on discussing god and religion

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.

That’s the thing about definitions. We can only define atheism given the gap between what we think the definition ought to be and that which would need to be known about the nature of existence [and human reality] itself in order to define it essentially, objectively, ontologically.

And that frame of mind would seem reasonable only in the entity that we call God. And if God created the human race where does that leave us? Or if the human race created God creating the human race where does that leave us?

Me, I always come back [here on this thread] to discussions of God – the existence of God – as that pertains to the behaviors we choose here and now as that pertains to our fate there and then beyond the grave.

I call myself an atheist. But I recognize that this reflects more an intuitive leap to No God than an actual solid conviction that He does not exist.

Still, the most tenable frame of mind revolves around the greater obligation of those who profess to believe in God to demonstrate that He does in fact exist. After all, “in our head” we can claim to believe in anything that the mind can ever imagine.

You don’t know what motivates me to post as I do here. That goes beyond my participation at ILP.

Besides, new members are joining all the time here. They are exploring my arguments for the first time. Who knows when one of them might post something that actually reaches [even teaches] me in a way that, for example, so far, you don’t.

Yes, and clinging to your own points have allowed you “in your head” to go beyond the existential contraption that entangles me [“I”] in my dilemma above.

But I still don’t have a firm grasp regarding how your own belief in God allows you to yank yourself up out of it. Or in how it facilitates you in connecting the dots between how you choose to behave here and now and your imagined fate there and then. Before and after the grave.

Instead, your frame of mind [to me] is just one more example of someone who has been able to “think” himself into embracing a subjective/subjunctive narrative that affords him considerable more psychological equilibrium and equanimity than my own narrative does. So, just in terms of “peace of mind” you come out way ahead.

“Progress” in “breaking my chains” will occur when others are able to provide me with an argument that seems more reasonable than the one I have now. And lots of folks in the past have accomplished just that.

But now you are in a hole where there is no way to distinguish reasonable from unreasonable. IOW, you have thrown away the tools for getting out of the hole and whenever someone throws you another tool , you reject it as useless. And since you won’t even try using the tool, you can’t convince yourself of its value.

So, you’re fucked. (Pardon my French.)

Have you learned anything at ILP?

Here of course all we have at our disposal are words. Others either do or do not succeed in assembling them into arguments able to convince me that the manner in which they connect the dots between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave, their imagined fate on the other side of the grave, and their thoughts and their feelings about God, are more reasonable than my own.

And, if they are, there is still the problem of demonstrating to others that what we believe about these relationships is that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Or, instead, it all becomes embedded and embodied in but one more leap of faith to God. One more wager.

This as opposed to any number of human interactions in which we have no problem at all in making a distinction between reasonable and unreasonable beliefs:

It is reasonable to note that in fact Donald Trump calls himself a Christian. It is reasonable to note that in fact he was baptized and confirmed at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens, in New York City.

But:

Is it reasonable to note that Donald Trump is in fact a Christian? Is it reasonable to note that the Christian God does in fact exist?

What “tools” do you suggest that we use in order to make a proper distinction here between reasonable and unreasonable beliefs?

What I have not come across is an argument that succeeds in yanking me up out of my dilemma. What I have not come across is an argument able to convince me that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist.

More to point, however, I have not come across many on this thread who are actually willing to connect the dots [existentially] between their moral narrative on this side of the grave as that relates to the behaviors they choose as that relates their imagined fate on the other side of the grave as that relates to their belief [here and not] in God and religion.

Instead, I tend to come across agendas that seem more intent on attaining and then sustaining a frame of mind that provides considerably more psychological comfort and consolation than I am myself able to attain and sustain.

And in the face of, among other things, oblivion isn’t that what really counts?

In other words, whatever actually works.

What point would there be in such a suggestion? You would simply reject any suggestion as inadequate.

There are some minimal requirements to be satisfied.

Same as “a heap of sand”. We reasonable know that it is not one grain or two or a few. There is a quantity of sand where it becomes unclear/disputable whether it is a heap. Then it becomes clear again once some quantity is surpassed.

You however make it seem that it’s always in dispute.