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 iambiguous » Thu Dec 25, 2014 5:44 pm

To exercise [spiritually] means to expel the weakness/dissonance/division/demon, or to strengthen and purify to be more whole and solid. Religious practices concerning both rituals and attitudes/ethics condition one's spirit into a more instinctive response. The intent is that the particular conditioned responses makes for a stronger society. Different conditioning is required by different races and genders.


If this isn't a classic example of religion encompassed in an "intellectual contraption", I am certainly willing to entertain others.

To ask what it might mean "out in the world" of actual race and gender relationships...interactions embedded in, say, cultural and historical conditioning...might be a good place to start.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Dec 26, 2014 6:23 pm

Religion is like a college degree as compared to a doctorate in spirituality.


And what can this mean other than that "spirituality" is even more the creature that you concoct "in your head".

Then it all comes down to the extent to which "spirituality" revolves more around unique personal experiences and "feelings" or around definitions and deductions.

Either way, they are still a million miles away from what most concerns us "out in the world" with others: How ought I to behave?

On this side of the grave, in order to interact the least dysfunctionally with fellow mere mortals...and on the other side of the grave in order to please God.

Either way we are judged. The reality then becomes how we balance these judgments in the choices we make.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sat Dec 27, 2014 7:37 pm

When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.

J. Krishnamurti.


You can clearly see though how, with God and religion, this really would not work. Not with a God or a religion that eventually comes down to Judgment Day.

In other words, with immortality and salvation itself at stake, you either worship and adore the God or you don't.

So, if you make contact with those who worship and adore another God [the wrong God] the potential for violence seems inevitable.

If for no other reason that you will feel compelled to witness for the God in order to save the souls of those who witness instead for the wrong Gods.

As for all the rest, that seems rooted as much in political economy as anything else.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:09 pm

Religion is about how to live in the best and most proper way.
Cultures differ on what the best is seen as.
Religion is not directly or completely "theism" and "faith".
People will disagree on -Should-
Without -Should- there is no religion or spirituality.

Religion, teleology and living. Mix all 3 and you get spirituality.


I would ask "what in the world does this mean?" but I know from experience that folks who make points like this are often the least interested in going there.

But, what the hell:

With respect to human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments -- "how ought I to behave"? -- how does one get to "spirituality" when "mixing" religion, teleology and living?
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 31, 2014 5:55 pm

The resurrection of Jesus wasn't called a miracle for nothing. God was deviating from the usual laws of physics, no?


No.
You merely don't understand what those laws really are.
And it was called a "miracle" because no one believed that such a thing could happen.
Laws were not broken, but rather carefully obeyed.


Yes, there are religionists among us who, psychologically, are so compelled to twist the world into their own rendition of God that even the laws of physics are compelled to obey their will.

Thus, miracles are no longer necessary at all. We merely need to reconfigure the laws of nature in order that they be in accordance with the "miracle".

In fact, a miracle is merely a more precise understanding of the world we live in. Even if that world exists only "in our head".
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 02, 2015 7:52 pm

Is there any difference between religion and spirituality?


Maybe religion is a practice while spirituality is an experience.


Sure, when folks practice a particular denominational religion, individual experiences are generally reduced down to one or another scripture, dogma, liturgy.

Whereas if you embrace God and religion "spiritually", this spirituality can be derived from your own particular experiences; and then from your own particular assessment of what they mean to you -- what they mean to you -- "in your head".

And then no one can really argue against it because they have not had your experiences and do not have access to your thoughts and feelings.

And so God and religion become whatever you think and feel they are. Whatever you happen to believe they are.

And then with respect to moral and political values and your fate post mortem, they too become whatever you think they are.

Thus, in places like this, there is absolutely no threat from folks who ask you to demonstrate this beyond what you do believe is true in your head.

Lots of folks like that here, right? Just as there are lots of folks here who define God into existence. Nothing really tangible need ever be discussed at all.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 04, 2015 5:27 am

God cannot create the concept of otherness because concepts are not created things. He could create the perception of otherness by creating anything other than Himself.

When God had nothing to experience "otherness" in response to, then everything was the same- God. That doesn't mean that everything was simple, undifferentiated, or without positive traits (nothingness).


I really do try to imagine what it is like to be inside the mind of someone who can make assertions like this -- as though he could know that something like this is true!

And it just seems as far removed from God the Dude who gives you a thumbs up or a thumbs down on Judgment Day as a discussion of God can possibly get.

