Peace

[iambiguous]

There is no such animal as a "religious objectionist." This is an oxymoron since religion can be experienced and the only way to communicate an experience is intersubjectively (Changeaux). In fact that may be true of any mental attempts at objectivity. You are communicating to me your own take on dasein, etc., a communication not set in stone or handed down by some group of rational and virtuous mind police.
Dasein is 3 Bs: being or isness, becoming or change, and belonging or meaning. Belonging is admission that what exists is necessary. From the latter come most thoughts on religion or science.

Here of course you can't lose. You take God and religion and peace earth and reconfigure them. They are reconfigured from the manner in which they are actually embodied by mere mortals interacting on this side of the grave into a "technical" discussion of "objectivism".

That way the behaviors you choose here and now relating to what you imagine peace on earth to be -- as with what you want your fate to be there and then -- becomes moot.

That's just subsumed in the assumption that how you view the new and improved "progressive" God is true merely because you believe that it is.

Nothing actually need be substantiated at at. The old narratives are necessarily wrong because your new narrative is necessarily right. Why? Because, you insist, it is in sync with how you describe communicating religious experiences above.

In your head, in other words. The only place it has to be in order to sustain your own comforting "philosophical" assessment of all this above.

[Ierrellus]

There is no such animal as a "religious objectionist." This is an oxymoron since religion can be experienced and the only way to communicate an experience is intersubjectively (Changeaux). In fact that may be true of any mental attempts at objectivity. You are communicating to me your own take on dasein, etc., a communication not set in stone or handed down by some group of rational and virtuous mind police.
Dasein is 3 Bs: being or isness, becoming or change, and belonging or meaning. Belonging is admission that what exists is necessary. From the latter come most thoughts on religion or science.

Here of course you can't lose. You take God and religion and peace earth and reconfigure them. They are reconfigured from the manner in which they are actually embodied by mere mortals interacting on this side of the grave into a "technical" discussion of "objectivism".

That way the behaviors you choose here and now relating to what you imagine peace on earth to be -- as with what you want your fate to be there and then -- becomes moot.

That's just subsumed in the assumption that how you view the new and improved "progressive" God is true merely because you believe that it is.

Nothing actually need be substantiated at at. The old narratives are necessarily wrong because your new narrative is necessarily right. Why? Because, you insist, it is in sync with how you describe communicating religious experiences above.

In your head, in other words. The only place it has to be in order to sustain your own comforting "philosophical" assessment of all this above.

As expected. It would be nice if the matter was only in my head. Then I could take credit for it. The new wave is forming from better minds than mine. My agreement with them is not a problem. It is an opportunity to evolve or die. I comment on objectivity since that appears to be all that would satisfy your lack of curiosity. After all, by your own definitions, objectivity is just a consensus of agreements. In your head are your philosophical arguments. Show me the numbers of rational and virtuous people, even here at ILP, who do not contest your ideas, but align with them.

[iambiguous]

As expected. It would be nice if the matter was only in my head. Then I could take credit for it. The new wave is forming from better minds than mine.

Yes, it's in the minds of others too. Better minds than yours. But how would the very best of these minds go about demonstrating that their own new and improved God is in fact more in sync with what religion really ought to be than the very best minds of those who still hold to the old narrative?

Link us to what you construe to be the best contemporary argument you have come upon.

Also, their argument as to how the God that they imagine can ever possibly be squared with the terrible "natural disasters" embedded in what would seem to be a planet that He created. Again, only Harold Kushner's argument makes any sense to me here.

My agreement with them is not a problem. It is an opportunity to evolve or die.

Evolve or die pertaining to what set of behaviors in what contexts?

I comment on objectivity since that appears to be all that would satisfy your lack of curiosity.

Commenting on it and demonstrating it in relationship to God would seem to be the distinction that anyone curious about their own immortality and salvation would make.

And I have come upon few who have delved into it more than I have. Being curious though is actually the least of it when waiting for godot.

After all, by your own definitions, objectivity is just a consensus of agreements. In your head are your philosophical arguments. Show me the numbers of rational and virtuous people, even here at ILP, who do not contest your ideas, but align with them.

On the contrary, in regard to the either/or world, a consensus of opinion is always trumped by that which can actually be demonstrated to be true.

