on discussing god and religion

Personal Experience
Yesterday I spent an hour or so walking around my wife’s garden. She farms about 6 mu … the equivalent of one acre. Her garden area is not a single contiguous patch of ground … rather several separate patches of one mu or so. The patchwork separation of the land is a remnant of the land reforms of 70 years ago. At that time land was given to families based on the size of a family … the intention being that each family would have enough land to feed their family.

A few individuals who live in our apartment community offered their family land to my wife for a token rental fee. Apparently these people no longer depend on the land to feed their families and they are tired of the hard work required to farm the land. The small patchwork separation of the land precludes the use of modern machinery and equipment … not that the individual owners could afford such equipment.

For example … in rural China most peasants still use a single furrow plow … the use of this rig is rather unique. The plow is not pulled along behind a horse or donkey … it’s pulled by a man walking backwards across the field. Obviously these peasants never had enough land to feed horses or donkeys. What ingenuity! I saw a two person single furrow plow as well. The wife pulls on the front end and the husband guides the rig in the rear … used for preparing a furrrow for planting peanuts.

The peasants are artists … they take such care to ensure their field work is ‘pretty’ … not my wife … who is stubbornly independant and lacks the 40-50 years of practical experience. For example … my wife’s rows of corn meander like a snake while her neighbor’s rows are straight as an arrow.

On discussing God and religion.

1. Seeds and soil are passive elements when separated … together they develop a symbiotic relationship. So it is with people and God.

2. The goal of modern farming techniques is to maximize output with optimal efficiency. To achieve this goal man has developed artificial actors … chemical concoctions … pesticides, fertilizers … equipment that attempts to enforce regularity/uniformity. Seeds are planted at exactly the same depth … with identical space between them … even seed DNA is re-engineered for optimum and uniform output.

3. So it is with religions … the goal being to homogenize large communities of individuals for the sake of efficiency in control … manipulation.

4. So it is with cultures/societies.

5. Despite all the effort … absolute uniformity/conformity eludes the program’s authors.

Personal Experience

My wife’s ‘farming’ activity this year has lead to some exciting and unusual personal experiences … with their consequent reflections … contemplation. This morning I felt the urge to observe her peanut seeds germinating … a fascinating experience.

1. Today I learned … as far as observation is the equivalent of learning … how peanuts germinate and sprout. The peanut seed seems to create a white ‘stem’ (for lack of a better word) that pushes down into the earth or … perhaps simply creates an anchor … that serves to push the peanut to the surface. For many of the seedlings the peanut breaks through the surface of the earth … intact … the peanut later opens … exposing it’s two independent halves … the colour changes to green and leaves start sprouting from the base of where the peanut split into it’s two halves. For me, absolutely fascinating … the only plant I know of that pushes the seed to the surface before sprouting leaves.

2. Observations concerning my wife’s corn plants. They sprouted several days ago … the leaves were about 3-4 inches long. The leaves were full of holes … and some had the end of the leaves chewed off. I jumped to the conclusion these corn plants were doomed … they wouldn’t grow into mature corn plants because of my wife’s strong aversion to pesticides. I was wrong again … these same plants have recovered and are growing normally. Hmmm!

“On discussing God and Religion”

In the previous post I wrote:

[b]

[/b]

This morning I witnessed some of that symbiotic relationship.

1. The peanut seed … the genesis of it’s symbiotic relationship with the soil occurs in the ground … in the dark … unseen … dancing alone with the soil. Reminds me of the book “Dark Night of the Soul” by St John of the Cross. According to St John the genesis of our symbiotic relationship with God starts in the dark … in the unknown … the unseen … some part of our being is dancing with God and we’re not consciously aware of the dance.

[b]

[/b]

Writing the above reminds me of something Ambiguous has written about himself many times … again this morning in another OP:

[b]

[/b]

Perhaps finding a way for “our house to be at rest” and patience … ergo … no effort on our part is the answer.

2. The peanut seed splits into it’s two halves … exposing each half to the sun. The sun joins the dance the peanut seed is having with the soil … the peanut seed turns green … and tiny leaves begin to sprout. The sun … the light … is an integral partner in the growth of the seed plant. Perhaps answers why the sun … the light … figures so prominently in many world religions.

3. The corn plants … it’s not over until the fat lady sings. People … like the young corn shoots … are full of holes … a portion of our being has been eaten or chewed off … not to worry … there is something within our being that has the power to overcome these ‘attacks’ and we can grow into a healthy productive life.

