What it does is what it Is

[Ierrellus]

Religion is the kindergarten of spirituality.
Philosophy is an attempt to make sense of existence in and of matter.
Spiritual philosophy provides this sense. It is the a message of belonging which ameliorates the pain of being and becoming.

[iambiguous]

I believe I have stated my philosophy of progressive Christianity both as metaphysical position and as an existential awareness.

And, as I have stated, this -- practically -- can mean almost anything until it is brought down to earth and described/examined both substantively and substantially in regard to the life that one lives in a world where there are countless religious and secular paths available to us in regard to morality and immortality.

You have yours, it comforts and consoles you. You think what you do "in your head" and that's enough. And, indeed, it is considerably more appealing than that which I am "here and now" still unable to think myself out of.

And that will always be the bottom line of course. Only, in a philosophy forum, one might hope to go a little deeper in exploring why we think some things and not others.

I do not need to keep repeating it even when someone like you claims not to understand it or repeats only your philosophic response again and again ad nauseum.

Now, this...this brings you closer to the Stooges here. The problem becomes me more than the ad nauseum groots that I dispense over and over and over.

You seem to expect of me some mental contraption that does neglect what you see as the given human condition. You would not believe Spong's exegesis of Christianity if it is to have a future. Why should you see anything I have to report about spirituality as other than something to argue about or something absurd in your philosophy?

Again, this is where you are most comfortable, in my view. Posting general description spiritual contraptions and exchanging them with folks like Dan.

It's a frame of mind that I was once able to sustain myself.

But then it's back to what I still don't really understand about myself in this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

But, who really knows, it's not altogether impossible that one day something that you or one of the other religionists post might actually manage to yank me up out of the hole I have dug myself into. And philosophically no less!

Or, sure, I manage instead to yank you or them down into it: empathy. Either way it's an improvement on the way things are now for me.

[Ierrellus]

I am not a religionist.

[Ierrellus]

Iamb.
It may be that a sense of former stability afforded by your once comforting beliefs is luring you back to its time in your life. You may see a return to that time as a necessary prerequisite for healing a spirit broken by exposure to particular and general suffering. You can't get back what you have moved beyond. If you truly wish to heal by taking a spiritual path, you will realize that there are no stops or returns on a living road.
Ridiculing the religious and harboring a stuck focus on the foibles of people are scapegoats preventing you from pressing on in your spiritual quest. Recognize you are evolving toward recognition of your belonging in a whole. It's free; and it involves a trajectory of amelioration for the human condition. It's your choice--evolve or die.

[Ierrellus]

Being saved is to be freed of mindsets that hold one in mental captivity. Two of these mindsets are 1. afterlife reward or punishment and 2. the sad state of suffering in this world. These mindsets cause one to forget the real business of following a spiritual path. They are, instead, the stuff of illusions. You can preoccupy your mind with such concerns. They become scapegoats for shielding one from real concern as an active participant in empathy and compassion.
The reason these mindsets are bloated with illusion is that they rely on belief that Ego is true Self, hence their focus is limited to Self, is not really concerned with the Other. The spiritual remedy for ridding oneself of toxic illusions is to see Self and Other as one thing.

[iambiguous]

I am not a religionist.

First, the dioctionary: Merriam-Webster

Definition of religionist: a person adhering to a religion
especially: a religious zealot

Especially a zealot, but not necessarily so.

And my point here is that given all that is stake -- morality here and now, immortality there and then -- why would one not be a zealot? We're talking about the fate of our very souls here.

So it would seem imperative that those of any particular faith who are convinced that their own spiritual path is the one true path would make it a priority to proselytize.

And to live one's faith with a deep and abiding passion. None of that rendering unto Caesar nonsense. If Caesar commands of you to choose behaviors repugnant to God, why on earth would a true believer comply?

Take, for example, another religionist: Amy Coney Barrett

Judge Barrett has said that she will not allow her religious beliefs to interfere in her duty to uphold the law of the land. Thus in cases involving, say, abortion her own religious faith would not matter. Only doing justice to the Constitution.

