The Brilliance of Pascal's Wager

[A Vestigial Mote]

Nope. I've made comments about your posts and how they make you appear.
I never called you names. I observed that your posts were rather snotty. That's not calling you names. You should learn the dif.

So, saying someone is "beyond help" - that's in reference to my ideas only, correct? So like, my ideas are "beyond help?" Saying that I am bitter, or angry (both actually) - this is only in response to my ideas, right? You're not actually calling ME those things then? Just my ideas? You SURE about that? Hmmmm...

Judging from you bullet-pointed diatribe above, Guess Who is the one who's posts are misapprehending?

Answer the above question O High and Mighty One, then we'll talk.

It doesn't appear as though you do. And on the 'net, appearances are everything.

Why? You have NO IDEA who I am. Why should I care how you perceive this username on the internet? Can you answer that?

Read above. This is a world view. Do you know what a "world view" is? They are, by nature, "all-encompassing." And yes, my world view is mine. I'm not asking anyone else to see it my way.

Sure sure. I thought we covered this already with much of your statement of things as if they were fact, as if I should accept them (remember also, you called me closed-minded when I said I wasn't going to). You are very definitely trying to convince and spread your ideas. We all are. Stop trying to sound so virtuous or something. I at least own up to my brashness and brutal scrutiny. I am not afraid of it.

Uh huh. You said, "says you." I responded, "...and a million others." To which you "admonished" me for "appealing to the majority." You don't get to have it both ways, Ace. The "majority" in this case is "intersubjective."

Proof positive you are living in a fantasy realm of your own making within your mind. "Intersubjective" means that no matter which two subjects we bring to the table, they will come away with the same conclusions. Examples I gave you like gravity. Any two people you talk to simply must admit that gravity holds sway over their activities on Earth. Unless they are somehow mentally affected, they simply must. It isn't some appeal to a majority. Not even close. If you take away any one thing from our conversation, it should be this. You don't get to cast the idea of "intersubjective verifiability" into the nebulous realm of your spiritual ideas. That's just dishonest and depraved.

So... expediency trumps good judgment in your case, yes?

If I deem that it should, then yes.

Funny you should say that. I seem to be getting along much better with most other atheists here, because their posts aren't unnecessarily snarky. If that style of writing is simply "your thang," I might suggest you try a new thang.

Based on your recommendation? You're kidding, right?

You've completely lost me here. I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe I missed a post or something? It's possible. I respond to many threads.
There hasn't been any theological "meat." What you call "theological meat" has amounted to "Nuh-uh" with undue attitude.

You basically brushed aside a point I made about Christian mythology specifically. You said this:

But there is good reason to hope God is and to believe God is, because God sets the bar for our being. God, in the least, provides a standard to which we aspire, because our anthropomorphosis of God is an embodiment of our highest hopes and aspirations for ourselves — especially as a race, but also as individuals.

And so I pointed out that God, within Christianity, is purported to have done some really vile and terrible things, and has a list of commandments that He doesn't even keep to Himself. Add to that that the commandments are terribly MYOPIC to begin with - with the first 4 or so concentrating on human-to-God interaction, when "morality" (as we humans define it) is NECESSARILY based in human-to-lifeform interactions. Just ask yourself - do you truly believe that people are acting immorally when they "hurt" God? Can one "hurt" God? Is it possible? If you can prove that it is, well then you have proved God, haven't you? And this forces the entire start of the list of commandments to just fall away as so much dust in the wind. As prescriptions for moral conduct those first several are meaningless. And THIS is part of what you consider a standard to which to aspire? Answer that for me, please. If you do nothing else - I don't even care - ignore the rest, call me all the names you want - I honestly don't care. Just answer this one point with something more than "Well you have a myopic view of God." Will you? Can you? Give me a reason to believe that these parts of God are something to which one should aspire. And if you can't do that, then tell me what parts of God are we to aspire to then? What is there that is so special about Him? Ultimate goodness? The stories contradict this. Wisdom in all things? I would contend the stories contradict this also. Please tell me what it is, and answer to my condemnation of God's actions.

 

[sojourner]

The preponderance of your post isn't worth responding to -- its just more snark. I will respond to the following:

I thought we covered this already with much of your statement of things as if they were fact, as if I should accept them (remember also, you called me closed-minded when I said I wasn't going to).

