Spirituality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seems self-contradictory to me to suggest that humans are capable of this 'perfect' love whilst being at the same time unavoidably and inherently 'flawed'.

Not necessarily, fear is an indicator of how confident you are in the relationship, and how that love is manifested, and your own history with relationships - someone with a history of bad relationships is going to fear, regardless of how good a relationship is.  A relationship with God has that threat of eternal punishment hanging around in the background - if you believe, then the prospect of eternal torment is going to bring an element of fear to that relationship.  Coupled with a narrative that you are inherently unworthy and, depending on the sect you're part of, nothing you can do will change that and you are at the mercy of God's grace I'd suggest that fear is an intrinsic part of that dynamic.  After all, isn't there a significant segment of the Christian (at least) populace who'd quite openly describe themselves as 'God-fearing'.

It doesn't remove that threat, though, does it?  You might be able to ignore it, you might be able to see past it, but it's still there, and it's hardly the fault of people whose experience is to take threats seriously if they can't see past that.

O.

I'm sorry but I might now end up conflicting you. You think you take away is that you are inherently unworthy but God's act in Jesus points to you to being cosmically valuable. As I keep saying the unworthiness of any person, becomes, in a relationship a measure of how involved one is in it. Because of Christ God overlooks how you are and a relationship is now open to you.

In other words how can you benefit from a relationship you aren't willing to be in?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you are not a sociopath I am relieved although I think that necessarily means you are conflicted in your understanding of morality somewhere.

A supposed conflict you’re unable to demonstrate though.

Unless I am mistaken, You make the term morality doubly redundant since not only can it be replaced with the term aesthetics or taste…

Yes you are mistaken. I don’t "replace" morality with these things at all. Rather I just explained that, in epistemic terms, morality and aesthetics are equivalent. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

…but even that is made redundant by it's explanation as instinct, intuition and reason.

Why?

Unless I am mistaken you haven't actually established the links between these and why we should go on to describe instinct combined with intuition combined as ''taste'' and then derive ''morality'.

It’s not that we “should” necessarily, but that we do. Some behaviours just feel morally wrong or right – helping the little old lady carry her shopping for example feels morally good. Ask me why an act is morally good or bad though and sometimes I can offer nothing but intuition ("it just feels that way"), and sometimes I can come up reasons. That’s morality. It’s also aesthetics. It’s also lots of other fields of human judgement and opinion.   

So what?   

In terms of Bill Hamilton, he can only get to 'morality' by leaping out of strictly empirical science into some domain which contains a bit of science and a bit of something else. Science of course doesn't observe moral behaviour rather it observes mere behaviour and that is that. And that adds triple redundancy to the term 'morality'. Also there is a conflict that if you are saying morality is not objective then it cannot be scientifically observed.

More stupidity. What he gets to is altruism. It’s  J. B. S. Haldane’s “I would be prepared to lay down his life for eight of my cousins or for two of my brothers” idea, which phenomenon Hamilton observed in nature and then built some complicated mathematical models around. Altruism is the beginning of morality. Without it why after all would someone go hungry to feed their children?

Could you at least try to keep up (or to be a bit less dishonest)? Why not for example try to demonstrate this supposed objective morality of yours without collapsing immediately into logical fallacies? What’s stopping you?   

[Outrider]

I'm sorry but I might now end up conflicting you. You think you take away is that you are inherently unworthy but God's act in Jesus points to you to being cosmically valuable.

To be clear, that's my understanding of at least significant strand of Christian teaching, unless I'm mistaken - personally I don't think humanity is 'flawed' because I don't think humanity came about according to a particular plan or design.

As I keep saying the unworthiness of any person, becomes, in a relationship a measure of how involved one is in it.

And I'd absolutely disagree with that - people can be in bad relationships where they are entirely worthy and entirely invested and the relationship itself can be bad entirely because of the other person or people involved.

Because of Christ God overlooks how you are and a relationship is now open to you.

