on discussing god and religion

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. :wink:

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. :confusion-shrug:

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.

My question was a general one, not directly related to your dilemma or God.

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.

All I can do [as I point out time and again] is to note the many instances in the past when I did not reject a frame of mind that was opposed to my own. Over time any number of folks have managed to yank me up out of one or another set of assumptions embedded in one or another objectivist frame of mind.

Relating either to God and religion or not.

Here it depends on where you draw the line. For some that requirement revolves solely around actually having met Donald Trump; and Trump then convincing them that he is in fact a Christian. Others go back even further – the solipsist for example. Or those who insist that Trump is just one more character in a simulated reality that all of us “exist” 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.

Hell, here, we may as well get into a debate as to whether Pluto really is in fact not a planet.

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.

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.

[b]

[/b]

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.

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?

Think again.