Much of my statement is a statement of my truth, as I said. IOW, this is how I view and understand the world. You're the one interjecting "fact" into the conversation. Truth and fact are two different things (although they do intersect). You're mistaken. (And I'm not going to be drawn into an argument over any alleged "stupidity" of the difference between "fact" and "truth.")

Proof positive you are living in a fantasy realm of your own making within your mind. "Intersubjective" means that no matter which two subjects we bring to the table, they will come away with the same conclusions. Examples I gave you like gravity. Any two people you talk to simply must admit that gravity holds sway over their activities on Earth. Unless they are somehow mentally affected, they simply must. It isn't some appeal to a majority. Not even close. If you take away any one thing from our conversation, it should be this. You don't get to cast the idea of "intersubjective verifiability" into the nebulous realm of your spiritual ideas. That's just dishonest and depraved.

And yet, people who are aware of such things will agree (no matter their religious affiliation) that deity is a real thing. Remember: even with scientific evidence, there are still those who insist that the earth is flat. And there are still those who would argue that "we are held to the earth by suction," while denying gravity. No, I'm afraid your insistence on some "universal understanding" won't wash. There's no such thing, once you really parse things out. There will always be differences of opinion as to details. None of this is just "says you." It's "says us," and by that I mean humanity. Human understanding is a symphony of voices, ideas and philosophies, many of them very diverse. They all point to how we make meaning. And we will all make meaning in different ways.

If I deem that it should, then yes.

This says a lot about you. There's never an excuse for poor judgment, when we know better.

 

[Audie]

So, saying someone is "beyond help" - that's in reference to my ideas only, correct? So like, my ideas are "beyond help?" Saying that I am bitter, or angry (both actually) - this is only in response to my ideas, right? You're not actually calling ME those things then? Just my ideas? You SURE about that? Hmmmm...
Answer the above question O High and Mighty One, then we'll talk.
Why? You have NO IDEA who I am. Why should I care how you perceive this username on the internet? Can you answer that?

Sure sure. I thought we covered this already with much of your statement of things as if they were fact, as if I should accept them (remember also, you called me closed-minded when I said I wasn't going to). You are very definitely trying to convince and spread your ideas. We all are. Stop trying to sound so virtuous or something. I at least own up to my brashness and brutal scrutiny. I am not afraid of it.
Proof positive you are living in a fantasy realm of your own making within your mind. "Intersubjective" means that no matter which two subjects we bring to the table, they will come away with the same conclusions. Examples I gave you like gravity. Any two people you talk to simply must admit that gravity holds sway over their activities on Earth. Unless they are somehow mentally affected, they simply must. It isn't some appeal to a majority. Not even close. If you take away any one thing from our conversation, it should be this. You don't get to cast the idea of "intersubjective verifiability" into the nebulous realm of your spiritual ideas. That's just dishonest and depraved.
If I deem that it should, then yes.
Based on your recommendation? You're kidding, right?
You basically brushed aside a point I made about Christian mythology specifically. You said this:

And so I pointed out that God, within Christianity, is purported to have done some really vile and terrible things, and has a list of commandments that He doesn't even keep to Himself. Add to that that the commandments are terribly MYOPIC to begin with - with the first 4 or so concentrating on human-to-God interaction, when "morality" (as we humans define it) is NECESSARILY based in human-to-lifeform interactions. Just ask yourself - do you truly believe that people are acting immorally when they "hurt" God? Can one "hurt" God? Is it possible? If you can prove that it is, well then you have proved God, haven't you? And this forces the entire start of the list of commandments to just fall away as so much dust in the wind. As prescriptions for moral conduct those first several are meaningless. And THIS is part of what you consider a standard to which to aspire? Answer that for me, please. If you do nothing else - I don't even care - ignore the rest, call me all the names you want - I honestly don't care. Just answer this one point with something more than "Well you have a myopic view of God." Will you? Can you? Give me a reason to believe that these parts of God are something to which one should aspire. And if you can't do that, then tell me what parts of God are we to aspire to then? What is there that is so special about Him? Ultimate goodness? The stories contradict this. Wisdom in all things? I would contend the stories contradict this also. Please tell me what it is, and answer to my condemnation of God's actions.