And on the day you are able to demonstrate the existence of this new and improved "progressive God", I will be the first to insist that any particular consensus embraced by others must give way to the proven facts that you provide.

And it is indeed a fact that many contest my own arguments here at ILP. But that doesn't necessarily make either them or me rational and virtuous. To the extent that you actually believe this is merely the extent to which you completely misconstrue my point of view.

Also, I suspect that most will reject my arguments here because as I noted elsewhere:

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

[Ierrellus]

Iamb.,
I am currently reading Freud's "The Future of an Illusion" and am finding that your "psychoanalysis" of religion is very similar to his. For both of you, I find it a pity that you cannot or in his case could not recognize experience as truth if it cannot be spelled out according to the mental definitions of reason or objectivity.
For you a religious experience simply cannot be sufficient in and of itself, it must be weighed against the current standards of reason.i.e., it must have an agreed upon psycho-physical source to be considered real. I doubt you are enough into evolutionary psychology or neuroscience to make that sort of opinion valid.
In any event, you speak from where your mind is now. For me that offers nothing of hope. So what if my ideas are comforting. I'd rather believe in nothing than to accept your estimate of the ulterior motives of human religious aspirations.

[iambiguous]

Iamb.,
I am currently reading Freud's "The Future of an Illusion" and am finding that your "psychoanalysis" of religion is very similar to his. For both of you, I find it a pity that you cannot or in his case could not recognize experience as truth if it cannot be spelled out according to the mental definitions of reason or objectivity.

Psychoanalysis?

There either is a God or there is not. This God either judges our behaviors or He does not. If He does, there either is a connection between the behaviors we choose here and now and our fate there and then or there is not.

And [re this thread] your new and improved rendition of God in relationship to peace on Earth is either closer to the truth than the old renditions or it is not.

Still, what does one's psychological disposition have to do with demonstrating the actual truth here?

Are you suggesting that with, as some/most insist, immortality and salvation on the line, the only thing that really matters here is one's own personal experiences? If you experienced a ghost then for you ghosts exists. If you've experienced an encounter with extraterrestrial beings, then for you they exist. If you experienced the presence of a witch, then for you they exist.

That's the criterion that matters?

Or, sure, I'm misunderstanding you.

For you a religious experience simply cannot be sufficient in and of itself, it must be weighed against the current standards of reason.i.e., it must have an agreed upon psycho-physical source to be considered real. I doubt you are enough into evolutionary psychology or neuroscience to make that sort of opinion valid.

Either your own understanding of God is able to be conveyed such that others can understand the experience and learn from it, or it all comes down to "personal experiences". And, if that is the case, how is this in and of itself to be connected to God in a way that others can understand it?

And if "the current standards of reason" exchanged between philosophers and scientists are shunted aside in favor of merely accepting our own and other's uniquely personal experiences, then discussions of God and religion in places like this become, for all practical purposes, a gigantic free-for-all of "personal experiences".

In any event, you speak from where your mind is now. For me that offers nothing of hope. So what if my ideas are comforting. I'd rather believe in nothing than to accept your estimate of the ulterior motives of human religious aspirations.

Exactly. I couldn't have conveyed the manner in which I react to your assessment here better than that. Hope revolves around what you are able to convince yourself is true. And the fact that I construe this to be basically an existential contraption rooted in your own personal experiences is, well, a bit ironic.

We simply understand "I" here in very different ways. You are able to link yours to what I presume is a "soul" intertwined "in your head" with "God", intertwined in what you imagine attaining peace on Earth would entail.

I was once able to convince myself of the same. Now however I have thought myself into a different frame of mind. "I" believe "in my head" "here and now" that human existence is essentially meaningless and ends in oblivion for all time to come. But I can only assume that this too is an existential contraption going all the way back to 1] the day I was born 2] the definitive understanding of existence itself and 3] the assumption that you and I are in possession of at least some measure of free will.

[Ierrellus]

Every time you mention its "in your head" or find "comforting" problematic you are into interpretations that could only be considered psychoanalytic. Be that as it may, what I think of as soul is radically different from how you seem to interpret the word. You are still comparing progressive ideas, which are not to be localized as mine only, with outmoded fundamentalist takes on the subject. In every post you show an unwillingness to understand progressive Christianity, mainly by considering it only my ideas or ideas "in my head". Progressive Christianity can lead to "surcease of suffering" in the here and now. It involves a radical change in thinking that no longer relies on paternalism, slavery, misogyny., etc., etc. It offers a future based on what is best about humans, not a continuation of the worst.

