Why do we need a God?

[wynn]

513.

What about it?

You will need to be more clear.

You said about me -

Because YOU assert [or support the assertion] that we both have been been exposed to the same truth.

I have never said such a thing nor supported it.
In fact, I am quite sure that you have not been exposed ot the same truth as I, or many others.

Btw, also see 519

So you need Confirmation bias and the sunk cost effect to believe in God?

I think you are projecting into the search gor God needs, interests and concerns that don't directly have anything to do with that search, but rather with worldly concerns over being respected, being safe and such.

 

[wynn]

Opposition breeds adversity. Very true. I understand that you are talking about something very subjective and we a demanding an universal method for it, but still, give us something to go on. If we are wrong in using science to evalute it, what do we do?

And here, my reply is, again - What is your intention for seeking clarity about God? What is your intention in seeking clarity about these matters from me?



I'm not your father, nor your mother, nor your (former) priest, I'm not your religious peers - so relax.

 

[lightgigantic]

(Note: I'm getting bored of having to say things like 'Christian's believe' and 'according to Christian theology' etc, so I'm just going to represent the viewpoint from now on.)





You're not listening. I've already explained that those who have never been exposed to Jesus and his teachings can still be saved, so why are you still carrying on about how unfair and illogical it is that they can't be?

I thought I was following your train of thought but then you said this :

But Christian's aren't saying that those who have never heard of Jesus get a free pass.

are you saying that those who were genuinely seeking god outside of the golden era of christianity were accepted?

Are you saying that those outside of the golden era of christianity are accepted on the strength of prayers and sacrifice of persons who are accepted (hence the "free pass" thing)?

Are you saying that those who were/are outside the golden era of christianity were not accepted since the first and last word of such acceptance is the acceptance of jesus?

If a person really is pious in all regards and believes in God with full devotion, they will have achieved a state where they will be open to recognizing the power and significance of the sacrifice that Jesus made for us when they are exposed to it.

But I am saying what if jesus is left out of the equation (or simply offerred high respect and regard).

IOW the weirdness is this:
Imagine that you are trying to convince a group of people of the importance of a certain type of behaviour that they find challenging. If they succeed in socializing this behaviour you will reward them with eternal ecstatic existence. If they neglect it you will subject them to the most painful type of torture for eternity (this alone is weird ... but nevertheless it escalates). As it works out, some succeed some fail and some almost get it right. You punish those who almost get it right in the same manner as those who outright disrespect and neglect the bahaviour.

IOW in the pursuit of painting a certain type of christianity as the be all and end all of spiritual pursuit (so much that anything else is simply satanic and evil) one effectively curtails the broadness of the definition of god.

Its kind of like suppose a person likes forests - this means they like american forests, Argentinian forests, russian forests etc. If they can't appreciate forests in their variegated expression (even though there is certainly legitimate reasons for them not liking say the sahara) it tends to suggest that really don't have a clue what a forest is. IOW the broadness of the term "forest" is lost on them (and it also renders their appreciation of forests necessarily inferior)

So it's not 'thought crime' that counts against them, it is whatever they are holding on to that causes them to reject it. In other words, there is something more significant in play.

If they have full devotion to god, what is it precisely they are rejecting?

"There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal most just and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty." - The Westminster Confession of Faith



The accuracy of the above is easily demonstrable from scripture, and it faithfully conveys the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint on the nature and quality of God.

That says nothing about christianity having a monopoly on it.

For instance there is also only one sun, yet if you ask any one of a billion people where it is at midday they will say right above their head.

In your mind, it seems, everything is fine right up until the point that judgment is mentioned, which is no surprise. So what we've established then is that God must meet with your intellectual approval before you are willing to humble yourself before Him; that you like to set yourself up as an authority on matters that are well above your spiritual pay grade (so to speak). This is an example of the sort of thing I was talking about above when I said that there are more significant issues at play than mere 'thought crime'; that there is something that you're not willing to let go of that is causing you to reject God's actual message. It seems to be the pride you take in satisfying your own intellect according to your limited perspective.

I am saying that a god who judges exclusively in terms of the exclusive acceptance of jesus and renders all such other attempts to appreciate and worship him not even half way measures but short cuts to eternal hell is necessarily inferior to a god that doesn't relegate his benevolence to small historical windows of geography and culture.

 

[Rav]

I thought I was following your train of thought but then you said this :

But Christian's aren't saying that those who have never heard of Jesus get a free pass.

are you saying that those who were genuinely seeking god outside of the golden era of christianity were accepted?