And that permanent threat of endless torment is an example of that potentially worrisome 'other party' in a relationship - I love you unconditionally, but I won't promise that I won't torture you for eternity, there's nothing you can do about it though... That's not a good basis for a relationship, that's the start of a hostage negotiation.

In other words how can you benefit from a relationship you aren't willing to be in?

How much benefit is there in a relationship which appears to be a debate about whether you're going to be tortured because you are inherently unworthly?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To be clear, that's my understanding of at least significant strand of Christian teaching, unless I'm mistaken - personally I don't think humanity is 'flawed' because I don't think humanity came about according to a particular plan or design.

Personally I think we have consciously designed ourselves to fall. We design our own flaws.

And I'd absolutely disagree with that - people can be in bad relationships where they are entirely worthy and entirely invested and the relationship itself can be bad entirely because of the other person or people involved.

We are in relationship with others whether we like it or not. It’s what we make of that which will decide whether they have been loving or not. It seems therefore God is the only person we can detach links with.

And that permanent threat of endless torment is an example of that potentially worrisome 'other party' in a relationship - I love you unconditionally, but I won't promise that I won't torture you for eternity, there's nothing you can do about it though... That's not a good basis for a relationship, that's the start of a hostage negotiation.

Jesus is quoted in the Bible as saying the person who comes to him will not be turned away. What the fate is of those who turn away is them on their own.
Jesus suggests a death within there own sins but elsewhere there is talk of banishment separation from God, The realisation that something better could have been possible, orthodox theologians suggest that no one is separated from God and the torment for those alienated from God is to be in his presence.

The more I consider what you say and specifically your punctuating it with “I don’t believe it any way”.
the more I think what you are giving us is an analysis of why people believe namely they fear torture
If they don’t toe the line. As the passage in John says such a believer......(although I think this not uncommon caricature in atheism is you making pastiche of it......would need to be perfected in love

How much benefit is there in a relationship which appears to be a debate about whether you're going to be tortured because you are inherently unworthly?

O.

I don’t think that is the Christians understanding of their relationship with God.

If you Are not in relationship with Him your conception unavoidably is influenced by that alienation.

[Sriram]

'Humanity is flawed'...   This is because we are individually developing and growing towards perfection. It is like a school and we are like children at different stages of learning and development. We are bound to be flawed.

Ridding ourselves of our animal nature and growing beyond needs and desires is what makes us 'perfect'.

[torridon]

'Humanity is flawed'...   This is because we are individually developing and growing towards perfection. It is like a school and we are like children at different stages of learning and development. We are bound to be flawed.

Ridding ourselves of our animal nature and growing beyond needs and desires is what makes us 'perfect'.

If we were to ignore our needs and desires we will be dead pretty quickly.

[Nearly Sane]

If we were to ignore our needs and desires we will be dead pretty quickly.

I feel as if I have to reread Being and Nothingness

[Outrider]

Personally I think we have consciously designed ourselves to fall. We design our own flaws.

We are the architects of our own flaws in many ways, but I don't see it as a conscious choice - no-one CHOOSES to be flawed, they either choose unwisely, or they make choices which have unintended consequences. Not forgetting, of course, one man's flaw is another man's triumph...

Jesus is quoted in the Bible as saying the person who comes to him will not be turned away.

Abusive partners are quite often overtly affectionate when it suits them.  That doesn't take away the threat, though, does it?

What the fate is of those who turn away is them on their own.

Except that it's not supposed to matter whether or not we turn away, we can't earn 'redemption', we are entirely at God's mercy - if compliance doesn't guarantee acceptance, does non-compliance guarantee rejection?  Or, from the Catholic (?) doctrine, can you be compliant if you don't have access to the right church?

Jesus suggests a death within there own sins but elsewhere there is talk of banishment separation from God, The realisation that something better could have been possible, orthodox theologians suggest that no one is separated from God and the torment for those alienated from God is to be in his presence.

Theologians say a lot of things - part of a relationship is good communication, so how come we're still having to have this debate?  Why hasn't the 'perfect relationship' God been clear about what's involved?