There "otherness" seems to revolve soley around whether you do get the thumbs up and go up...or you get the thumbs down and go down.

And yet that's when so many folks seem compelled to tug the narratives "down here" into political ideologies -- where once again they either give you a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:58 pm


1] A universe that exists forever must be capable of an infinite number of permutations that can become real.

2] A universe that is capable of an infinite number of permutations that can become real must also never reach an infinite number of permutations that can never become real.

3] It is impossible for an infinite number of permutations that can become real to co-exist with an infinite number of permutations that cannot become real because infinity cannot distinguish itself.

4] Hence, the universe must not exist forever.

5] Because the universe does exist but cannot exist forever, the universe must be created.

6] Because creation must be real, then there is no such thing as an infinite number of permutations that can never become real because the creator can create all possible permutations.

7] Because there is no such thing as an infinite number of permutations that can never become real, an eternal universe without a creator is impossible because such a universe must admit of an infinite number of permutations that can never become real.

8] Hence, a creator of the universe must be real in order to distinguish infinity from itself.


And, then, miracle of all miracles, this creator just happens to be the one that they believe in. The Real Creator

All the more incredible, this creator can easily be demonstrated to exist. Indeed, it can be done without even leaving the comfort of your recliner.

A creator, in other words, that is simply defined and deduced into existence.

Go ahead, try and prove that this creator does not exist.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:15 pm

Can a good god do evil? Why or why not?


If a god does evil then he is not good, but evil. Calling a god that does evil "good" would therefore be outright false.


But then as soon as you bring good and evil down to earth you are forced to acknowledge that what some see as good, others see as evil.

And then you are forced to acknowledge in turn that these assumptions are often rooted in a belief in the very same God.

So you are stuck. You want to do good because that brings you immortality and salvation. But good and bad regarding the very same behaviors are attributed to the very same God.

And then you note how this quandary hardly ever comes up here.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:39 pm

But most people already have a syncretistic religion. They mix physicalism, dualism, ideas with transcendent features with monisms that preclude this, strange contradictory mixtures of ideas of the self - which can be seen in changes during the day in how the self is constituted through language. Most religious people in the west have incorporated ideas from psychology and science and are even influenced by other religions via ideas entering the mainstream from these and filtering back through 'common sense' and pop psychology and so on into their habits.


True. But where do all of these multifaceted, layered beliefs reside? In their heads. Heads rooted historically, culturally, experientially. And for many, most all of them, that will be the extent of it until the day they die. Or so it seems so far.

The challenge then is to bring God and religion out of their heads in a more substantive, substantial way. Is there a way to do this? Or will it really just come down to a leap of faith in the end? In other words, believing that what you do believe is true about God and religion need be as far as it goes. Or even as far as it can go.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:10 pm

Omniscience is not the trivial thing that atheists naively presume that it is.


As though all atheists presume that omniscience means the same thing. Or, for that matter, that all theists presume it means the same thing.

In relationship to, for example, God.

Presuming of course we can all come to agree on the meaning of that.

Let's start with the definition:

1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge

Then move on to the controversy this definition might provoke with respect to any particular God said to be omniscient:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience#Controversies

Now, all I aim to do is to bring all of this down to earth and discuss it in the context of identity and conflicting value judgments.

Anyone interested?
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby zinnat » Sat Jan 10, 2015 7:53 pm

imb,

Just back home after many days. Reply tomorrow.
Sorry for that.

with love
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:04 pm

zinnat13 wrote:imb,

Just back home after many days. Reply tomorrow.
Sorry for that.

with love
sanjay


That's fine.

Why don't we focus in particular on this:

The extent to which you are able to explain to me, "whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not."

That's where this all more or less began.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby zinnat » Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:18 pm

iambiguous wrote:
zinnat13 wrote:imb,

Just back home after many days. Reply tomorrow.
Sorry for that.

with love
sanjay


That's fine.

Why don't we focus in particular on this:

The extent to which you are able to explain to me, "whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not."

That's where this all more or less began.