Bitter...angry...
While I think the charge of being "emotional"
(going all irrational, etc) is more often leveled
at women than men, I guess it is a low tactic
that everyone experiences.
At least, when someone does it, it shows them
for what they are, and what their content is.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The preponderance of your post isn't worth responding to -- its just more snark. I will respond to the following:

Of course. I completely understand. The theological implications of the one thing I hoped you would actually respond to were likely too great. You don't have to admit it. Fluffy talk often leads to this sort of thing. That one must dodge the implications of their own words in order to maintain what they mistake as some form of "dignity."

And yet, people who are aware of such things will agree (no matter their religious affiliation) that deity is a real thing.

Ahh... but WHICH deity? At this point your appeal to popularity (that is what this is, like it or not) falls apart. Not to mention all the people who subscribe to no deity, even if they religiously practice a discipline.

Remember: even with scientific evidence, there are still those who insist that the earth is flat.

Yes, but what I am saying is that, if, for example, we took one of those people up and up and up in a rocket, and they were forced to encounter the reality of the Earth's roundness, then THAT experience of seeing the Earth in that way is the type of "intersubjectively verifiable" evidence/experience I am talking about. Where it becomes obvious what comports with reality and what is mere opinion.

And there are still those who would argue that "we are held to the earth by suction," while denying gravity. No, I'm afraid your insistence on some "universal understanding" won't wash.

You're STILL misconstruing or being dishonest or something here. STILL. For I DID NOT make an appeal to the actual mechanics behind gravity. Read back if you are mystified. What I appealed to was the experience of the effects of gravity. That is what I said cannot be denied without belying some form of mental malaise. The question is put to ANY two people: "Do you feel yourself drawn to Earth in the same way that this apple I am about to drop is drawn?" And what is the answer? THAT is what I am talking about. You have nothing even approaching this in all your insistence that "deity" is some grand commonality. Nowhere near.

This says a lot about you. There's never an excuse for poor judgment, when we know better.

And do I "know better?" What exactly is "better?" And how can you demonstrate that it is? This is one of those things that is NOT intersubjectively verifiable. And so, subjectively, I take a different stance. How was it that you put it? It's all part of the "symphony of voices, ideas and philosophies, many of them very diverse". And I simply "make meaning in different ways." Your own words, mind you. Who is trying to "stifle" who? And are you sure of the answer?

 

[Ouroboros]

But... if we eat him first...


How does that work, exactly?

It's like Ouroboros, the snake eating its tail.

 

[sojourner]

And so I pointed out that God, within Christianity, is purported to have done some really vile and terrible things, and has a list of commandments that He doesn't even keep to Himself. Add to that that the commandments are terribly MYOPIC to begin with - with the first 4 or so concentrating on human-to-God interaction, when "morality" (as we humans define it) is NECESSARILY based in human-to-lifeform interactions. Just ask yourself - do you truly believe that people are acting immorally when they "hurt" God? Can one "hurt" God? Is it possible? If you can prove that it is, well then you have proved God, haven't you? And this forces the entire start of the list of commandments to just fall away as so much dust in the wind. As prescriptions for moral conduct those first several are meaningless. And THIS is part of what you consider a standard to which to aspire? Answer that for me, please. If you do nothing else - I don't even care - ignore the rest, call me all the names you want - I honestly don't care. Just answer this one point with something more than "Well you have a myopic view of God." Will you? Can you? Give me a reason to believe that these parts of God are something to which one should aspire. And if you can't do that, then tell me what parts of God are we to aspire to then? What is there that is so special about Him? Ultimate goodness? The stories contradict this. Wisdom in all things? I would contend the stories contradict this also. Please tell me what it is, and answer to my condemnation of God's actions.

I wanted to reply to this separately, because I think it's important, and because you seem to sincerely want a decent reply. I'm happy to oblige the best I can without writing a book.

The reason I said that your view is myopic is because it is. Your views about the nature of deity, faith, the proscriptions for living a life of faith, are all informed by a very, very narrow understanding. You have a concept, and you expect that concept to be a "definition" for all of this that will apply to every person in every time, place and situation. But that's not how it works. "God," "faith" and "righteousness" are all very broad and fluid concepts that can legitimately be expressed in a million different ways. You appear to be frustrated with what you call "dust in the wind." You want us to pin all this down to neat and tidy definitions. It can't be done. you want us to "prove God." It can't be done. The reason why is because the only way we can talk about the Divine is in metaphor, and metaphors are, by their nature, fluid.