The more I consider what you say and specifically your punctuating it with “I don’t believe it any way”. The more I think what you are giving us is an analysis of why people believe namely they fear torture if they don’t toe the line.

I don't know enough psychology to know if that's likely to make people believe, my instinct is that it's not enough in and of itself, but once you've got them to believe when young the threat of eternal torment is a useful tool to keep people in line.

As the passage in John says such a believer......(although I think this not uncommon caricature in atheism is you making pastiche of it......would need to be perfected in love I don’t think that is the Christians understanding of their relationship with God.

I've been guilty of this in this discussion as well, but I'm not sure there is 'AN' understanding of the Christian relationship with God - from Catholicism through Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, the prosperity Gospellers and Evangelicals to the Amish, Quakers, Protestants, and beyond there are dozens if not hundreds of orthodoxies, some of which conform to your vision, no doubt, others of which don't.

If you Are not in relationship with Him your conception unavoidably is influenced by that alienation.

Perhaps, but I'd counter that with the fact that it's normal for the friends of someone in an abusive relationship to spot it before they do...

O

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

'Humanity is flawed'...   This is because we are individually developing and growing towards perfection.

Not unless you can establish first a “perfection”, the ability to know what it is and the means to get there it isn’t. Evolution is descent with adaption – it’s a common mistake to assume it’s purposely heading toward a goal.     

It is like a school and we are like children at different stages of learning and development.

No it isn’t. In schools there are set objectives – learning to do calculus, reciting Shakespeare etc. There are no such objectives in evolution so your analogy fails.   

We are bound to be flawed.

Depends what you mean by “flawed”.

Ridding ourselves of our animal nature and growing beyond needs and desires is what makes us 'perfect'.

And the baseless greetings card platitude to finish. We are animals – we can no more “rid ourselves” of that than we can rid ourselves of gravity. 

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Not unless you can establish first a “perfection”, the ability to know what it is and the means to get there it isn’t. Evolution is descent with adaption – it’s a common mistake to assume it’s purposely heading toward a goal.     

No it isn’t. In schools there are set objectives – learning to do calculus, reciting Shakespeare etc. There are no such objectives in evolution so your analogy fails.   

Depends what you mean by “flawed”.

And the baseless greetings card platitude to finish. We are animals – we can no more “rid ourselves” of that than we can rid ourselves of gravity.

We are not talking of Physics...for heavens sake! We are talking philosophy. Why do you keep trying to drag it down to the very precise and very predictable levels of material science?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

We are not talking of Physics...for heavens sake!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

We are talking philosophy.

Not really. Philosophy requires reason and argument. Twee assertions about the sunlit uplands of the supposed “perfect” on the other hand have no significant philosophical content.

Why do you keep trying to drag it down to the very precise and very predictable levels of material science?

Actually I’m trying to raise it from your kindergarten-type grandiosities. If you want to claim a “perfect” that we’re somehow heading toward then, absent reason and argument to justify that claim, it’s your job to find some other means to distinguish it from gibberish.

Good luck with it though. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We are the architects of our own flaws in many ways, but I don't see it as a conscious choice - no-one CHOOSES to be flawed, they either choose unwisely, or they make choices which have unintended consequences. Not forgetting, of course, one man's flaw is another man's triumph...

Abusive partners are quite often overtly affectionate when it suits them.  That doesn't take away the threat, though, does it?

Except that it's not supposed to matter whether or not we turn away, we can't earn 'redemption', we are entirely at God's mercy - if compliance doesn't guarantee acceptance, does non-compliance guarantee rejection?  Or, from the Catholic (?) doctrine, can you be compliant if you don't have access to the right church?

Theologians say a lot of things - part of a relationship is good communication, so how come we're still having to have this debate?  Why hasn't the 'perfect relationship' God been clear about what's involved?

I don't know enough psychology to know if that's likely to make people believe, my instinct is that it's not enough in and of itself, but once you've got them to believe when young the threat of eternal torment is a useful tool to keep people in line.

