If theism stands and falls with theists ...

[wynn]

All that ordinary people ever hear on the topic of "God," they hear from other people. Not from God. Or even if they do hear it from God (let's suppose hre for the sake of argument that God exists and communicates with people), they themselves are not able to discern whether it is from God, or whether it is from other people.
So for all practical intents and purposes, theism stands and falls with theists.


However, this puts the seekers who are not theists, into the precarious position of having to rely solely on theists for input on the topic of "God."
Even though the seekers are legally adults, toward the theists, they must have a childlike trust, the way a child trusts his parents - or there is no communication between the seeker and the theist. Except that the theists do not actually function as parents and have not done anything to earn that trust.


But if we are all God's children, if we are all parts and parcels of God, then how can this uneven kind of interaction between theists and seekers, possibly be fair or meaningful?

And if theism stands and falls with theists, then what are the non-theist seekers supposed to do if they don't get along with theists or refuse to accept the theists' terms - how can they ever come to God?

If theism stands and falls with theists that means that all those people who are put off by the hostility, anger, impatience, elitism of theists are cut off from ever coming to God.

If theism stands and falls with theists that means that all those people who refuse to be treated like shit by theists, do not deserve to come to God.



Something doesn't seem right here.

 

[Syne]

Know thyself.

"If we are all parts and parcels of God" then this is the only real way. Others can only try to show you the curtain. Only you can draw it back.

 

[Rav]

Something doesn't seem right here.

What doesn't seem right is the fact that different religions that evolved in different parts of the world all seek to mold applicants into something that is compatible with their respective theologies and epistemologies, and that in doing so these applicants are rendered incompatible with others.

More to the point, practitioners of these different religions (and even freestyle theists) all lay claim to achieving direct perception of and fellowship with God. So what's with the whole "you really need to submit yourself completely and do it our way" deal that some insist upon?

It should be obvious to anyone who has investigated religious claims (especially those who have spoken to many different devout practitioners) that what is really going on is not merely the provision of a method of approaching God, but a recipe for becoming a particular sort of theist. You know, either one who believes that we only live once and are then judged, or one who believes that souls are typically reborn, for example. The requirement for submission, then, is all caught up in specific details.

So I guess you need to decide whether or not you believe that knowledge of God is all tied up in just one brand of theism, or if the details don't matter. And if the details don't matter, why subject yourself to someone who seeks to imprint them on you? Why not just practice theism in a way that makes sense to you? After all, it clearly seems to be your only 'genuine option'.

 

[Balerion]

What doesn't seem right is the fact that different religions that evolved in different parts of the world all seek to mold applicants into something that is compatible with their respective theologies and epistemologies, and that in doing so these applicants are rendered incompatible with others.

More to the point, practitioners of these different religions (and even freestyle theists) all lay claim to achieving direct perception of and fellowship with God. So what's with the whole "you really need to submit yourself completely and do it our way" deal that some insist upon?

I should be obvious to anyone who has investigated religious claims (especially those who have spoken to many different devout practitioners) that what is really going on is not merely the provision of a method of approaching God, but a recipe for becoming a particular sort of theist. You know, either one who believes that we only live once and are then judged, or one who believes that souls are typically reborn, for example. The requirement for submission, then, is all caught up in specific details.

So I guess you need to decide whether or not you believe that knowledge of God is all tied up in just one brand of theism, or if the details don't matter. And if the details don't matter, why subjective yourself to someone who seeks to imprint them on you? Why not just practice theism in a way that makes sense to you? After all, it clearly seems to be your only 'genuine option'.

Could it not be argued that the personal revelations of, and relationships with, God are the sum of those details? Even "freestyle theists" (as a fan of hip-hop mix tapes in my youth, I love this term) glean at least an outline of the (usually vague) perception of their god from whatever traditional faith they were raised in, or perhaps some other faith they've heard of and found interesting.

I think we'd all be better off if people eschewed organized religion in favor of personal theology, but I have doubts as to whether such a spiritually-enlightened state is possible.