I don't know what "vile things" in Christianity you're referring to. I can only imagine that you're talking about the condemnation of "sinners." I can only say that NOTHING with regard to theology is set in stone. My only defense is to say that different people in different times, places and cultures utilize different concepts of God that seem to "work" for them, but do not translate well to us. More on that in a moment.

I don't know what this "list of commandments" is, unless you're referring to the "ten commandments." MY understanding is that these are for Jews and don't apply to anyone else. The only "commandments" I know of in a strictly Christian sense are two: 1) Love God, and 2) love neighbor as self. It is said that all other commandments depend upon these two. So the Christian commandments are … love. Yes, there is the problem of theodicy in which circumstances seem to point to an omniscient, omnipotent and loving God not being the logical case. I can only answer with this: there are differing perspectives of God, even within the bible. God is said to be omnipotent, and yet there are places where God doesn't interfere with power. God is said to be omniscient, and yet God couldn't find Adam and Eve in the garden. This is, in part, because the bible isn't a cohesive, single document. It's a cobbled-together mess of redacted, ancient texts and edited oral stories from several different cultures. These all represent the "different concepts for God" that don't always translate well to us" I mentioned in the last paragraph.

You claim that the first four commandments are "myopic" and only deal with God-human interaction. Yes, they do deal with that particular interaction. No, that's not "myopic." You go on to say that "morality is necessarily based in human-human interaction." I disagree. You're completely ignoring the divine component of the commandments. Remember: this is theology, not sociology. We begin with God for the same reason that the book of beginnings -- Genesis -- begins with God: "In the beginning, God created..." The first act is an act of God. In theology, everything begins with God, because God defines everything that is in that milieu. Our morality is rooted, not in how we relate to each other, but in how we relate to God. It's our identity in God that should inform our love of neighbor. (I'll be the first to admit that there are many examples of that not working well). If -- and I say "If" -- we sincerely love God, and rightly understand our relationship with God, then our relationships with each other will flourish in kind.

No. I don't think we can "hurt God." And I don't even want to try to "prove God," because I think it's futile to do so. And I don't think the first four are "futile." I think they're necessary within the bounds of the religion and how we purport to identify in and relate to God. We aspire to the standard of the commandment to love (as Xtians) because we believe there is no higher "energetic force." My own theological construct says that love is very force of creation, itself.

You want to know why we should aspire to "these parts" of God. I'm not sure what parts you mean, but when I posted that response I meant those "parts" that the human family holds in highest regard. First, love. Then honor, mercy, forbearance, justice, forgiveness, lovingkindness, hospitality, compassion. These are the things that, for many Christians -- and not just Christians, but members of other faiths as well -- are the highest things to which we can aspire. So we attribute those things to God, and lift them up as "divine" attributes -- as standards for "how we ought to be."

Now, this is where I will attempt to explain "things that don't translate well" across cultures. The bible was written by many ancient, Middle Eastern authors from several ancient, Middle Eastern cultures. But let's just stick with the ancient Judaic culture, because that's ultimately the perspective in which the texts were compiled and edited. For them, God was a much, much different sort of concept than the one many of us hold in the modern, Western world. for them, God was a much more tribal God. God had God's people (Israel), and that's who God took care of. They imagined God doing this by "smiting their enemies." To us, "smiting enemies" and "killing babies" doesn't seem like a very moral thing. But to them, who were oppressed, exiled, and literally having their culture and identity killed, smiting enemies and killing the progeny of that enemy were seen as very good things. And so, just from this one example, we can see how the traditional stories of God's "goodness" just don't translate to our concept of what constitutes "goodness." As faithful people, we have to continue to "rewrite" the stories so that they make sense to us and remain relevant to us. The attributes I mentioned: goodness, kindness, mercy, etc., remain the same, but our concept of those attributes changes. Those attributes are what should draw us to God.

You condemn some of the acts of God as recorded. So do I. I don't think killing babies is a very good idea. But your condemnation is sort of a straw man -- at least in some cases -- because not too many other Xtians would advocate killing babies, either. A better example might be God's "advocacy" of slavery. Yes, the bible supports slavery. But that was for another time, another people, another culture. We disregard that support. you see, there are fundimentalists who will insist that "the bible never changes." I think it's that very concept that should be condemned. Because people and cultures change, the way in which the texts are understood and revered changes too. The stories do seem to contradict God's wisdom and goodness. But "wisdom" and "goodness" are standards that change over time. The way we would express those standards are quite different from the way the culture of the bible writers would express them.