Well put. And does this not take us to the very heart and the very soul of religion?

With God we get…

• immortality
• salvation
• divine justice
• a moral font
• a denouement
• a teleology

And can there really be a greater source for peace of mind – happiness – then to believe that this is true? Is there a secular font that even comes close to it?

But most of the true believers don’t stop there:

Think about it. Once you go here with your God and your religion, you find yourself having to translate them into a narrative that becomes applicable to the actual interactions of mere mortals from day to day to day. Into an actual denomination.

In what particular context then is this to be understood? What does it mean existentially to value the self, to embody “a total acceptance around a center of love”, to take the measure of one’s “will”?

And what happens when others share the same intellectual scaffolding here – the same “general description” of human interactions with God and religion – but disagree fiercely regarding what is actually to go on inside it?

Ambiguous … it appears personal experience has no place in your search for answers. With this attitude you stand firmly with the crowd … a crowd that includes almost all of humanity … almost … not all.

For example, Socrates chose death rather than return to the crowd.

Early European settlers in America thought the indigenous Americans were savages … this attitude persists to this day.

Yet the spirituality of some of the tribes of indigenous Americans is superior to most forms of spirituality throughout history.

How so?

The culture/traditions of these particular tribes forced their young boys … about age 14 … to separate from the crowd … to leave the village … to abandon their comfort zone … and walk out into the wilderness … the chaos … all alone … in search of a purpose for their individual life. The activity was called a “vision quest”

Ambiguous … are you prepared to separate from the crowd … abandon all you know … and walk out into the wilderness … the chaos … all alone. From the few of your posts I read I think not.

Manifestation of your enormous potential is stymied by clinging to the crowd.

No, my point is that personal experience is not the only source for answers when the questions being raised revolve around God and religion.

After all, eventually you are going to bump into others who, through a different set of personal experiences, are going have very different answers.

This thread was then created in order to explore these answers. Answers relating to behaviors that are chosen on this side of the grave as that relates to certain sets of assumptions regarding one’s fate on the other side of the grave.

As this is related to the answers that different folks give to the question, “Does God exist?”. As this relates in turn to their capacity to actually demonstrate that in fact their God [and only their God] does exist.

How is that related to the reason that I created this thread? And my reaction to Socrates and his ilk would be no different here. As would be my reaction to early European settlers and Native Americans. Whatever their particular narrative regarding morality on this side of the grave and their perceived fate on the other side, they had particular answers. And I would explore those answers as they relate to my own – answers rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

Exactly: How so?

How on earth would you [or them] demonstrate this to be the case? With respect to what particular behaviors in what particular contexts?

Or: What particular “visions” relating to what particular behaviors on this side of the grave; as that relates to what particular “visions” of the other side of it.

What I am prepared to do is to sit down with folks who have a set of answers before and then after their “vision quest”.

How are the answers different? And “for all practical purposes” how are the different answers more or less relevant in their interactions with others?

And how is that related to their “vision” of the part that revolves around immortality and salvation?

Is there really a “Happy Hunting Ground” where the souls of any number of Great Plains Native Americans go? Is there the equivalent of a Judgment Day there? Which particular Native American tribes get to say which particular vision prevails in which particular context on this side of the grave?

In my view, you won’t go there because you find no need to. As long as you can attach your own “peace of mind” to this “general description” of “spirituality” that you give relating to these “vision quests” that’s as far as it need go for you.

Or, again, so it seems to me.

But I will be the first to acknowledge that my own narrative here is no less an existential contraption in turn.

That’s why I always come back to the crucial distinction between that which we believe is true “in our head” “here and now” about these things [relationships] and that which we are able to demonstrate is in fact true for everyone now and forever.

In a vision or not.

Forever? That’s an absurd requirement.

How can you possibly know how humans will evolve in the distant future and what discoveries will be made? Even the hard sciences would not satisfy such a requirement. You’re essentially saying that nothing can be demonstrated. =D>

[b]

[/b]

Iambiguous … do you consider your above statement an example of what Jacob labels “dyadic”.

If so, what a revelation!

Your animated persistent and tenacious clinging to your ‘existential contraption’ reveals the existence of ‘spirit’.

How so?

Spirit is invisible, unknowable, indescribable, ineffable and so on … making it logical that ‘spirit’ has chosen to reveal itself through ‘dyadic’ with people like you.