As you wish.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:12 pm

[Meaning in a meaningless universe] is chosen individually, or more accurately, selected from a myriad array of prefabricated ideological constructs and such. We can go shopping for religions and philosophies and moral codes just like we can go shopping for toothpaste. We can examine different products (which literally is what they are) and pick the one we find most appealing, or we can just accept whatever's been handed to us socially and culturally - it probably doesn't make much difference, either way, we're trying to grab stars out of the sky and hold them in our hands. Somewhere, i can't remember where, i encountered the metaphor that a human's perspective on the universe and/or God is like an ant's perspective on a Picasso painting as it crawls across the surface of the canvas. i've come to take it as given that our cognitive and sensory limitations make it impossible for us to understand the meaning, if any, of "God" and/or "existence" and/or whatever we're looking for as we navigate the marketplace of meanings. Consequently, the more i think about it the stranger religion and all it's trappings become. Prayer, worship, orthodoxy, sin, repentance, afterlife - these are ideas and activities that thoughtful, intelligent people adopt and participate in as a result of our compulsion to understand things we never can and never will understand (and that's presuming there's anything to be understood in the first place). Don't get me wrong, that's a compulsion that really serves an essential role in the overall well-being of many, many people - keeps most people alive - but in a broader sense, it is a futile effort. Religious ideas attempt to get at broader meanings, actual understandings of things like "God's will" - matters of universal and absolute significance. Alas, humans can't do that (which is kind of semi-tragic given how much effort and resource we put into our attempts to) so we just kind of adopt whatever the people who came before us adopted and stick to it, even to the point of believing and doing some outright bizarre things. Bizarre things made mundane through ceaseless repetition.


Well put.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:16 pm

Re Islamic extremism...

The surreal irony [for me] will always be that Christians, Jews and Moslems all worship and adore the same fucking God! The God of Abraham and Moses.

Sure, if it was an entirely different God, one might well understand why the infidels must be dealt with harshly. After all, with immortality and salvation itself at stake, you can't really muck around with those who aim to have their own God installed in those places where folks wield political and economic power.

Still, I suppose it is just as important to some that only their own rendition of the one true God prevails. Even if it is but a different version of the same one.

And those rich and powerful folks who really run the world always do appreciate it when the the masses are hell bent on venting their outrage on those who have almost not to do with how the world does work. It might be race or gender or sexual orientation or ethnicity or God. Just so long as the focus isn't on, say, class?
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:07 am

This is something I have never really heard about in the spirituality stuff that is on the internet.

I call it unbodiment.
Basically this is how it works : A person's body is genetically and in many levels set to absorb spiritual energy. It absorbs from all around it, all it touches, and it drains the strength out of the body's own soul. If the soul is not strong enough, it will be consumed by the body, the unbodiment, and fuze into the flesh, as a prop-up device.

Normally, a healthy body strengthens and builds upon its soul.

Bodies are in many cases secretly evil. Very very secretly. So that nobody would believe it if i told them.
The body blocks out free cosmic energy, it diverts and addicts itself to pleasure and fear and madness.


Hmm. I suspect this is another of those things that one can only believe is true "in their head".

And where I have never really heard anything about it is on the Science Channel. Or on Nova. Or in any Science publications.

Or, instead, is this just meant to be ironic?

Anyone care to substantiate it? Or, say, explain it further?
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:15 pm

Throughout the OT, it is very often expressed that there are things that God simply does not want Man to know or do, starting with that famed Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - "Just don't go there". We can speculate all kinds of positive or negative reasons for such concerns, but one cannot legitimately state that God merely wanted for Man to progress.


It would seem that throughout any scripture the only thing it would be necessary for God to convey -- to convey clearly -- is the manner in which one might be assessed in a favorable light by God on Judgment Day.

Isn't that what it is really about in the end? And yet it is obvious that God has done a rather poor job of this. Otherwise why would there be so many conflicting renditions of God out in the world. And, even when folks can agree on which particular God one should/must worship and adore in order to gain access to immortality and salvation on Judgment Day, the Scriptures are vague enough to allow any number of conflicting interpretations of what it means to worship and adore this one true God in a righteous manner.

And yet, in my view, this is something that many true believers simply will not fully address. If, when push comes to shove, religion is not all about Judgment Day and salvation, what then is the point of it?

So it would seem to be imperative that the believers find a way to nail down which God is in fact the one true God; and what it is that He expects of us "down here" in order to be deemed worthy to join Him in the Promised Land.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:14 pm

Odds are in the favor that one may have a physical relationship with a western woman without having much commitment to her. Then, he can dump her and turn to second one. But, on the other hand, forget about sex, most of the Muslim women would not allow a man even to touch or kiss her without marriage.

Which option is better for the women...?


Is that really the point though? Instead, is it not this: Which option is better in the eyes of God?