So, she believes that abortion is the killing of unborn human babies. And she believes that her God and the Pope deems this to be a Sin. But that won't matter at all if she believes any particular laws relating to any particular abortions are and ought to remain legal.

That's what's scary to me. The manner in which both religious and secular objectivists -- zealots -- gain access to power and start in on prescribing and proscribing the behaviors of all the rest of us.

[iambiguous]

Iamb.
It may be that a sense of former stability afforded by your once comforting beliefs is luring you back to its time in your life. You may see a return to that time as a necessary prerequisite for healing a spirit broken by exposure to particular and general suffering. You can't get back what you have moved beyond. If you truly wish to heal by taking a spiritual path, you will realize that there are no stops or returns on a living road.
Ridiculing the religious and harboring a stuck focus on the foibles of people are scapegoats preventing you from pressing on in your spiritual quest. Recognize you are evolving toward recognition of your belonging in a whole. It's free; and it involves a trajectory of amelioration for the human condition. It's your choice--evolve or die.

Being saved is to be freed of mindsets that hold one in mental captivity. Two of these mindsets are 1. afterlife reward or punishment and 2. the sad state of suffering in this world. These mindsets cause one to forget the real business of following a spiritual path. They are, instead, the stuff of illusions. You can preoccupy your mind with such concerns. They become scapegoats for shielding one from real concern as an active participant in empathy and compassion.
The reason these mindsets are bloated with illusion is that they rely on belief that Ego is true Self, hence their focus is limited to Self, is not really concerned with the Other. The spiritual remedy for ridding oneself of toxic illusions is to see Self and Other as one thing.

Again, this is where you are always most comfortable. Wrapping your own religious beliefs in these abstract "spiritual" assessments that sustain whatever comfort and consolation you feel "in your head". That way you can simply ignore all of the particular points I raise above in which your faith is examined and explored given particular sets of circumstances; and as well where there are hundreds of alternative spiritual paths out there across the globe all insisting that, no, it is their God and their Scripture that one must follow.

Though, sure, if any of what you profess to believe above is within your capacity to demonstrate as in fact true, please make that attempt.

Evolve or die? Well, we all die, right? So it comes down to whatever it is we can think ourselves into believing happens then. The part I root in dasein. The part you root in...what exactly?

[Ierrellus]

Iamb,
You are the most closed-minded person I have ever met in years of posts at ILP. You sometimes stress disappointment with your current take on reality, but cling to it as if there can be no other possible way. You have shut yourself off from any constructive criticism.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. It is your choice to adhere to a philosophy that does nothing to alleviate the sufferings of the world. It must mean everything to you. If I spoke with the tongues of angels, you would not hear me because your philosophy is your treasure. You see it as your meaning for existing. Nothing I can say can change that.

[iambiguous]

Iamb,
You are the most closed-minded person I have ever met in years of posts at ILP. You sometimes stress disappointment with your current take on reality, but cling to it as if there can be no other possible way. You have shut yourself off from any constructive criticism.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. It is your choice to adhere to a philosophy that does nothing to alleviate the sufferings of the world. It must mean everything to you. If I spoke with the tongues of angels, you would not hear me because your philosophy is your treasure. You see it as your meaning for existing. Nothing I can say can change that.

Once again you completely ignore the points that I raise and make it all about me. And the irony is that in regard to such things as religion and morality and politics, my frame of mind revolves around the assumption that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, it is possible for any of us to find our value judgments effectively challenge and changed.

And you can't even admit to yourself that those who "will not see" are those who will not see what you do.

And what I propose is that the "best of all possible worlds" revolves around "moderation, negotiation and compromise" in human communities that dedicate themselves to "democracy and the rule of law". While acknowledging the role that political economy plays in this.

In fact it is the moral, political and religious objectivists who often caused the most human suffering down through the ages.

As for predicating human interaction on your own version of "What Would Jesus Do?", why don't you note a few issues -- abortion, animal rights, gun control, sexual norms, the role of government etc. -- and tell us what He would do.