[iambiguous]

Every time you mention its "in your head" or find "comforting" problematic you are into interpretations that could only be considered psychoanalytic.

I'm not clear what this has to do with my point that...

There either is a God or there is not. This God either judges our behaviors or He does not. If He does, there either is a connection between the behaviors we choose here and now and our fate there and then or there is not.

And [re this thread] your new and improved rendition of God in relationship to peace on Earth is either closer to the truth than the old renditions or it is not.

We think and feel things about God in our heads. They either comfort us or not. This is a manifestation of human psychology embedded biologically in the evolution of life on Earth itself. But what doesn't change is the extent to which what we do think and feel about God, we are able to demonstrate to others. Otherwise we're back to merely having had personal experiences which prompt some to think and feel what they do. End of discussion.

For example...

Be that as it may, what I think of as soul is radically different from how you seem to interpret the word. You are still comparing progressive ideas, which are not to be localized as mine only, with outmoded fundamentalist takes on the subject.

Your experiences have led you to think about the soul as you do. Same with me. Same with the fundamentalists and all the major religious denominations around the globe.

Right?

All I can then come back to is the fact that, with immortality and salvation on the line in the old narratives, getting the soul right would seem to be of crucial importance. In my view you have offered nothing -- nothing substantive -- beyond your own personal experiences and the arguments of the progressives that might persuade others with very different experiences and access to very different arguments to understand God as you do.

And your understanding of God either gives you comfort regarding immortality and salvation or it doesn't.

In every post you show an unwillingness to understand progressive Christianity, mainly by considering it only my ideas or ideas "in my head". Progressive Christianity can lead to "surcease of suffering" in the here and now. It involves a radical change in thinking that no longer relies on paternalism, slavery, misogyny., etc., etc. It offers a future based on what is best about humans, not a continuation of the worst.

So you say. But all I can say in turn will only be in sync with my own personal experiences and the arguments that I have had access to. Therefore, there has to be a way [in a philosophy forum], to go beyond that such that we are to persuade others that we have ways to actually demonstrate that how we think is how they ought to think too.

[Ierrellus]

For the last time, my opinions about God, are not simply mine, so I resent the use of the word my as if these ideas did not belong to anyone else. That I accept these ideas does not make them mine alone. The Universalist Unitarian Church, an old institution, has espoused such ideas for centuries. There are books and podcasts on the net that show a vast movement of Progressive Christianity. The fundamentalists are not more, they are simply louder. So I am wasting my time trying to convince you of anything other than "What's in your head", as if that contains all feeling experience. AT=one-ment or holiness (being Whole) are experienced without words. Of course you can always rely on your mantram "In your head' to avoid considering anything that cannot fit into your definition of reason, as long as we are talking about personal beliefs. I thought this was a forum for religious and spiritual considerations, not a philosophy forum per se., an excuse you use to deny experiential matters as valid. So, if there is no logical belief, there can be no belief worthy of comment. Can you realize what undue limitations you place on your own ability to think?

[Ierrellus]

Back to the front. How do you interpret the following koan:
"If you see the Buddha sitting at the side of the road, kill him."

[Arcturus Descending]

Ierrellus wrote

Back to the front. How do you interpret the following koan:

"If you see the Buddha sitting at the side of the road, kill him."

Ah, how beautiful is the Robin's red breast in the early morning light.

[iambiguous]

For the last time, my opinions about God, are not simply mine, so I resent the use of the word my as if these ideas did not belong to anyone else. That I accept these ideas does not make them mine alone. The Universalist Unitarian Church, an old institution, has espoused such ideas for centuries.

I know. Having lost my faith in the old Christian narrative in Vietnam, my friend Carol Mays convinced me to give the Unitarian Church right here in Baltimore a chance. But these folks, as truly special as they were, were no more able to assuage my doubts about God. Not given the world that we actually live in. Again, the only argument that ever made any sense at all to me here was Harold Kushner's. At least to the extent God is actually thought to be a benevolent force in our lives.

There are books and podcasts on the net that show a vast movement of Progressive Christianity. The fundamentalists are not more, they are simply louder.