Our e-exchanges have strengthened my faith after all … thanks.

iambiguous … in a previous post I suggested you had enormous potential.

I just figured it out!

Seems I just experienced one of those sudden bursts of insight Jacob talked about.

You have been called to champion the materialist side of a certain dyad as I have been called to champion the spiritual side of the same dyad. You have been sparring with how many ILP members? … for how long? and yet collectively they haven’t even scratched your armor. You remain as forceful and energetic as ever. A valiant warrior indeed!.

Your victory in the sparring I refer to above … even if victory is limited to the last person still standing … still posting … is simply a reflection of just how strong the materialist side of the dyad is in today’s world.

Recently I’ve been harping about the intrinsic value of personal experience … especially the innocuous … insignificant experiences of our daily lives. Today you shared one of your own … how long has it been since you shared a simple personal experience on ILP? We shouldn’t underestimate the significance of this event. This insignificant event may be a “billboard” broadcasting which direction your life will take.

This insignificant personal experience of yours may also be the first instance of a “chink in your armor”. It’s important to note that this ‘chink’ was self inflicted … it didn’t come from the outside … from anyone else. When your armor is finally pierced it will also come from the inside … this will be a great day for you and for mankind! I look forward to it.

What experience am I referring to? Your “True Story” in the OP “Why is Islam [in part] So Evil”. Seems your ‘goodness’ compelled you to share your experience … and apologize for accidentally posting in the wrong OP.

Reflecting on the above thoughts triggered a memory … the conversion experience of Gaius Marius Victorinus at an advanced old age(c AD 355). While looking for some reference material I was tickled to learn that Victorinus and his post conversion writings are the topic of current philosophical/religious debate.

[b]

[/b]

This article may be what you are looking for.

mdpi.com/2077-1444/7/10/122/pdf

As I have noted time and time and time again, until an exact understanding of Existence itself is known, the distinction I make between that which individual subjects claim to know “in their head” and that which they are able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to know [as true] in turn, will ever be problematic.

Basically, isn’t that just common sense?

Now, if, on the other hand, a God, the God, your God does in fact exist that could be construed as the ontological and teleological font. Right?

But I created this thread precisely in order to explore the relationship between that which the faithful claim to believe [to know] about moral behavior on this side of the grave and what they claim to believe [to know] about their fate on the other side of the grave.

As this pertains to what they claim to believe [to know] about God and religion.

And when have I ever argued that nothing can be demonstrated? On the contrary, I think that, for example, it can be demonstrated that Donald Trump and Pope Francis recently met at the Vatican.

And yet there will be any number of subjective/subjunctive reactions to this meeting from any number of folks with conflicting points of point.

So, is there a way [using the tools of philosophy] to reduce all of these political/religious prejudices down to the optimal or the only rational point of view?

Or, instead, is this more likely to be subsumed in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

I know: Let’s share our own reactions and explore it.

A suggestion:

You and I and Jacob focus a discussion on a particular context in which we explore behaviors of our own on this side of the grave as they are deemed pertinent to the manner in which we imagine our fate on the other side of the grave.

In which we bring words like “existential contraption”, “spirit” and “dyadic” out into the world of actual human interaction.

After all, what “on earth” does it really mean to have your faith strengthened? In other words, as that relates to your understanding of a particular context in which God and religion come up.

You make it problematic by having a set of ridiculous requirements. You make the task impossible and then you feel satisfied when everyone fails.

There is no common sense in asking for something to be valid “forever”. There is no way to approach “forever”.

Since you could never know exactly what God knows, then you would always fall short even with the proven existence of God. Does God want you to eat one more cheese doodle? You can’t know unless you ask and He says. Is God going to reply to that? Is He going to tell you if your toenails are too long?
And if you require the certainty of “forever”, then you’re going to need God for every trivial issue.

You need the God font for literally everything. Right?

A hundred years from now, nobody will know or care if they met in the Vatican. IOW, even that fact, does not meet the requirement of being true “forever”. It has a time and place where it is true.

There is nothing wrong with the transitory nature of truth.

I just did.

Note to others:

Will someone please make an attempt to explain to me what any of this has to do with the point I had in mind in creating this thread?

What crucial facet of his argument do I keep missing here regarding “spirituality” — as that relates to the relationship between the behaviors we choose on this side of the grave: as that relates to what we imagine our fate to be on the other side of the grave: as that relates to our understanding of God and religion.