I hope this wasn't too long for you, and I hope it answers some of your questions.

 

[sojourner]

Ahh... but WHICH deity?

It doesn't make any difference. All expressions of deity are metaphor.

Yes, but what I am saying is that, if, for example, we took one of those people up and up and up in a rocket, and they were forced to encounter the reality of the Earth's roundness, then THAT experience of seeing the Earth in that way is the type of "intersubjectively verifiable" evidence/experience I am talking about. Where it becomes obvious what comports with reality and what is mere opinion.

And, if all creation is "in God," what perspective could we have in order to apprehend God objectively?

You're STILL misconstruing or being dishonest or something here. STILL. For I DID NOT make an appeal to the actual mechanics behind gravity. Read back if you are mystified. What I appealed to was the experience of the effects of gravity. That is what I said cannot be denied without belying some form of mental malaise. The question is put to ANY two people: "Do you feel yourself drawn to Earth in the same way that this apple I am about to drop is drawn?" And what is the answer? THAT is what I am talking about. You have nothing even approaching this in all your insistence that "deity" is some grand commonality. Nowhere near.

See above. Our apprehension of God is subjective.

And do I "know better?"

Apparently not.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I wanted to reply to this separately, because I think it's important, and because you seem to sincerely want a decent reply. I'm happy to oblige the best I can without writing a book.

The reason I said that your view is myopic is because it is. Your views about the nature of deity, faith, the proscriptions for living a life of faith, are all informed by a very, very narrow understanding. You have a concept, and you expect that concept to be a "definition" for all of this that will apply to every person in every time, place and situation. But that's not how it works. "God," "faith" and "righteousness" are all very broad and fluid concepts that can legitimately be expressed in a million different ways. You appear to be frustrated with what you call "dust in the wind." You want us to pin all this down to neat and tidy definitions. It can't be done. you want us to "prove God." It can't be done. The reason why is because the only way we can talk about the Divine is in metaphor, and metaphors are, by their nature, fluid.

I don't know what "vile things" in Christianity you're referring to. I can only imagine that you're talking about the condemnation of "sinners." I can only say that NOTHING with regard to theology is set in stone. My only defense is to say that different people in different times, places and cultures utilize different concepts of God that seem to "work" for them, but do not translate well to us. More on that in a moment.

I don't know what this "list of commandments" is, unless you're referring to the "ten commandments." MY understanding is that these are for Jews and don't apply to anyone else. The only "commandments" I know of in a strictly Christian sense are two: 1) Love God, and 2) love neighbor as self. It is said that all other commandments depend upon these two. So the Christian commandments are … love. Yes, there is the problem of theodicy in which circumstances seem to point to an omniscient, omnipotent and loving God not being the logical case. I can only answer with this: there are differing perspectives of God, even within the bible. God is said to be omnipotent, and yet there are places where God doesn't interfere with power. God is said to be omniscient, and yet God couldn't find Adam and Eve in the garden. This is, in part, because the bible isn't a cohesive, single document. It's a cobbled-together mess of redacted, ancient texts and edited oral stories from several different cultures. These all represent the "different concepts for God" that don't always translate well to us" I mentioned in the last paragraph.

You claim that the first four commandments are "myopic" and only deal with God-human interaction. Yes, they do deal with that particular interaction. No, that's not "myopic." You go on to say that "morality is necessarily based in human-human interaction." I disagree. You're completely ignoring the divine component of the commandments. Remember: this is theology, not sociology. We begin with God for the same reason that the book of beginnings -- Genesis -- begins with God: "In the beginning, God created..." The first act is an act of God. In theology, everything begins with God, because God defines everything that is in that milieu. Our morality is rooted, not in how we relate to each other, but in how we relate to God. It's our identity in God that should inform our love of neighbor. (I'll be the first to admit that there are many examples of that not working well). If -- and I say "If" -- we sincerely love God, and rightly understand our relationship with God, then our relationships with each other will flourish in kind.

No. I don't think we can "hurt God." And I don't even want to try to "prove God," because I think it's futile to do so. And I don't think the first four are "futile." I think they're necessary within the bounds of the religion and how we purport to identify in and relate to God. We aspire to the standard of the commandment to love (as Xtians) because we believe there is no higher "energetic force." My own theological construct says that love is very force of creation, itself.