[Ierrellus]

Not being involved in the issues you suggest we discuss, I can only respond to them with my current observation, certainly not with WWJD?. As you note, my observations are based on subjective interpretation, not on objective certainty--if such an animal exists. I cannot speak for Jesus, nor can I truthfully know all the circumstances of the issues you would prefer to discuss.
All I know is that your constant regurgitation of such opinions as Dasein, conflicting goods, afterlife concerns and "all in the head" offer no remedy for man's inhumanity to man, no ethics, no hope for a more prosperous and humane future for all. Creative evolution is working to do just that. And this is a thread about creative evolution. See the OP.

[Ierrellus]

Once again---I am not a religionist. Neither was Jesus.

[Ierrellus]

See Michael Dowd's "Thank God For Evolution".

[iambiguous]

Not being involved in the issues you suggest we discuss, I can only respond to them with my current observation, certainly not with WWJD?.

As you note, my observations are based on subjective interpretation, not on objective certainty--if such an animal exists. I cannot speak for Jesus, nor can I truthfully know all the circumstances of the issues you would prefer to discuss.

Okay, to what extent then do progressive Christians frame their own moral philosophy around the teachings of Christ in the New Testament? And if they are not able to advise us on what Jesus would do if faced with the myriad conflicting goods that plague our species around the globe, what advice would they dispense to those plagued by doubts in their interactions with others?

How about this: Whatever works in order to bring them the most peace of mind?

To abort or not to abort? To be or not to be a homosexual? To eat or not to eat other animals? To own guns or not to own guns? To embrace socialism or capitalism? And on and on and on in which mere mortals connect the dots between "sin" on this side of the grave and the fate of their "soul" on the other side.

And how are your own "current observations" not rooted existentially in particular moral and political prejudices, the embodiment of human identity as examined by me on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

All I know is that your constant regurgitation of such opinions as Dasein, conflicting goods, afterlife concerns and "all in the head" offer no remedy for man's inhumanity to man, no ethics, no hope for a more prosperous and humane future for all. Creative evolution is working to do just that. And this is a thread about creative evolution. See the OP.

That's because until someone is able to demonstrate to me the existence of a God, the God, I can only presume that He does not exist. And, then, as a philosopher, I have come to conclude that in a No God world, my own thinking about morality has come to revolve around this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

I can't just magically "unthink" this is a reasonable set of assumptions about the human condition because the consequence of it are bleak and dire and seemingly [to me here and now] without remedy.

Especially not in a philosophy venue where all we can do is to think through to the best of our ability what does seem to make sense about "I" in the world around us.

Instead, I can merely note that you have come up with a more uplifting frame of mind. But, in turn, to note that, from my frame of mind, you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe about God and religion and life and death is in fact the way human reality really is.

Many start with what they need to believe in order to feel most consoled and comforted. Then in however many different ways different people accomplish this that's what they end up thinking and believing. And even though there have been hundreds and hundreds of very different "spiritual" paths invented down through the ages, their own is all that it ever comes down to.

[Ierrellus]

Iamb,
Lots of talk-same old, same old, trying to bend this thread toward your personal agenda. Please discuss your ideas on creative evolution. Or, better yet, retire to that bloated vomitorium in which you continue to opine about how to discuss God and religion. You might ask why the ire? It's simply because you wish through incessant repetition to promote a very limited view of human spirituality. Your dismissal of Felix proves this point. You put him in the same boat of inventing mental contraptions to assuage existential angst as you put me. No spiritual person would invent mental contraptions for that purpose. The Kingdom within is not a mind creation; it is a radical experience, which, if I must explain, you would never know.

[iambiguous]

Iamb,
Lots of talk-same old, same old, trying to bend this thread toward your personal agenda.

No, I'm trying to bring your "Progressive Christianity" agenda down out of the "general description spiritual clouds" and examine it in regard to...