I've been guilty of this in this discussion as well, but I'm not sure there is 'AN' understanding of the Christian relationship with God - from Catholicism through Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, the prosperity Gospellers and Evangelicals to the Amish, Quakers, Protestants, and beyond there are dozens if not hundreds of orthodoxies, some of which conform to your vision, no doubt, others of which don't.

Perhaps, but I'd counter that with the fact that it's normal for the friends of someone in an abusive relationship to spot it before they do...

O

None of what you say describes my own walk with God. I suggest what you are looking into therefore is your own caricature of what Christianity is.

I have been on both sides of the fence and found that many of my assumptions which were very similar to yours were false.

How do you know that the relationship is abusive.

Finally such an argument isn’t exactly atheist since it’s sentiments reveal only God resistance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

None of what you say describes my own walk with God.

No, it doesn’t describe (according to you) what you believe about your supposed “walk with god”. Fallacy of reification.

I suggest what you are looking into therefore is your own caricature of what Christianity is.

Whether your suite of faith beliefs (whatever they are) are themselves “what Christianity is” is moot, but in any case the most you could say is that he misrepresented what you’ve said they are. He hasn’t done that.   

I have been on both sides of the fence and found that many of my assumptions which were very similar to yours were false.

What assumptions do you think he’s made, and why do you think them to be false?

How do you know that the relationship is abusive.

He doesn’t think you have a “relationship” at all, and for good reason. What he’s saying is that, if there was a “relationship” of the type you describe then it would be an abusive one – a very different position. 

Finally such an argument isn’t exactly atheist since it’s sentiments reveal only God resistance.

You try this stupidity/dishonesty quite often: discussing the implications of your faith claim narratives IF they were true does not imply that your correspondent actually thinks that they ARE true. If I told you that I believe in all-loving leprechauns that kill babies, you'd probably suggest that the baby killing part of the story negates the all-loving part of the story. Would that mean that you would then believe in leprechauns too? Why not?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, it doesn’t describe (according to you) what you believe about your supposed “walk with god”. Fallacy of reification.

Whether your suite of faith beliefs (whatever they are) are themselves “what Christianity is” is moot, but in any case the most you could say is that he misrepresented what you’ve said they are. He hasn’t done that.   

What assumptions do you think he’s made, and why do you think them to be false?

He doesn’t think you have a “relationship” at all, and for good reason. What he’s saying is that, if there was a “relationship” of the type you describe then it would be an abusive one – a very different position. 

You try this stupidity/dishonesty quite often: discussing the implications of your faith claim narratives IF they were true does not imply that your correspondent actually thinks that they ARE true. If I told you that I believe in all-loving leprechauns that kill babies, you'd probably suggest that the baby killing part of the story negates the all-loving part of the story. Would that mean that you would then believe in leprechauns too? Why not?   

This is rich from someone who presupposes empiricism scientism naturalism etc.

I think we ought to be inspecting your vast verbage for ''Begging the question''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This is rich from someone who presupposes empiricism scientism naturalism etc.

I think we ought to be inspecting your vast verbage for ''Begging the question''.

Do you have anything to say that actually relates to the rebuttals you've just been given?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Do you have anything to say that actually relates to the rebuttals you've just been given?

Yeah, what is it you think is being reified and in what way?

What are you raving about vis a vis ''Baby Killing'' and what has it got do with me rather than wealthy people............ you incredibly troubled man.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yeah, what is it you think is being reified and in what way?

You assume that he agrees with your claim of a “walk with god”, and then complain later on that he’s being non-atheistic. He does no such thing – he just points out the implication IF the claim was true.

What are you raving about…

No-one is raving. 

…vis a vis ''Baby Killing'' and what has it got do with me rather than wealthy people............ you incredibly troubled man.