 

[wynn]

So I guess you need to decide whether or not you believe that knowledge of God is all tied up in just one brand of theism, or if the details don't matter. And if the details don't matter, why subject yourself to someone who seeks to imprint them on you? Why not just practice theism in a way that makes sense to you?

Those "details" are crucial, and are the reason why it is said that solipsism is the refuge of madmen.


A unilateral, idiosyncratic belief in God? Why call it "belief in God" at all then??

After all, it clearly seems to be your only 'genuine option'.

Perhaps it seems that way to you, but it certainly doesn't seem that way to me.
I wonder how you came to your conclusion.

 

[wynn]

I think we'd all be better off if people eschewed organized religion in favor of personal theology, but I have doubts as to whether such a spiritually-enlightened state is possible.

So do I.

I suppose there is the statistically rare occurence of people indeed having personal revelation from God that gives them everything they need so they can function apart from organized religion.

But setting all one's hopes on receiving such personal revelation ... I mean - what does one do in the meantime? What if it takes decades to receive one? How does one get through potentially decades of uncertainty about what one should do with one's life (given that one believes that the meaning of one's life is to be defined with a personal revelation from God)?


Although, granted, spiritual pursuits seem to be build on a paradox:
One the one hand, we have to find our own way. On the other hand, we realize we can't really find our own way on our own.
We have to be self-sufficient, yet dependent.
Fast, yet slow.
Thorough, yet not being carried away by particularities.

 

[Rav]

Those "details" are crucial, and are the reason why it is said that solipsism is the refuge of madmen.


A unilateral, idiosyncratic belief in God? Why call it "belief in God" at all then??

Perhaps it seems that way to you, but it certainly doesn't seem that way to me.
I wonder how you came to your conclusion.

Well, you make comments like this:

It seems natural to me to think that since people are very different (they live in very different circumstances, they have very different needs, interests and concerns) they would also be at different stages of or in different places of knowing God - ie. that they would see God from vastly different perspectives and thus see vastly different images - but nevertheless all see God.

Further, you are clearly expressing, in this very thread, that you can't see yourself accepting the terms that theists lay out for you as a necessary step for coming to a knowledge of God. In fact you have made this clear on several occasions. It certainly appears then that the only way forward for you is to take the bull by the horns, and try to wrestle it to the ground yourself.

 

[Rav]

But setting all one's hopes on receiving such personal revelation ... I mean - what does one do in the meantime? What if it takes decades to receive one? How does one get through potentially decades of uncertainty about what one should do with one's life (given that one believes that the meaning of one's life is to be defined with a personal revelation from God)?

Well, what you've been doing for the last few years doesn't seem to be working either. You've basically remained stuck at "who am I supposed to be listening to" and "why should I have to submit to them".

How long will that go on? A few more years? A decade?

Why not try a different strategy?

 

[Rav]

I think we'd all be better off if people eschewed organized religion in favor of personal theology, but I have doubts as to whether such a spiritually-enlightened state is possible.

I don't know. It seems that there are plenty of people who have compiled a "Best Of Religion" mix tape based on what they've been exposed to (with a few original compositions included as bonus tracks).

 

[wynn]

I do believe that there are only two ways to come to belief in God:

1. by being born into a theistic family and community at large, and taking on the theistic beliefs of one's family and community (and then continuing to be part of such a community);
2. by direct personal revelation from God (and then either remaining solitary or joining a theistic community).


Being born and raised outside of a theistic community and lacking a personal revelation from God - what can one do?

One may certainly still have a longing "for God": a longing that nothing earthly seems to satisfy, so it seems like a longing for the highest, the supreme - for God.

But joining a theistic community for the first time as an adult while lacking a personal revelation from God - I have found this to be impossible to do. I think it is only possible at the risk and expense of one's sanity and functionality.

 

[wynn]

I don't know. It seems that there are plenty of people who have compiled a "Best Of Religion" mix tape based on what they've been exposed to (with a few original compositions included as bonus tracks).