Are you saying that those outside of the golden era of christianity are accepted on the strength of prayers and sacrifice of persons who are accepted (hence the "free pass" thing)?

Are you saying that those who were/are outside the golden era of christianity were not accepted since the first and last word of such acceptance is the acceptance of jesus?

I am saying, and have already said, that those who have never been exposed to Jesus and his message can still be saved. It is in much the same way as anyone who ever existed before the birth of Jesus could still be saved.

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." - Rom 1:20

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them." - Rom 2:14

But I am saying what if jesus is left out of the equation (or simply offerred high respect and regard).

And I'm saying that if one leaves Jesus out of the equation (after being exposed to his message), or relegates him and his sacrifice to the level of just another interesting (or even respectable) religious figure, then one is essentially denying the true significance of the most important action that God has ever undertaken with respect to man. The idea that one can outright deny such a thing, but still be truly seeking the truth, is absurd.

IOW the weirdness is this:
Imagine that you are trying to convince a group of people of the importance of a certain type of behaviour that they find challenging. If they succeed in socializing this behaviour you will reward them with eternal ecstatic existence. If they neglect it you will subject them to the most painful type of torture for eternity (this alone is weird ... but nevertheless it escalates). As it works out, some succeed some fail and some almost get it right. You punish those who almost get it right in the same manner as those who outright disrespect and neglect the bahaviour.

Like most people, your characterization of punishment reveals that you've only ever engaged in a cursory examination of the Bible, at most. Although it is certainly true that rejection of God will result in terrible consequences, it is the rejection itself that creates the outcome, not God. Of course you may argue that in setting the whole ballgame up in this particular way God is indeed responsible, but it is one of the necessary consequences of free-will.

"Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" - Ez 18:23

"Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’" - Ez 33:11

"...God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." - 1 Tim 2:3

It's pretty clear, then, that God desires that absolutely no-one be subjected to the consequences of rejecting Him. The idea is as horrible to God as it is to you.

Further, the idea that there is such a thing as an infinite punishment for a finite crime isn't really born out during proper study and meditation on God's words. Rather, if the crime is rejection itself, the consequences of that rejection will continue for as long as the rejection itself does. There will likely be those for whom this continues indefinitely.

If they have full devotion to god, what is it precisely they are rejecting?

Read it again:

If a person really is pious in all regards and believes in God with full devotion, they will have achieved a state where they will be open to recognizing the power and significance of the sacrifice that Jesus made for us when they are exposed to it. So it's not 'thought crime' that counts against them, it is whatever they are holding on to that causes them to reject it. In other words, there is something more significant in play.

That says nothing about christianity having a monopoly on it.

For instance there is also only one sun, yet if you ask any one of a billion people where it is at midday they will say right above their head.

You can't separate Jesus and His sacrifice from God. They are essentially one and the same. You may be able to imagine that God could exist independently of such, and even assign all of the same transcendental qualities, but you would be missing the most fundamentally important aspect of His relationship with man: Jesus.

I am saying that a god who judges exclusively in terms of the exclusive acceptance of jesus and renders all such other attempts to appreciate and worship him not even half way measures but short cuts to eternal hell is necessarily inferior to a god that doesn't relegate his benevolence to small historical windows of geography and culture.

Addressed earlier in this post.

 

[wynn]

It's pretty clear, then, that God desires that absolutely no-one be subjected to the consequences of rejecting Him. The idea is as horrible to God as it is to you.

Then poor god!
He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, infinite universes emanate from him, not a straw moves without him - and yet he is bound to set up a system in which he himself ends up horrified over the things that his creations under his supervision and permission do!

Further, the idea that there is such a thing as an infinite punishment for a finite crime isn't really born out during proper study and meditation on God's words. Rather, if the crime is rejection itself, the consequences of that rejection will continue for as long as the rejection itself does. There will likely be those for whom this continues indefinitely.

People, and even animals, show that they are willing to expend a lot of effort to get someone to love them and accept them.

If you have ever provided home for a stray animal, or tried to win the heart of a person who was at first distant to you or whose negative first impression of yourself you have tried to overturn, then you know first-hand what that is like, and that it can be done.

You say God wants us to love him, right? But you are also telling us that god, in all his mightiness, has only a limited capacity and willingness to get us to love him?