I was just explaining that pointing out the inconsistencies in a story (any story) does not imply that you agree with its premises. Either you cannot grasp the concept of an analogy, or you just lie about it for your own trolling amusement. I neither know nor care which it is. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

He doesn’t think you have a “relationship” at all, and for good reason. What he’s saying is that, if there was a “relationship” of the type you describe then it would be an abusive one – a very different position. 
 

He places himself in our conversation as one looking into a relationship and finding it abusive. My point is that what he is looking into is his own caricature of it. You are not engaging with this point, which wouldn't matter were it not for you bleating about engagement with yours.

What good reason does he not think I have a relationship with God other than the presupposition of cosmic Godlessness?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You assume that he agrees with your claim of a “walk with god”, and then complain later on that he’s being non-atheistic. He does no such thing – he just points out the implication IF the claim was true.
 

Saying that God is abusive is not an atheist argument. Period. You are conflating  antitheism (God is abusive) with atheism(God does not exist) at this point. Something you are always complaining about. That's a big minty humbug with stripes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

He places himself in our conversation as one looking into a relationship and finding it abusive.

Without suggesting for one moment that he thinks there’s a word of truth in it as you falsely suggested.

My point is that what he is looking into is his own caricature of it.

And it’s a false point. He’s not caricaturing anything – he’s just explaining to you what it would in imply if it was true.

You are not engaging with this point, which wouldn't matter were it not for you bleating about engagement with yours.

How would I “engage” with something I’ve already rebutted?

What good reason does he not think I have a relationship with God other than the presupposition of cosmic Godlessness?

Precisely the same good reason you have for not thinking I have a relationship with leprechauns. If you want to make the positive claim that you have “a relationship with god” then the job is all yours to demonstrate that – something you’ve never managed to do. Until you can do that, the most you can say is that he caricatures the story you tell about that (something he doesn’t do in any case - he just points out the implications of that story) but you cannot assert that he also thereby believes it actually to be true.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Saying that God is abusive is not an atheist argument. Period.

He didn’t do that. He said that, IF the story was true THEN it would describe an abusive relationship. Why is it so hard for you to distinguish between agreeing with the claim itself and critiqueing its implications?

You are conflating  antitheism (God is abusive) with atheism(God does not exist) at this point.

I’m doing no such thing – I’m just trying to get you to stop misrepresenting his critique of your faith claim as also implying he believes its premises to be true. Fuck me but you struggle.

Something you are always complaining about.

I complain about it when you dishonestly use these terms interchangeably. 

That's a big minty humbug with stripes.

Actually it’s just yet another of your endless supply of straw men. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Without suggesting for one moment that he thinks there’s a word of truth in it as you falsely suggested.

Where did that happen?

And it’s a false point. He’s not caricaturing anything – he’s just explaining to you what it would in imply if it was true.

He IS caricaturing it. His effective contention that rejecting God should mean something other than rejecting God or having the benefits of that which has been rejected is a joke

How would I “engage” with something I’ve already rebutted?

Since there is no adequate intellectual supervision here, if nobody concurs with what either of us are saying, rebuttal remains moot.

Precisely the same good reason you have for not thinking I have a relationship with leprechauns.

I think a relationship with any one who challenges your presuppositions is probably an impossibility.

[ippy]

Where did that happen?  He IS caricaturing it. His effective contention that rejecting God should mean something other than rejecting God or having the benefits of that which has been rejected is a joke Since there is no adequate intellectual supervision here, if nobody concurs with what either of us are saying, rebuttal remains moot.  I think a relationship with any one who challenges your presuppositions is probably an impossibility.

It'd be good if the odd one or two of your posts made some sense rather than just being a collection of meandering words that never reach anywhere near some kind of journeys end.
ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It'd be good if the odd one or two of your posts made some sense rather than just being a collection of meandering words that never reach anywhere near some kind of journeys end.
ippy.

Taking the responses to three different statements
And stitching them together as you have is a bit sneaky and confusing.

I fear that the level of language you wish me to use leans toward anti intellectual,dismissive and positional statements.

[Roses]

Vlad your posts are absolute gibberish, which is meant to wind other posters up.