along different tracks, but at least you'll have your head somewhat clear of a shit-stain and be able to see a little better. I don't expect you to fulfill your social obligation to be pressed by the burden to prove your statement, though.
Image

A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time. A man does not die of love or his liver or even of old age; he dies of being a man. Death is a distant rumor to the young. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.
User avatar
Some Guy in History
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:41 pm

Prove that it is free. The burden of proof is on those who state the theory or the fact. Prove that we are free to believe anything and everything.
Nothing can prevent a thought except another thought.
Prove that we are free to choose.
Choice is just another thought.
You are thus obligated for being hoisted upon the fact that you stated such as an absolute fact. You may not have started the mess but you are caught mainlining and spreading it. If you do not fulfill your social obligation, you may begin to understand why your life is messed up and why it seems like life is fucking you. If you do fulfill it, you might realize the same along different tracks, but at least you'll have your head somewhat clear of a shit-stain and be able to see a little better. I don't expect you to fulfill your social obligation to be pressed by the burden to prove your statement, though.
My thoughts about this are entirely under my control.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Some Guy in History » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:21 pm

phyllo wrote:
Prove that it is free. The burden of proof is on those who state the theory or the fact. Prove that we are free to believe anything and everything.
Nothing can prevent a thought except another thought.
Prove that we are free to choose.
Choice is just another thought.
You are thus obligated for being hoisted upon the fact that you stated such as an absolute fact. You may not have started the mess but you are caught mainlining and spreading it. If you do not fulfill your social obligation, you may begin to understand why your life is messed up and why it seems like life is fucking you. If you do fulfill it, you might realize the same along different tracks, but at least you'll have your head somewhat clear of a shit-stain and be able to see a little better. I don't expect you to fulfill your social obligation to be pressed by the burden to prove your statement, though.
My thoughts about this are entirely under my control.


What do you call them when they're not thoughts? You don't, you just call them thoughts and then compound it by calling them your own. You don't think half the time, you blurt with the words bypassing your brain. And, who comes up with that? Yet I bet you claim it as byproduct of 'your' subconscious.
Image

A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time. A man does not die of love or his liver or even of old age; he dies of being a man. Death is a distant rumor to the young. Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the limit of our sight.
User avatar
Some Guy in History
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Ierrellus » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:48 pm

Nothing I think or believe can necessarily compel all reasonable people to think or believe as I do. For me God is real and can be experienced. All rational people do not have to believe my claim, but some do. I am basically a naturalist, so I do not espouse pie in the sky when you die religiosity, especially as some reward for what anyone does in this life. I see a God who created All and who will eventially reclaim All.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12292
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Ierrellus » Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:03 pm

A God experience, as is true of qualia, can be communicated intersubjectively provided some aspects of the experience or quale can be known by more than one person. It may be that, without our similarities, we could not communicate at all. So the numbers of those having a God experience does not necessarily disprove the fact of the experience, nor does an increase in numbers of claims prove it. The experience is its own proof, and it is one that can be shared with others.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12292
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 21, 2017 5:20 pm

phyllo wrote:
My point revolves more around the extent to which, whatever you say regarding before and after the grave, you either are or are not able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share it.
Nobody is obligated to believe anything - it's a free universe.
Nobody is obligated to demonstrate anything - it's a free choice to do so.


Unless, of course, it is a wholly determined universe. And God, of course, was obligated to make it that way.

But, sure, in the end what always counts is that which you are able to think yourself into believing.


phyllo wrote:Your thought[s] are your own. Do with them what you will.


Unless, of course, they really are just "existential contraptions".

Unless, of course, they really aren't.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21864
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Wed Jun 21, 2017 5:36 pm

Unless, of course, it is a wholly determined universe. And God, of course, was obligated to make it that way.
Obligated by who or to who?

There are no obligations in a determined universe - unless you want to call the motions of colliding billiard balls ... obligated motions. But that's just silly.
Unless, of course, they really are just "existential contraptions".