...to what extent then do progressive Christians frame their own moral philosophy around the teachings of Christ in the New Testament? And if they are not able to advise us on what Jesus would do if faced with the myriad conflicting goods that plague our species around the globe, what advice would they dispense to those plagued by doubts in their interactions with others?

To abort or not to abort? To be or not to be a homosexual? To eat or not to eat other animals? To own guns or not to own guns? To embrace socialism or capitalism? And on and on and on in which mere mortals connect the dots between "sin" on this side of the grave and the fate of their "soul" on the other side.

Also, to explore the extent to which you are able to actually demonstrate that what you do believe about it, other reasonable and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe about it in turn.

Again, given the enormity of what is at stake on both sides of the grave.

Please discuss your ideas on creative evolution. Or, better yet, retire to that bloated vomitorium in which you continue to opine about how to discuss God and religion. You might ask why the ire? It's simply because you wish through incessant repetition to promote a very limited view of human spirituality. Your dismissal of Felix proves this point. You put him in the same boat of inventing mental contraptions to assuage existential angst as you put me. No spiritual person would invent mental contraptions for that purpose. The Kingdom within is not a mind creation; it is a radical experience, which, if I must explain, you would never know.

Note to others:

Sound familiar? Ierrellus the stooge! I become the issue.

And I have my own speculation regarding his "ire". My "bloated vomitorium" is starting to take its toll on him. He does not address the points I raise above because he has no substantive arguments in which to address them. And bit by bit he finds his own comfort and consolation threatened by the points I make. After all, I was once a committed Christian myself. I know what it's like to have the spiritual rug pulled out from under you when you begin to recognize just how much of your religious faith is predicated on the "psychology of objectivism": https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

As for my dismissal of Felix, you tell me: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... start=1900

Edit:

Look, I offered him the following advice above:

Are there any thinkers here who are not anti-religion atheists?

Why don't you start a new thread in which you make it clear that only those who are not anti-religion atheists are welcome to participate. I can promise you that I will abide by your wishes. And apart from a few Kids here who abide by nothing other than their own often infantile need to ejaculate tantrums, I'm sure all the rest of the members here will respect your wishes in turn.

Let him start a brand new thread in which his most fundamental assumptions about God and religion are ever and always the starting point. They can comfort and console each other.

[Ierrellus]

Iamb,
No. The issue here is your closed mindedness. And if being a stooge puts me in the company of Phyllo and Felix, I welcome the label.
Now what do you have to say about DNA activity as a precursor of consciousness? Or genetic evolution as the handiwork of God?

[Ierrellus]

Even though this thread has been usurped I see no need to start another one. I believe I've stated my position clearly and would welcome any comment not under the spell of Iambiguous. See the Op and let me know if you believe that the content of consciousness comes from experience of evolving. We can discuss the birth of ethics from that vantage point. Thanks.

[iambiguous]

Iamb,
No. The issue here is your closed mindedness. And if being a stooge puts me in the company of Phyllo and Felix, I welcome the label.

Okay, fine. Phyllo in stooge mode is Larry, Felix is Moe and Karpel Tunnel is Curly. What shall I call you in stooge mode?

As for what the "issue" is, I am more than willing to allow others following our exchange thus far to make up their own minds about that.

Now what do you have to say about DNA activity as a precursor of consciousness.

What do I have to say? Well, I suspect, like you, I am basically dependent on the "experts" in the scientific community who actually examine and pursue this experientially and experimentally to offer up their findings in papers and in documentaries that we have access to in the media.

Then the part where some argue that consciousness is entirely embodied in DNA that is wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

Then the part where a complete understanding of this is necessarily coupled with a complete understanding of existence itself.

The part where folks like you just skip right to a God, the God, your God.

Or genetic evolution as the handiwork of God?

Yes, that is one possible explanation. On the other hand, where is the equivalent of theologians "examining and pursuing this experientially and experimentally" in order to offer up their own findings. The part that goes beyond more or less "blind faith".