You want to know why we should aspire to "these parts" of God. I'm not sure what parts you mean, but when I posted that response I meant those "parts" that the human family holds in highest regard. First, love. Then honor, mercy, forbearance, justice, forgiveness, lovingkindness, hospitality, compassion. These are the things that, for many Christians -- and not just Christians, but members of other faiths as well -- are the highest things to which we can aspire. So we attribute those things to God, and lift them up as "divine" attributes -- as standards for "how we ought to be."

Now, this is where I will attempt to explain "things that don't translate well" across cultures. The bible was written by many ancient, Middle Eastern authors from several ancient, Middle Eastern cultures. But let's just stick with the ancient Judaic culture, because that's ultimately the perspective in which the texts were compiled and edited. For them, God was a much, much different sort of concept than the one many of us hold in the modern, Western world. for them, God was a much more tribal God. God had God's people (Israel), and that's who God took care of. They imagined God doing this by "smiting their enemies." To us, "smiting enemies" and "killing babies" doesn't seem like a very moral thing. But to them, who were oppressed, exiled, and literally having their culture and identity killed, smiting enemies and killing the progeny of that enemy were seen as very good things. And so, just from this one example, we can see how the traditional stories of God's "goodness" just don't translate to our concept of what constitutes "goodness." As faithful people, we have to continue to "rewrite" the stories so that they make sense to us and remain relevant to us. The attributes I mentioned: goodness, kindness, mercy, etc., remain the same, but our concept of those attributes changes. Those attributes are what should draw us to God.

You condemn some of the acts of God as recorded. So do I. I don't think killing babies is a very good idea. But your condemnation is sort of a straw man -- at least in some cases -- because not too many other Xtians would advocate killing babies, either. A better example might be God's "advocacy" of slavery. Yes, the bible supports slavery. But that was for another time, another people, another culture. We disregard that support. you see, there are fundimentalists who will insist that "the bible never changes." I think it's that very concept that should be condemned. Because people and cultures change, the way in which the texts are understood and revered changes too. The stories do seem to contradict God's wisdom and goodness. But "wisdom" and "goodness" are standards that change over time. The way we would express those standards are quite different from the way the culture of the bible writers would express them.

I hope this wasn't too long for you, and I hope it answers some of your questions.

This does address the question(s), yes. There are issues I see with some of your thinking, and I do feel that excuses are made in various areas that are never going to be adequate as actual explanations - and that rejecting them due to their lack of merit is simply going to be all too easy for those of us who are disposed not to believe. The "vile" things I referred to were in reference to God's supposed actions. And as far as my concepts of Christians being seen as a "straw man" - I was only asking if the "standard" you were looking for God to establish for you included those things that are attributed to Him in the texts - I wasn't insisting that all Christians subscribe to God's horrendous behavior as "righteous" - in fact, I believe most of them find it as terrible as I do, and only try not to talk much about it because they know they have no good reasoning to explain it. You have basically (though in a much more roundabout way than was at all necessary) said they are not part of what you find in this "standard" from God, and I find this, at least, admirable.

 

[sojourner]

This does address the question(s), yes. There are issues I see with some of your thinking, and I do feel that excuses are made in various areas that are never going to be adequate as actual explanations - and that rejecting them due to their lack of merit is simply going to be all too easy for those of us who are disposed not to believe. The "vile" things I referred to were in reference to God's supposed actions. And as far as my concepts of Christians being seen as a "straw man" - I was only asking if the "standard" you were looking for God to establish for you included those things that are attributed to Him in the texts - I wasn't insisting that all Christians subscribe to God's horrendous behavior as "righteous" - in fact, I believe most of them find it as terrible as I do, and only try not to talk much about it because they know they have no good reasoning to explain it. You have basically (though in a much more roundabout way than was at all necessary) said they are not part of what you find in this "standard" from God, and I find this, at least, admirable.

As I told another poster in another thread, I’m at the mechanic’s on my iPad. I’d like to respond in depth, but hate typing on the screen. Look for a full reply later. Thank you for being honest and respectful. I’m interested to see what you think of my response and also to see more about the issues you have with my thinking and where you believe excuses are being made. I wasn’t entirely happy with my response, but it was all off the cuff without much thinking t through. However, I did want to reply quickly to what I thought was a very thoughtful and engaging post. Perhaps I’ll have more time later on. And perhaps we could take it one issue at a time? All of it at once kind of requires a lexicon of a reply.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It doesn't make any difference. All expressions of deity are metaphor.