You can't separate Jesus and His sacrifice from God. They are essentially one and the same. You may be able to imagine that God could exist independently of such, and even assign all of the same transcendental qualities, but you would be missing the most fundamentally important aspect of His relationship with man: Jesus.

So god incarnated himself into Jesus, and then, under his own supervision and design, got himself tortured, then got himself killed, and then got himself resurrected - and all this because he loves us so much?
And he did that once, in the whole duration of the Universe, and everyone who wasn't personally present back then in Jerusalem, just has to take all this on faith, or burn in hell for all eternity?

 

[aaqucnaona]

What about it?

You will need to be more clear.

You said about me -



I have never said such a thing nor supported it.
In fact, I am quite sure that you have not been exposed ot the same truth as I, or many others.

Fine, I drop that.

I think you are projecting into the search gor God needs, interests and concerns that don't directly have anything to do with that search, but rather with worldly concerns over being respected, being safe and such.

Can you please elaborate?

 

[aaqucnaona]

Then poor god!
He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, infinite universes emanate from him, not a straw moves without him - and yet he is bound to set up a system in which he himself ends up horrified over the things that his creations under his supervision and permission do!




People, and even animals, show that they are willing to expend a lot of effort to get someone to love them and accept them.

If you have ever provided home for a stray animal, or tried to win the heart of a person who was at first distant to you or whose negative first impression of yourself you have tried to overturn, then you know first-hand what that is like, and that it can be done.

You say God wants us to love him, right? But you are also telling us that god, in all his mightiness, has only a limited capacity and willingness to get us to love him?





So god incarnated himself into Jesus, and then, under his own supervision and design, got himself tortured, then got himself killed, and then got himself resurrected - and all this because he loves us so much?
And he did that once, in the whole duration of the Universe, and everyone who wasn't personally present back then in Jerusalem, just has to take all this on faith, or burn in hell for all eternity?

A rare and refreshing change of sides on your part.

 

[aaqucnaona]

And here, my reply is, again - What is your intention for seeking clarity about God?

I am not - I am only trying to apply a probability on the existence of God so that I can decide further. Right now [IMO] it is 85-90% against the existence of God.

What is your intention in seeking clarity about these matters from me?

You represent the claimant and the theist. I am doing my part by fulfilling my burden of rejoinder in this conversation.

I'm not your father, nor your mother, nor your (former) priest, I'm not your religious peers - so relax.

Expand on this pls?

 

[wynn]

A rare and refreshing change of sides on your part.

Not at all.

 

[Rav]

Then poor god!
He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, infinite universes emanate from him, not a straw moves without him - and yet he is bound to set up a system in which he himself ends up horrified over the things that his creations under his supervision and permission do!

Plenty of things happen in the universe without His involvement. If that wasn't the case, even your thoughts wouldn't be your own.

You say God wants us to love him, right? But you are also telling us that god, in all his mightiness, has only a limited capacity and willingness to get us to love him?

The idea that you can make someone love you, and that it would still be love, is nonsensical. You can do an innumerable number of things to try to encourage it, but you can't make it happen

So god incarnated himself into Jesus, and then, under his own supervision and design, got himself tortured, then got himself killed, and then got himself resurrected - and all this because he loves us so much?

Love, without sacrifice, is not love at all. The act was necessary in order to wash away all past, present and future sins, so us imperfect beings could share in His perfection. No ordinary act would have sufficed. It had to be an extraordinary one, executed by the embodiment of perfection itself.

And he did that once, in the whole duration of the Universe, and everyone who wasn't personally present back then in Jerusalem, just has to take all this on faith, or burn in hell for all eternity?

Certainly not blind faith. If one truly humbles themselves before God, meditates upon his words, and dedicates themselves to the correct practices, the truth will become perfectly clear, and faith will progress to becoming about trusting in God's plan for you. There will be no question about the truth of his words anymore.

 

[wynn]

Plenty of things happen in the universe without His involvement.

Then it is not his universe nor is he in charge.

If that wasn't the case, even your thoughts wouldn't be your own.

If God made me, then my thoughts are his.

The idea that you can make someone love you, and that it would still be love, is nonsensical. You can do an innumerable number of things to try to encourage it, but you can't make it happen

Of course, when it comes to humans, with their limited capacities, what you say applies.

But God and humans are incomparable in this regard. God is the source of all qualities, all potencies; humans can merely channel them, serve as intermediaries between God and an individual person.

Love, without sacrifice, is not love at all.

I don't think so.