[Ierrellus]

I respect Karpel Tunnel.
As for Dawkins, who sees evolution as impersonal and without purpose--there are other ways of examining and describing this experience. First it is personal. We all evolve. Second it is purposeful. It renders organisms. That it is the activity of a God is an idea that affords meaning in a sense of belonging for all creatures. This is not a matter of blind faith; it is real, here and now experience.

[iambiguous]

I respect Karpel Tunnel.

And, as I noted on this thread -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=196034 -- I have respect for him as well. But, in Stooge mode, he came after me with a vengeance.

But why?

Because, in my view, I threaten the part of him that [so far] he is able to sustain just short of a "fractured and fragmentated" sense of self.

In other words, just as, in my view, you have progressive Christianity as a foundation into which you can anchor your "real me" in sync with "the right things to do" to.

Suppose for example you were to prove that your God does in fact exist and believes that abortion is a mortal sin. Well, if Karpel Tunnel's "visceral/intuitive/deep-down-inside-me" Self believed it was not a sin then God's will be damned. Or as close as I can figure it.

As for Dawkins, who sees evolution as impersonal and without purpose--there are other ways of examining and describing this experience. First it is personal. We all evolve. Second it is purposeful. It renders organisms. That it is the activity of a God is an idea that affords meaning in a sense of belonging for all creatures. This is not a matter of blind faith; it is real, here and now experience.

Again: another "general description spiritual contraption" which does not reconfigure your own personal "evolution" toward a "purpose" as this is understood by you in relationship to any particular context where others [both religious and nonreligious] have evolved to embrace conflicting purposes embedded in conflicting moral commitments.

In a world where there are hundreds and hundreds of different spiritual/moral/political paths to choose from given the assumption that human autonomy does in fact exist.

[Ierrellus]

I understand the world as it is and offer a view of how it could be. There is no way I could fathom truth in a plethora of "spiritual contraptions". I can only note that what it is is what it does. Which of these ideas offers a positive destiny for humans? I cannot believe that man has evolved only to be confounded by conflicts in his own mind. Obsession with the many obscures the one.
First, before we can agree on anything else, we must determine whether or not evolution is personal and purposeful. If it is not these things anything goes.

[Ierrellus]

Fortunately, evolution is not a choice. It is a necessity.

[iambiguous]

I understand the world as it is and offer a view of how it could be. There is no way I could fathom truth in a plethora of "spiritual contraptions". I can only note that what it is is what it does. Which of these ideas offers a positive destiny for humans? I cannot believe that man has evolved only to be confounded by conflicts in his own mind. Obsession with the many obscures the one.

Just more of the same. No context. No attempt to encompass progressive Christianity in regard to what the world "could be" as this actually pertains to things like abortion or economic justice or human sexuality or the role of government or any other moral conflagration plaguing the species around the globe.

First, before we can agree on anything else, we must determine whether or not evolution is personal and purposeful. If it is not these things anything goes.

Well, what is this but pinning down once and for all whether a God, the God, your God does in fact exist?

Because if evolution unfolds in a No God world then anything does go. After all, it's not for nothing that most religious folks point out how, "in the absence of God all things are permitted".

I agree. Really, what is there to turn to in a world of conflicting goods but God? Become a Buddhist? Believe that somehow "the universe" itself becomes the equivalent of God?

[Ierrellus]

I agree with Spinoza on pantheism. So, if we are all in this life together, there can be no room for conflicting goods. If we realize we are integral parts of an ecosystem, there will be no moral excuse for conflicting goods. If we love one another, the particular instances of conflict, which you would prefer to discuss, would be mere distractions from knowledge of the greater good.
My opinion on abortion:
Since I have no uterus, I have really no right to tell anyone else what to do with theirs. I do have opinions that abortion might be a practical matter in cases of rape, incest or whether the mother's life is at stake. My main problem with anti- abortionists is that they would not claim and support the unwanted child. Only Mother Teresa said she would take the unwanted babies.
I think human life begins with a fertilized egg. So much for opinion.

[Ierrellus]

duplicate