Again, the entirety of this thread revolves around allowing those who do have a relationship with God to at least make an attempt at explaining to others what this means when “out in the world” they find themselves having to choose particular behaviors. Choosing behaviors such that it brings them back to connecting the dots between “here and now” and “there and then”.
How [for them] is this not embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein and conflicting goods? In other words, when the behaviors that they choose come into conflict with that which others would have them choose instead.
And that brings me back to the gap that I perceive between my rendition of this and yours.
Now, historically, the traditional source of “comfort and consolation” for most who believe in God is rather straightforward: behave on this side of the grave so that you will be judged favorably by God on the other side of it. And that’s the part where immortality, salvation and divine justice comes in.
And you will either grapple with the difference between that and your own narrative or you won’t.
Because I still don’t really have a clue as to how “for all practical purposes” that “works” for you regarding the behaviors that you do choose. How are or are you not comforted and consoled by God and religion in your day to day experiences.
And, thus, where the exchange should end reasonably is when you come to the conclusion that you have in fact explained all of this to the best of your ability and I just don’t get it.
Then you move on to others.
Or, you come up with a new way to reconfigure your narrative, and try again.
Or, in a world of contingency chance and change, your narrative itself is reconfigured by new experiences, relationships and/or sources of information/knowledge.
Then you bring that here.