Over and again you point this out. Lots of others think like you do. As though, what, that's a substitute for actually responding to the points I raise?

Of course you can always rely on your mantram "In your head' to avoid considering anything that cannot fit into your definition of reason, as long as we are talking about personal beliefs. I thought this was a forum for religious and spiritual considerations, not a philosophy forum per se., an excuse you use to deny experiential matters as valid. So, if there is no logical belief, there can be no belief worthy of comment. Can you realize what undue limitations you place on your own ability to think?

All you are pointing out here is the obvious: that all of us have accumulated thoughts and feelings in our heads. But what never changes is this: that to the extent we do acquire an ability to think, we are either able to demonstrate to others why we think what we do or we are not.

Whether it's related to discussions of gardening or parenting or repairing cars or the relationship between peace on Earth and faith/belief in God.

That's the part in my view that you avoid like the plague. Instead, you are content to point out that in a religious forum in a philosophy venue personal experiences and self-serving arguments are just as acceptable.

Okay, carry on. I simply disagree. Personal experiences and circular, self-serving arguments that go around and around in circles, don't work for me. At least not any more.

And here we're just stuck.

[promethean75]

were no more able to assuage my doubts about God. Not given the world that we actually live in.

the 'problem of evil' in theology has been poised by many different philosophers, and each of them have their own particular excuses for it... following some complicated line of reasoning or other. but one thing that seems to stick out in all of them is this notion that there is a dialectic at work in our evolution which requires the existence of such 'evil' in order for there to be progress. now this would only make sense to us if we were able to imagine our reality as a kind of 'stage' in some ongoing process... later stages which would then justify and excuse the horror we experienced during this stage. but the further you delve into these theological 'systems of explanation', the greater the number of dubious theoretical claims result. finally you're into a hypothetical thought model so complex you can't tell forward from backward and you just drop the whole thing. but everyone knows the basic gist of the idea: somehow an omnipotent god has created creatures with freewill who are supposed to use it to partake in this progression of becoming as they pass through the dialectical stages. hegel liked to think of this moving toward an absolute final state of pure 'spirit', whatever that means. but something like that might happen in the distant future when we've completely interfaced with computers. some kind of quantum machine that produces eternal dream like states of consciousness without any need of a physical substratum.

could this be what hegel meant but didn't know? dude was a character. it's reported that one time he went to give a lecture, and a student noticed he had forgotten to put on both shoes. that's when you know you have a serious thinker; when the nigga forgets to put both shoes on in a rush to get to university.

[Ierrellus]

While I cannot believe in an absolute final stage of human development, I'm open to the idea that we could have evolved to a certain peak of intelligence that is beset by periods of devolution, a sort of step backward for each step forward; and, as Alice noted, "I takes all the running I can do to stay in the same place." The twentieth century's excellence in technology was not met by an excellence of spirit. So we get the forecast of a final end that is us destroying the ecosytems we need in order to survive. Ignorance of our connection to Nature may be our downfall.

[Ierrellus]

"All we are saying is give peace a chance."--JL
Postmodern ethical relativism will not do it.

[iambiguous]

While I cannot believe in an absolute final stage of human development, I'm open to the idea that we could have evolved to a certain peak of intelligence that is beset by periods of devolution, a sort of step backward for each step forward; and, as Alice noted, "I takes all the running I can do to stay in the same place." The twentieth century's excellence in technology was not met by an excellence of spirit. So we get the forecast of a final end that is us destroying the ecosytems we need in order to survive. Ignorance of our connection to Nature may be our downfall.

Sure, let's add this to the hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of sheer speculations that have been promoted regarding one or another possible future for the human race.

That way we can just assume that our own sheer conjectures about God fit into that perfectly.

And, fortunately, believing it "in our head" is all it takes to make it true. To sustain, among other things, peace of mind.

[iambiguous]

"All we are saying is give peace a chance."--JL
Postmodern ethical relativism will not do it.