[b]

[/b]

Okay, highlight a portion of this article that might tempt me to actually read the whole thing.

What particular answers to what particular questions before and after what particular vision quest?

Or why don’t we just stick to yours?

Iambiguous … an appealing suggestion … don’t know that Jacob is interested … though he did agree to chat with ILP member “ThoughtsofThomas” who may also be interested in your suggeestion.

My particular interest is in discussing daily experiences as they unfold.

Iambiguous … only elucidation that comes from within has value.

I haven’t read the article … it’s too much of a “wall of text” for my taste. I was tickled to have my memory of Victorinus … who gets a mention in Augustine’s book “Confessions” … echoed by current research. Synchronicity?

Nice would be … “Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood…Please!”

christianinvestors.org/blog/see … toodplease

Okay, but my aim on this tread has always been to focus the beam on those experiences that prompt you to consider the relationship between choosing particular behaviors on this side of the grave as you imagine those choices might be relevant to your fate on the other side of the grave.

And the part that God and religion play in that.

Elucidation: explanation that makes something clear; clarification.

My point here though is that what seems clear to you from within – “in your head” – regarding discussions of God and religion may not seem clear at all to others. In particular as that relates to the existential relationships that I seek to explore on this thread.

As that relates to the manner in which our understanding of these relationships is or is not embodied subjectively in dasein embodied in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

Okay, forget that then. Let’s stick to your own anawers before and after a “vision quest”. As that relates to the aim of this thread.

On the other hand…

huffingtonpost.com/peter-dre … 54296.html

Conflicting goods as it were.

But this is basically true for all of us here. In fact, it would seem to be the nature of exchanges that revolve around things like God and religion and value judgments. Some things we can pin down as true for all of us and some things we cannot.

Is it possible then to construct the least problematic argument relating to the relationship between behaviors deemed to be moral on this side of the grave and understandings of beyond it?

What might that argument encompass relating to actual conflicting behaviors that we are all familiar with?

Still in the end it always seems to come down to sets of assumptions that rationalize different [sometimes very different] behaviors.

And yet for all practical purposes in our interactions with others it seems important to make distinctions between things that do appear to be true for all of us [as far into the future as we can imagine], and things that are rooted more in dasein and conflicting goods. After all, this marks that crucial distinction between relationships that all rational men and women would be committed to embrace and reactions to relationships that would seem better suited to moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Take the unfolding Trump scandals. There are things that did in fact occur between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Investigations are now in place trying to determine what those facts are.

And the facts unearthed will either be or not be in sync with the law.

But if no laws were broken there will still be a deluge of conflicting political opinion regarding whether Trump and his cohorts “did the right thing”.

This thread would then explore all of that as it relates to any particular individual’s belief in God.

What does God make of Trump and Putin here? How will He judge them?

Turn it into a caricature if you must, but the bottom line on this thread is still the same:

1] A God, the God, Your God either does or does not exist.
2] If in fact He does exist, He will judge our behaviors on this side of the grave.
3] With so much at stake [immortality, salvation, devine justice] the manner in which any particular individual construes the meaning of God and religion will surely be pertinent regarding the behaviors that he or she chooses on this side of the grave.

The idea being to keep them in sync.

But there are so many different renditions of God with so many different [and conflicting] renditions of vice and virtue how is one to choose?

So, I created this thread in order to explore what those who do believe in God and [thus] are not entangled in my own dilemma above choose.

How does God and religion play out in their day to day lives when their values and their behaviors come into conflict with others.

That’s not the point. The point is that both Don Trump and the Pope are around today. As is Vladimir Putin. They all choose particular behaviors here and now that an existing God is either judging or not judging. These men will die. Now, how will an existing God take into account the behaviors that these men choose “here and now” insofar as “there and then” their immortality and salvation are in play?

Either you don’t understand my points or you are unable to address them in a substantive manner.

This time let’s just leave it at that.

Iambiguous … you have articulated “your point(s)” eloquently … what’s the word count at this point? Repeating it ad nauseum doesn’t make it any more compelling.

“Your point(s)” are valid … supported by bountiful empirical evidence.

Clinging to your point(s) have lead you to what you call an “existential contraption” … I encourage you to be patient … seems you are making progress … as in progress towards breaking the chains that bind you.

Read some of the article … some of the anecdotes in the Book of Acts (NT) suggest Jesus was much closer to being a Communist.