After all, "down here" women have to contend with men [sexually or not] for the breadth of a single human lifespan. Whereas what they choose to do down here in the eyes of God have consequences that shall span all of eternity.

So: how do we decide what women ought to do in the context of Judgment Day?

Well, different Gods, different answers. Or, sometimes, as with the God of Abraham and Moses, it's the same God with different answers.

With religionists though what becomes of vital importance is that there is but one truly righteous manner in which to behave "in the eyes of God".

Deontologically as it were.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:35 am

Rather, Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW" Matthew 10:34.

Here is a more expanded interpretation of this verse:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/ ... _10_34.htm

How then is one to reconcile this verse with the manner in which most Christians embrace Jesus Christ as the "Prince of Peace"?

Well, the sword is said not to be an actual sword at all. Rather, it is a "spiritual sword" instead.

But this is just one of many examples of how the Bible [any Bible] can be twisted into a narrative that can be embraced by folks anywhere along the political spectrum. The same is done by those who seek to attach Christ to, say, socialism or capitalism.

That's simply the way of the world. You want to believe that something is true. And so you hammer whatever it is that you find into a frame of mind that rationalizes your own behaviors, your own values, your own sense of self.

All the while insisting this is not what you are doing at all. You are simply "telling it like it is".
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jan 24, 2015 7:15 pm

All you have to do is read The Gospels and you will quickly realize that Jesus uses a lot of figurative speech and parables and stories and metaphors etc.


Heads they win, tails you lose.

Read a controversial passage from one or another Scripture and there will be religionists who insist it is meant to be taken literally and those who insist it is not.

Lucky for them, God simply did not make that part clear enough.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:06 am

Buddhism is a religion only for the serious and devoted scholars, not for masses. On the other hand, anyone can follow Gita, whether he is a common person, a king or even a devoted religious scholar.


Buddhism, immortality and salvation. One rendition:

http://www.sptimmortalityproject.com/ba ... afterlife/

So, when it comes to immortality and salvation, what difference does it make if you are a devoted scholar or just one of the masses?

Anyone care to go there?
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 26, 2015 6:05 pm

We are driven to escape and we have no choice in the matter. We can only choose the method of escapism. The rest of humanity and the actions of humanity then unfold.


Sure, but don't you think religion can be something more than just escapism? Is the search for meaning a form of escapism?


Religion as an escape?

Actually, when most of us think about escaping, it pertains more to the trials and the tribulations we endure from day to day "down here".

With religion it would seem the "escape" is aimed more in the direction of that part where we have shuffled off this mortal coil.

In other words, many embrace religion in order to escape death.

But there is an escape function religion does serve for mere mortals in the here and now: an escape from the moral uncertainty rooted in "how ought I to live?" With God that's easy: The will be done.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:30 am

No, a person can't claim 'absolutely true and authoritative knowledge' about God. But people don't need absolutely true and authoritative knowledge to act. There's a huge range between absolute certainty, and such a profound degree of doubt that one has to profess ignorance. All in between there are levels of sureness where a person is justified in acting on what they believe and teaching it to others while still giving an eye-rolling acknowledgment of "yes yes, and maybe we're all brains in jars, Mr. Skepticpants" to the doubters.


In other words, when it comes to the existence God, there are virtually an infinite number of ways to rationalize what you do in His name.

And then all you need do is to believe what you do "in your head".

And then from that you can make a leap to a particular moral and political agenda.

And, yes, this really does comfort and console some all the way to the grave. And then beyond that if you believe them.
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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:32 pm

"If EVERYTHING must have a cause, then God must have a cause."

As was stated hundreds of years ago, "everything" in that statement refers to the physical universe, the creation, not that which creates it. Pedantic arguments don't hold water.

Kalam Argument
And though many there are, this statement;
"If the series of temporal events is infinite, we never could have traversed it to arrive at the current moment"

...is only uttered by morons.


All of this at times heated debate [from some of us] only because folks don't have either the intellectual integrity or the intellectual honesty to admit that, as of now, we simply do not know how to grapple with the existence of existence itself.

Instead, all we have are arguments. Scholastic contraptions [or theological contraptions] in which sooner or later the words start piling up on top of each other. And then the inevitable avalanche of tautological assumptions.

So, the closest we ever get to a God, the God, their God here is by way of the [perfect] circular argument.

A few claiming to have concocted the most perfect circle of all. In their head for example. :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: 26569
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]