"God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain
I'll say it again
God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain
I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-Ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in mantra
I don't believe in Gita
I don't believe in yoga
I don't believe in kings
I don't believe in Elvis
I don't believe in Zimmerman
I don't believe in Beatles
I just believe in me
Yoko and me
And that's reality
The dream is over
What can I say?
The dream is over
Yesterday
I was the dream weaver
But now I'm reborn
I was the Walrus
But now I'm John
And so dear friends
You just have to carry on
The dream is over" JL

In other words, from my frame of mind, Lennon's own trajectory here is not all that far removed from my own. He situated "I" in the peace movement politically. As I once did myself. Then, given his actual experiences, the narrative collapsed for him. As did my own idealism.

Now there were just the two of them. John and Yoko. I merely took the narrative further. Over time [back then] I began to see John and Yoko and myself more and more as existential contraptions rooted in dasein. At least insofar as value judgments were concerned out in the is/ought world.

As for "postmodern ethical relativism", it's not a question of it "doing it" for me. Instead, in my view, it revolves far more around the actual fact that the global economy [and thus our lives] is owned and operated by men and women -- the "show me the money" nihilists by and large -- who are far less interested in intertwining God and peace on earth, and far more interested in profiting on one or another ghastly human conflict.

Then it becomes a question of the extent to which your own understanding of God fits into all of that.

Would you be willing to tell us?

[Ierrellus]

"All we are saying is give peace a chance."--JL
Postmodern ethical relativism will not do it.

"God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain
I'll say it again
God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain
I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-Ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in mantra
I don't believe in Gita
I don't believe in yoga
I don't believe in kings
I don't believe in Elvis
I don't believe in Zimmerman
I don't believe in Beatles
I just believe in me
Yoko and me
And that's reality
The dream is over
What can I say?
The dream is over
Yesterday
I was the dream weaver
But now I'm reborn
I was the Walrus
But now I'm John
And so dear friends
You just have to carry on
The dream is over" JL

In other words, from my frame of mind, Lennon's own trajectory here is not all that far removed from my own. He situated "I" in the peace movement politically. As I once did myself. Then, given his actual experiences, the narrative collapsed for him. As did my own idealism.

Now there were just the two of them. John and Yoko. I merely took the narrative further. Over time [back then] I began to see John and Yoko and myself more and more as existential contraptions rooted in dasein. At least insofar as value judgments were concerned out in the is/ought world.

As for "postmodern ethical relativism", it's not a question of it "doing it" for me. Instead, in my view, it revolves far more around the actual fact that the global economy [and thus our lives] is owned and operated by men and women -- the "show me the money" nihilists by and large -- who are far less interested in intertwining God and peace on earth, and far more interested in profiting on one or another ghastly human conflict.

Then it becomes a question of the extent to which your own understanding of God fits into all of that.

Would you be willing to tell us?[/quote
Why should I try to tell you anything? Your nihilism denies all sensible response. I will not set hope up to be mocked.

[Arcturus Descending]

Ierrellus,

I will not set hope up to be mocked.

Do you feel that there are ever times when hope needs to be mocked?

[iambiguous]

Why should I try to tell you anything? Your nihilism denies all sensible response. I will not set hope up to be mocked.

No, it suggests only that what makes sense to us about God and peace on earth "in our head" is either able to be demonstrated to others or it is not. And it suggests further that if what makes sense to you is based on 1] personal experiences I cannot possibly be privy to and 2] general description arguments that go around and around in circles, then this clearly works for you to sustain access to a far greater measure of comfort and consolation than I have.

And, in my view, with immortality and salvation alone at stake, the only thing that can mock hope here is when it is poorly defended.

Still, that in itself is no more than my very own profoundly problematic conjecture rooted existentially in dasein. It's not like I myself can demonstrate to others that they should think the same.

[Ierrellus]

Ierrellus,

I will not set hope up to be mocked.

Do you feel that there are ever times when hope needs to be mocked?

It depends on what the hope is for. My hope is that Christianity can evolve along the lines expressed by Bishop Spong, i.e,. to divest itself of supernatural explanations for natural needs.

[Ierrellus]

"The difficulties of the anti-theists begin when they try to engage with anyone who does not agree with them, when their reaction is often a frustrated rage that the rest of us are so stupid. But what if that is not the problem? Their refusal to accept that others might be as intelligent as they, yet disagree ,leads them into many snares. (2010) Peter Hitchens, brother of Christopher.
So, Iambiguous, you espouse a hopeless philosophy of nihilism and dismiss all attempts to think otherwise.
To parody Blake--the philosopher never lost so much time as when he stopped to learn from the psychologist.