Sure, I've known some, read books by some.
I can't really relate to them, though. It seems to me that such people are either in fact operating out of a personal revelation from God (which I don't have, so I can't say anything more on this), or they are just incredibly egotistical (which I am also not), or just not very thorough (which I try to be).

 

[wynn]

Well, what you've been doing for the last few years doesn't seem to be working either. You've basically remained stuck at "who am I supposed to be listening to" and "why should I have to submit to them".

How long will that go on? A few more years? A decade?

Why not try a different strategy?

Thank you. I have been trying to figure out such a new strategy.

 

[Rav]

Sure, I've known some, read books by some.
I can't really relate to them, though. It seems to me that such people are either in fact operating out of a personal revelation from God (which I don't have, so I can't say anything more on this), or they are just incredibly egotistical (which I am also not), or just not very thorough (which I try to be).

There are also the deists of course. Such a philosophical position might seem a little 'barren' to someone like you though since it typically doesn't come with a manufacturer produced manual. But what if that really is how the whole deal works? What if we really are living in a clockwork universe and there is no such thing as divine revelation? Perhaps god is just like a parent who wants us to learn to fend for ourselves. In fact perhaps it is critically important for us to do that for some reason that we aren't privy to yet.

Why do you discount this possibility?

 

[wynn]

Perhaps god is just like a parent who wants us to learn to fend for ourselves. In fact perhaps it is critically important for us to do that for some reason that we aren't privy to yet.

Why do you discount this possibility?

I don't discount it, in fact, it is the possibility I have been considering the most recently - although mostly in private, barely here at the forums.

A kind of reasoning such as
"If God wants me to know Him, then He'll do whatever it takes. In the meantime, I would do best not to presume too much, and just see to it to fend for myself, and see what works and what doesn't work (such as that chanting a prticular mantra calms down an angry dog - and I have a very real fear of dogs) - and leave it at that."

Although for me, a sense of indebtedness to theistic traditions remains. I cannot but acknolwedge that there are ideas or practical instructions that I have taken from them.

 

[Rav]

Although for me, a sense of indebtedness to theistic traditions remains. I cannot but acknolwedge that there are ideas or practical instructions that I have taken from them.

Sure. But the other way to look at theism, the way that most theists don't want to, is that it represents the best collective wisdom of human beings assembled and refined over thousands of years. In that sense, it's a profound achievement of man rather than something that has been handed down by an all-powerful entity that wants to micromanage our lives. So the deist then would have reasons to be proud of the human race in spite of it's failings, because it has indeed produced great things. So perhaps your sense of indebtedness to theistic traditions does not obligate you to do anything more than that.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Wynn,

...do you believe in God, not belive in God, or not sure whether or not to believe in God???

jan.

 

[wynn]

Sure. But the other way to look at theism, the way that most theists don't want to, is that it represents the best collective wisdom of human beings assembled and refined over thousands of years.

That is, effectively, strong atheism.

And I am not going to assert strong atheism, is any way.

 

[wynn]

...do you believe in God, not belive in God, or not sure whether or not to believe in God???

The shortest I can answer this is that I think I should believe in God.

 

[Rav]

That is, effectively, strong atheism.

And I am not going to assert strong atheism, is any way.

You seem to have missed the fact that it was our discussion of deism that contextualized my comments. Because deists reject divine revelation, they necessarily believe that religion is a man-made phenomenon. So there goes your theory that only an atheist could say such things.

I've been exploring perspectives with you in a reasonable and respectful manner so far. Are you purposefully trying to ruin our dialogue?

 

[Jan Ardena]

The shortest I can answer this is that I think I should believe in God.

But you don't?
Yes or No is much simpler than the one you provided.

You could even just type Y, N, or simply, ?.
But be warned, ''?'' will require more explanation.
But I'm sure we can work out a code to pin point your exact position, without too much complication.


jan.