Unless, of course, they really aren't.
They are your own existential contraptions or they are your own non-contraptions. :-"
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 21, 2017 5:50 pm

Ierrellus wrote: Nothing I think or believe can necessarily compel all reasonable people to think or believe as I do.


Well, sure, until we are able to grasp the very ontological nature of existence itself, everything and anything is up for grabs regarding what we believe.

I just draw the line between demonstrating that, say, it is reasonable to believe that the Catholic church is in fact a Christian denomination, and believing that the souls of those who are not Catholics are at risk on Judgment Day.

[For the Catholics among us: Are they?]

Ierrellus wrote: For me God is real and can be experienced.


Okay, but to what extent have you grappled with this in order to determine that "I" here is an entirely rational [necessary] frame of mind; or is instead an "existential contraption" rooted more in the particular trajectory [experiences] that you encountered in the course of actually living your life? What I call dasein.

And all I can keep coming back to here is this: that with so much at stake on the other side of the grave -- oblivion or salvation -- how can you really be certain that your frame of mind "here and now" is not just a psychological device [a defense mechanism]allowing you to embody some measure of comfort and consolation regarding the parts both before and after the grave.

You feel it, I don't. Good for you.

Ierrellus wrote: All rational people do not have to believe my claim, but some do. I am basically a naturalist, so I do not espouse pie in the sky when you die religiosity, especially as some reward for what anyone does in this life. I see a God who created All and who will eventially reclaim All.


Maybe. Who am I to say this is not the way it really is? But that still leaves the part where you make choices from day to day that come into conflict with others; if you choose to interact with them socially, politically and economically in any particular community. You have your idea of what constitutes good and bad behavior, they have theirs. But given that God will claim all souls -- both the liberals and the conservatives, the believers and the non-believers, the saints and the sinners -- does it really make any difference then what behaviors we choose?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21864
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:02 pm

Ierrellus wrote:A God experience, as is true of qualia, can be communicated intersubjectively provided some aspects of the experience or quale can be known by more than one person. It may be that, without our similarities, we could not communicate at all. So the numbers of those having a God experience does not necessarily disprove the fact of the experience, nor does an increase in numbers of claims prove it. The experience is its own proof, and it is one that can be shared with others.


All of this may well be true. But supposing it is. How is it then relevant to the thrust of this thread: connecting the dots between the behaviors we choose on this this of the grave and our imagined fate on the other side of it.

Your own personal experience with God seems to revolve around the belief that God takes all souls in the end.

So, when push comes to shove, that would seem to allow anyone to behave in any manner that they choose on this side of the grave.

You cannot demonstrate this but you don't have to. You simply believe it. It's part of your own personal experience with God.

It comforts and consoles you and that's enough.

That part I get. What I can't figure out though is a way to believe that myself. Again, in other words.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21864
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:15 pm

But given that God will claim all souls -- both the liberals and the conservatives, the believers and the non-believers, the saints and the sinners -- does it really make any difference then what behaviors we choose?
Does it really make any difference whether you spend your entire day in a drug induced state or not?

I would say that it does make a difference to you and to the people around you. Some paths are better than others.

But ultimately, the individual makes a choice for him/herself.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:17 pm

phyllo wrote:
Unless, of course, it is a wholly determined universe. And God, of course, was obligated to make it that way.
Obligated by who or to who?


How on earth would I know? Something or someone created existence. Or existence has always...existed? And we either have some measure of autonomy in existing or we don't. That's just one more profound mystery embedded in existence.

Right?

phyllo wrote: There are no obligations in a determined universe - unless you want to call the motions of colliding billiard balls ... obligated motions. But that's just silly.


A lot of things believed on this thread have seemed silly to me.

Unless, of course, they really are just "existential contraptions".

Unless, of course, they really aren't.


phyllo wrote: They are your own existential contraptions or they are your own non-contraptions. :-"


Unless of course we are all just characters [or caricatures] created in some unimaginably mysterious entity's simulated reality.

Sure, maybe even God's. Maybe even your God's.

And though this is particularly hard to imagine maybe even James S. Saint's Real God.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 21864
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users