Per your reasoning, if we have two persons who are on good terms with eachother and whose lives are fortunate and plain sailing - then unless one chooses to risk her health or life for the other, she can't say she ever loved the other person?

"I want to show you that I love you. But since our lives have been so smooth so far that no need for a heroic sacrifice has come up, let me set up some trouble so that I can take it upon myself and appear as heroic as the occasion demands."

The act was necessary in order to wash away all past, present and future sins, so us imperfect beings could share in His perfection.

God set up the whole system in such a manner that humans have free will, and are thus able to sin.
And you are saying that God then had make provision, as well as punish the humans for something that he enabled them to do anyway?

No ordinary act would have sufficed. It had to be an extraordinary one, executed by the embodiment of perfection itself.

Except that it wasn't a real execution. He got up and walked away from it just fine, as if nothing happened.

Certainly not blind faith. If one truly humbles themselves before God, meditates upon his words, and dedicates themselves to the correct practices, the truth will become perfectly clear, and faith will progress to becoming about trusting in God's plan for you. There will be no question about the truth of his words anymore.

I have no doubt about that.

But from what you say, nor from my agreement with the above, it does not follow that Jesus is the one and only connection between man and God.

 

[Rav]

Then it is not his universe nor is he in charge.

Incorrect. Christian theology teaches that in some important ways, God and his creation are distinct entities, although it does of course owe it's very existence to God. Most importantly, human beings have ultimately been empowered by God to act as free agents.

To imply that this represents a limitation on God's part is to imply that He couldn't exercise complete control over His creation if He wanted to. Of course he could. Exercising power is not a prerequisite for wielding it.

If God made me, then my thoughts are his.

If God made you as a free agent, then your thoughts are your own.

But God and humans are incomparable in this regard. God is the source of all qualities, all potencies; humans can merely channel them, serve as intermediaries between God and an individual person.

God made you as a free agent.

I don't think so.

Per your reasoning, if we have two persons who are on good terms with eachother and whose lives are fortunate and plain sailing - then unless one chooses to risk her health or life for the other, she can't say she ever loved the other person?

What I meant to convey is that if you aren't prepared to sacrifice, then you don't really love. In the case of God, it was necessary in order for us to share in His perfection, which is what He wants, because He loves us.

God set up the whole system in such a manner that humans have free will, and are thus able to sin.
And you are saying that God then had make provision, as well as punish the humans for something that he enabled them to do anyway?

Would you mind rephrasing that? I'm not entirely sure what you are asking.

Except that it wasn't a real execution. He got up and walked away from it just fine, as if nothing happened.

Huh? Do you know anything about crucifixion at all? Jesus did, and he was certainly not looking forward to it. So much so that he was sweating blood (which can actually happen, see Hematidrosis), and on several occasions desperately prayed to God for a way to escape it. Such was the reality of becoming flesh. But his will to do what was necessary prevailed. Such was his character.

I have no doubt about that.

But from what you say, nor from my agreement with the above, it does not follow that Jesus is the one and only connection between man and God.

Like I said, the truth will become clear once you manage to cast aside whatever it is that is holding you back from conducting the necessary investigation, using the correct epistemology.

 

[wynn]

I think you are projecting into the search for God needs, interests and concerns that don't directly have anything to do with that search, but rather with worldly concerns over being respected, being safe and such.

Can you please elaborate?

I'll rephrase:
If for the purpose of finding the truth about God, it would come to be that your current friends and family would abandon you and/or that you would have troubles in school over it (because you couldn't agree with what you are taught),
would you find this acceptable (ie. a necessary sacrifice) or not?

And here, my reply is, again - What is your intention for seeking clarity about God?

I am not - I am only trying to apply a probability on the existence of God so that I can decide further.

Why is this decision important for you?

Right now [IMO] it is 85-90% against the existence of God.

So? Does this mean that you should probably stop worrying and enjoy your life?

You represent the claimant and the theist.

That is just your projection.

I am doing my part by fulfilling my burden of rejoinder in this conversation.

Do you really think that is a "burden"?

I'm not your father, nor your mother, nor your (former) priest, I'm not your religious peers - so relax.

Expand on this pls?

You are behaving toward me, as well as some others, with an attitude that may be understandable when it comes to your parents, your (former) priest or your religious peers.
But I am neither of them, so it's not clear why you have that attitude to me too.

 

[wynn]

Incorrect. Christian theology teaches that in some important ways, God and his creation are distinct entities, although it does of course owe it's very existence to God. Most importantly, human beings have ultimately been empowered by God to act as free agents.