To my mind it does make a difference if we are at all concerned with establishing the closest we can get to "truth." This is honestly all I care about in this discussion. Perhaps we can't ever get to "the truth" - which is fine... but that doesn't mean that we should respect each and every falsehood we come across. By definition, not all of these things can be in comport with reality - i.e. some of them ARE falsehoods. And I'm not even saying that none of them are in comport with reality! But in the end, all I care about is which one(s) is/are. Which is why the differences are important to me.

And, if all creation is "in God," what perspective could we have in order to apprehend God objectively?

If God is a metaphor, then you would be positing that perhaps all of "creation" exists within nothing more than a metaphor. I can't take an idea like this seriously.

See above. Our apprehension of God is subjective.

But then that necessarily means that not having any form of that apprehension is also a completely valid position. And yet you replied to me initially, seemingly attempting to correct my thinking with statements like "Our hearts beat with the rhythm of the universe." or "The Deity is “this realm.”"

Apparently not.

And? Again... WHAT is "better?" And how do you know? Isn't this YOU being the arbiter of right and wrong here? Exactly what you keep accusing me of?

 

[sojourner]

To my mind it does make a difference if we are at all concerned with establishing the closest we can get to "truth." This is honestly all I care about in this discussion. Perhaps we can't ever get to "the truth" - which is fine... but that doesn't mean that we should respect each and every falsehood we come across. By definition, not all of these things can be in comport with reality - i.e. some of them ARE falsehoods. And I'm not even saying that none of them are in comport with reality! But in the end, all I care about is which one(s) is/are. Which is why the differences are important to me

AFAIK, all expressions of the Divine are valid expressions of larger truths. What might be false is if the projected metaphors are incongruent with the accompanying theologies. For example, a God who is expressed as “love” is incongruent with a theology that says, “Most of humanity will not be saved and will perish eternally.”

If God is a metaphor, then you would be positing that perhaps all of "creation" exists within nothing more than a metaphor. I can't take an idea like this seriously

But that’s not what I said. I said that all expressions of God are metaphoric. That’s far different from saying that “God is a metaphor.”

But then that necessarily means that not having any form of that apprehension is also a completely valid position

Ok.

And yet you replied to me initially, seemingly attempting to correct my thinking with statements like "Our hearts beat with the rhythm of the universe." or "The Deity is “this realm.”"

because you were dismissing the constructs out of hand as being the same as fairy tales. I was hoping to show the difference between fantasy and theology.

And? Again... WHAT is "better?"

I’m not going down this rabbit hole with you again.

 

[sojourner]

This does address the question(s), yes. There are issues I see with some of your thinking, and I do feel that excuses are made in various areas that are never going to be adequate as actual explanations - and that rejecting them due to their lack of merit is simply going to be all too easy for those of us who are disposed not to believe. The "vile" things I referred to were in reference to God's supposed actions. And as far as my concepts of Christians being seen as a "straw man" - I was only asking if the "standard" you were looking for God to establish for you included those things that are attributed to Him in the texts - I wasn't insisting that all Christians subscribe to God's horrendous behavior as "righteous" - in fact, I believe most of them find it as terrible as I do, and only try not to talk much about it because they know they have no good reasoning to explain it. You have basically (though in a much more roundabout way than was at all necessary) said they are not part of what you find in this "standard" from God, and I find this, at least, admirable.

Part of the problem, I think, is that we normally can’t talk about God in a vacuum — that is, we can’t talk about God apart from humanity, because God is a human construct. We anthropomorphize God and imbue God with human attributes. some of those aren’t very pretty, but they do reflect the human condition. And theology serves to amplify the human condition. so this “horrendous behavior” is more a reflection of human action and less a reflection of “how God is.” It’s the only way we can talk about God — in human terms. But I think most thinking people who are believers endeavor to conceptualize God only in the most noble terms.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

AFAIK, all expressions of the Divine are valid expressions of larger truths. What might be false is if the projected metaphors are incongruent with the accompanying theologies. For example, a God who is expressed as “love” is incongruent with a theology that says, “Most of humanity will not be saved and will perish eternally.”

You used the acronym "AFAIK" - the last word of which is "know." And that, right there, sums up most of the problems I am having with the things you are saying.

I’m not going down this rabbit hole with you again.

Because, like me, you have no good answers. One of us is simply willing to admit it.