Immortality is not my goal, not what I hope for, not what drives my energy forward.
As Arc neatly observed, "Saved from what?"

[Ierrellus]

Iambiguous,
Was your JL quote made before or after "Imagine"?

[iambiguous]

"The difficulties of the anti-theists begin when they try to engage with anyone who does not agree with them, when their reaction is often a frustrated rage that the rest of us are so stupid. But what if that is not the problem? Their refusal to accept that others might be as intelligent as they, yet disagree ,leads them into many snares. (2010) Peter Hitchens, brother of Christopher.
So, Iambiguous, you espouse a hopeless philosophy of nihilism and dismiss all attempts to think otherwise.
To parody Blake--the philosopher never lost so much time as when he stopped to learn from the psychologist.

Yes, you are perfectly free to claim this is an accurate portrayal of the arguments I pose above. That way [as with KT and others], the problem becomes me far more than the points I raise.

The problem, in other words, is reduced down to my own frustrated rage at the fact that others are too stupid to agree with me.

And, sure, if others [for their own reasons] choose to agree, there's not a whole lot I can do about it. Other than to discuss and debate it with them.

I can only keep making my points and perusing the reactions they engender. And I am always the first to acknowledge I am no more able to demonstrate to others that my own views on God and religion are the right ones than they are to me.

All I can do is to focus the beam on the actual existential relationship between those who do believe in God as that relates to how they connect the dots between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave and their imagined fate on the other side.

I dare them to go there. Why? Because that way their general description assumptions about human interactions and God can't devolve into assumptions like you make: that progressive Christians have a more pertinent understanding of God than those who still embrace the old narratives.

Well, as long as you basically insist this is true merely because you believe that it is. And not because believing it comforts and consoles you in a world that is bursting at seams with reasons to need comfort and consolation.

As for nihilism, it certainly can sustain a sense of hopelessness. No doubt about it. At least if what you hope for is immortality and salvation. On the other hand, it can also be liberating. In the sense that if you don't believe in either God or objective morality your behavior options increase dramatically.

And I never dismiss attempts to think otherwise. After all, what could possibly be more crucial to me than someone able to convince me that human existence is not essentially meaningless and that my "I" will not topple over into the abyss that is nothingness for all of eternity.

Immortality is not my goal, not what I hope for, not what drives my energy forward.

Okay, but your rendition of God either encompasses immortality or it does not. How any particular individual reacts to it is another thing altogether. So, do progressive Christians believe in an afterlife or don't they?

As Arc neatly observed, "Saved from what?"

Well, saved from the obliteration of "I" for all time to come. Or, in regard to the far, far, far more numerous adherents of the old narratives, saved from Hell itself.

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous,
Was your JL quote made before or after "Imagine"?

Given that "God" was on his first solo album and "imagine" on a later one, before.

But all that denotes [to me] is at that at one point in his life a set of experiences prompted him politically to embrace peace on Earth. Then another set of experiences prompted him to become more disillusioned and cynical. To record "God". Then a new set of experiences prompted him to become more optimistic and record "imagine".

But that's my point, isn't it? "I" being largely an existential contraption rooted in dasein rooted in the life that one lives.

So, when he asked us to imagine there was no religion, would he be more or less in sync with your own frame of mind? And, more to the point, is there a way for philosophers [among others] to determine what one ought to imagine here?

[Ierrellus]

"Tom Krattenmaker is part of a growing conversation that acknowledges--and seeks to address-- the abiding need for meaning and inspiration in post-religious America." (Jacket blurb on author Krattenmaker's "Confessions of a Secular Jesus Follower" 2016.)
"growing conversation" and" post-religious America" are the key words here, describing a movement that is well underway and opposed to the old religious narratives. Krattenmaker does not believe in God; neither does he believe Jesus is God. He does not believe in the traditional concepts of heaven and hell. He does not oppose atheists or evangelicals. Instead, he offers a way of thinking about Jesus that could benefit secular minded individuals.
I am skittish about posting anything here because of your adamant philosophical mindset. Probably at the bottom of my bucket list is oblivion. I don't believe in heaven and hell, but long for a better world here for my children than the one I now experience. I really don't need to hear more postmodern garbage about conflicting goods or existential problems. I went through all that when I was a young man.