To imply that this represents a limitation on God's part is to imply that He couldn't exercise complete control over His creation if He wanted to. Of course he could. Exercising power is not a prerequisite for wielding it.

If that is so, and God is so magnanimous and so powerful, then why would he set up a system that resembles a teenager's fantasy of dominance, rather than anything else?

If God made me, then my thoughts are his.

If God made you as a free agent, then your thoughts are your own.

Whatever I think, I think because God first approved of it. As you say, God made me a free agent.

God made you as a free agent.

Then my temporary actions should not have irreversible consequences.

What I meant to convey is that if you aren't prepared to sacrifice, then you don't really love.

Sure, but it depends on what the sacrifice is and for what purpose.

In the case of God, it was necessary in order for us to share in His perfection, which is what He wants, because He loves us.

Perhaps for you, the biological and mental heirs of the Israelites, a blood sacrifice was truly necessary, given your limited moral and cognitive capacities.
That doesn't mean that everyone is limited like that. Not everyone is eager for scapegoats.

God set up the whole system in such a manner that humans have free will, and are thus able to sin.
And you are saying that God then had make provision, as well as punish the humans for something that he enabled them to do anyway?

Would you mind rephrasing that? I'm not entirely sure what you are asking.

If God made me black, then why would I have to be punished for being black?

Except that it wasn't a real execution. He got up and walked away from it just fine, as if nothing happened.

Huh? Do you know anything about crucifixion at all? Jesus did, and he was certainly not looking forward to it. So much so that he was sweating blood (which can actually happen, see Hematidrosis), and on several occasions desperately prayed to God for a way to escape it. Such was the reality of becoming flesh. But his will to do what was necessary prevailed. Such was his character.

For an ordinary human, a crucifixion would be a horrible experience. Jesus, however, was an incarnation of God, and thus beyond the sufferings of aging, illness and death. The whole thing was just a show to satisfy the cruel hearts of people who call themselves "Christians".

God is so magnanimous that He takes up interaction even with cruel people - those He deems stiff-necked.

I have no doubt about that.

But from what you say, nor from my agreement with the above, it does not follow that Jesus is the one and only connection between man and God.

Like I said, the truth will become clear once you manage to cast aside whatever it is that is holding you back from conducting the necessary investigation, using the correct epistemology.

I think God is bigger and more magnanimous than Christians.

 

[aaqucnaona]

I'll rephrase:
If for the purpose of finding the truth about God, it would come to be that your current friends and family would abandon you and/or that you would have troubles in school over it (because you couldn't agree with what you are taught),
would you find this acceptable (ie. a necessary sacrifice) or not?

I have said this before and I will again - I am extremely ecclectic and pragmatic. Moreover, despite that I usually act socially/politically correct and morally, I am completely unbound by any principles of actions - I do only that which has the most optimum outcome in a situation in proportion to the cost of doing it. Even more importantly, I am a misanthrope and an introvert, not to mention an individualist. Comformity is one of the least important things for me. I play along only if doing so has enough benefits or not doing so can do enough harm. However, I am very much disconnected from emotions in my thought, decisions and actions, leaving them as purely an experiential supplement. So no, I have no problems in 'blending in' and I dont consider honesty to be important enough to make a substantial sacrifice, especially since the cost of dishonesty and its effect on others is so minor.

Why is this decision important for you?

Because it is important for others, others who can/do personally influence me + if a god exists, knowing him might be important. Just taking the first step, making sure I am not irrational or close-minded, since those things are especially repugnant to most modern atheists.

So? Does this mean that you should probably stop worrying and enjoy your life?

Most probably, yes. This conversation is just a look over my shoulder to safeguard against flaws and baises.

That is just your projection.

No it isnt. Your actions strongly suggest that you are theism partisan reguardless of what you consider or label yourself as.

Do you really think that is a "burden"?

Its an argumentative burden, sure. One party makes the claim, they get the burden of proof, they have to substantiate that claim. The other party, who challenge the claim or compose the opposition have the burden of rejoinder, they have to argue [and make a counter case], agree [and explain why] or leave.

You are behaving toward me, as well as some others, with an attitude that may be understandable when it comes to your parents, your (former) priest or your religious peers.
But I am neither of them, so it's not clear why you have that attitude to me too.

Hmm... maybe. Examples/elaboration pls?

 

[aaqucnaona]

Not at all.

What do you mean?

