on discussing god and religion

iambiguous · December 26, 2014, 5:23pm

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.

iambiguous · December 27, 2014, 6:37pm

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 [u]the[/u] God or you don’t.

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

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

As for all the rest, that seems rooted as much in political economy as anything else.

iambiguous · December 30, 2014, 9:09pm

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?

iambiguous · December 31, 2014, 4:55pm

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”.

iambiguous · January 2, 2015, 6:52pm

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.

iambiguous · January 4, 2015, 4:27am

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.

iambiguous · January 6, 2015, 6:58pm

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.

iambiguous · January 7, 2015, 6:15pm

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.

iambiguous · January 8, 2015, 4:39pm

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.

iambiguous · January 10, 2015, 6:10pm

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:
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?

zinnat · January 10, 2015, 6:53pm

imb,

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

with love
sanjay

iambiguous · January 10, 2015, 8:04pm

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.

zinnat · January 10, 2015, 8:18pm

As you wish.

with love,
sanjay

iambiguous · January 11, 2015, 8:12pm

[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.

iambiguous · January 13, 2015, 8:16pm

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?

iambiguous · January 18, 2015, 12:07am

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?

iambiguous · January 20, 2015, 5:15pm

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.

iambiguous · January 22, 2015, 4:14pm

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.

iambiguous · January 23, 2015, 3:35am

Here is a more expanded interpretation of this verse:

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”.

iambiguous · January 24, 2015, 6:15pm

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.