 

[scifes]

huge thread, i like it because it's huge, it's sort of a rarity here in the religion subfora.

however, old question, and so is my answer.

but never "crossed swords" with this op before, so my answer is yes.

because most humans, iow humanity, can't sustain itself morally without god.

 

[Rav]

If that is so, and God is so magnanimous and so powerful, then why would he set up a system that resembles a teenager's fantasy of dominance

Projecting your own cynicism onto God and His creation is far from an argument against His existence.

Whatever I think, I think because God first approved of it. As you say, God made me a free agent.

Your thoughts aren't submitted to God for approval before they are allowed to occur. What has been 'approved', if you insist on looking at it that way, is the freedom to have them.

Then my temporary actions should not have irreversible consequences.

Even as we speak, you are nurturing your rejection of God, cultivating it. If you go through the rest of your life that way, I'd hardly call it a 'temporary' sort of state of mind.

Perhaps for you, the biological and mental heirs of the Israelites, a blood sacrifice was truly necessary, given your limited moral and cognitive capacities.
That doesn't mean that everyone is limited like that. Not everyone is eager for scapegoats.

Actually, it is our limited moral and cognitive capacities that make it so necessary to trust in the wisdom of He who possess the full measure of those qualities.

If God made me black, then why would I have to be punished for being black?

In order for that analogy to work, God would have had to have created us in such a way that we would be certain to reject Him, and then punish us for it. But what He actually did was to create us in such a way that we were free to choose.

For an ordinary human, a crucifixion would be a horrible experience. Jesus, however, was an incarnation of God, and thus beyond the sufferings of aging, illness and death.

Wrong again. Your assertion that Jesus didn't suffer the emotional, psychological and physical horrors of crucifixion is in direct conflict with scripture. If you want to properly evaluate Christianity, you have to read what is written, not make up your own version of events.

I think God is bigger and more magnanimous than Christians.

That's hardly a proper reply to:

Like I said, the truth will become clear once you manage to cast aside whatever it is that is holding you back from conducting the necessary investigation, using the correct epistemology.

 

[Rav]

By the way wynn, might I suggest that you focus on trying to construct a sound philosophical argument concerning exactly why Christian fundamentalism is not actually a valid example of a religious epistemology that leads one to certainty regarding the details of transcendental affairs to the mutual exclusion of others? That seems to be what LG has been implying in his attempt to defend the reliability of the sort of tool we are supposed to be using to evaluate religious claims, and it is what this has all been about.

If we continue in the manner that we have been, I will no doubt be a constant reminder to you of all the unpleasant run-ins you have had with hard-line Christians, and that was certainly not my original intention.

 

[wynn]

By the way wynn, might I suggest that you focus on trying to construct a sound philosophical argument concerning exactly why Christian fundamentalism is not actually a valid example of a religious epistemology that leads one to certainty regarding the details of transcendental affairs to the mutual exclusion of others? That seems to be what LG has been implying in his attempt to defend the reliability of the sort of tool we are supposed to be using to evaluate religious claims, and it is what this has all been about.

I am sure LG will reply as he sees fit.

I don't think it is possible to construct an independent, objective sound philosophical argument concerning exactly why Christian fundamentalism is not actually a valid example of a religious epistemology that leads one to certainty regarding the details of transcendental affairs to the mutual exclusion of others.

This is because the evaluation and validation of an epistemology depends on its application. Only real people can apply an epistemology, and the result of an application will depend on the person's qualities and attitudes.

A person naturally or deliberately determined to goodwill will thus tend to invalidate certain propositions or epistemological approaches on the grounds that those propositions or epistemological approaches require that a degree of ill will or at least indifference be present in the person - and a person determined to goodwill will not tolerate ill will or indifference.

On the whole, the entire concern over which religion is the right is anchored in the bad faith that it is quite possible or a fact that God is evil.

A person determined to goodwill will either not worry about which religion is the right one, or proactively pursue a religious investigation in line with their goodwill.

If we continue in the manner that we have been, I will no doubt be a constant reminder to you of all the unpleasant run-ins you have had with hard-line Christians, and that was certainly not my original intention.

And to such a Christian, my reply is:

"Look, you, petty, hard-hearted, vindicitve, pompous Christian ass, I am a child of God, and I will not, in plain terms, let any bozo such as yourself poison my spirit with your hatred for God, the universe and everyone and everything!!!"


(And thank you for this exercise, Rav, it's been very refreshing.)