Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

...the tendency you have to distort ...

Ad hominem. Irrelevant. Boring.

[Lacewing]

What I notice about *believers* is that often their belief is somewhat forced. It is something like a survival strategy, a way to get through the confusion of uncertainty. Yet the authentic position is actually that of uncertainty.

Agreed. And I actually don't have an issue with anyone doing or believing what they need to for themselves as a survival strategy. The problem is when they impose it on others, or talk about it on a philosophy forum as if it is ultimate truth, and as if they are a unique 'knower/messenger'. That's when it seems valuable to speak straight to it.

I say that not because I would wish to undermine anyone's faith -- in a way that is like pulling the plug out from what sustains them...

Chances are, they are skilled at ignoring and denying everything that would invalidate what they want/need to believe.

I think there's value in talking about what ELSE there is, and that may naturally undermine someone's claims/ideas about something in particular (as well as undermining their own posturing). I think this would be welcomed by people who want to be truthful MORE than they want to be 'right'. If they have become convinced that the only reality is a certain-sized ledge that they are on, they might fear death if they step off of it. But what happens when they let go of needing to be 'right', and realize how much more there is than that? It could be that what they perceived as a limited, known life was a type of death, and what they feared as death was actually a more vibrant life of potential.

[Lacewing]

...the tendency you have to distort ...

Ad hominem. Irrelevant. Boring.

Fact. Well-documented. Significant.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why would we have to "imagine" a Person who actually lived? And if we merely "imagine" Him, and it turns out that's different from what He Himself is, what value does that have?

Human "imagination" is the problem. We've got to stop merely "imagining," and ask God to help us to know Him -- both as He actually is, and as the Scriptures reveal Him to be.

My "imagination" needs the discipline of the Word and the teaching of God's Spirit...or it will surely never be more than mere "imagining."

The answer is more or less simple: we all have to employ our imagining faculty in all instances of life. And I will agree that this is a problem, or a reality that must be faced. We have no choice but to *imagine* that person who lived. Our relationship to the divine occurs in that imagined space that is our imagination. I think this is a crucial point but I am not sure if you or others will get it.

Many pages back I referred to Richard Weaver's idea of 'our metaphysical dream of the world'. It is a dream for numerous reasons, but the one I emphasize here is that whatever it is, whatever we conceive it to be, takes shape in our *imagination*. It is the board or the platform on which everything that is internal appears to us.

Even when you say, or when you imagine, that God can or does or will manifest (however you conceive this) to you, it occurs in you, within your faculty of imagination. I do not mean imagination in a bad sense. It is simply the way things are for us.

I think this is why the moon is often used as a metaphor for the mind. It is reflected light, as it were.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Agreed. And I actually don't have an issue with anyone doing or believing what they need to for themselves as a survival strategy. The problem is when they impose it on others, or talk about it on a philosophy forum as if it is ultimate truth, and as if they are a unique 'knower/messenger'. That's when it seems valuable to speak straight to it.

I think I understand. My position is that I am trying to see in what areas we agree, and how agreements can be forged. My notion is that we live in a time of extreme disagreement but don't fully grasp why we disagree.

I would state it differently: those who must resort, for survival purposes, to *belief*, are not the people we can rely on. And by *belief* I mean belief in the neurotic sense. (And here I think of people like Benny Hinn and also those who are *captured* by these enactments, these performances).

*Belief* can be (and often is) a way not to actually be in *reality*. It is all rather strange and complex.

And I definitely agree that they can *impose* their beliefs without realizing they are subjective.

I think that IC is in a different category however. Within the category that he works in the issue has to do with definitions of what is true. That means not only correct but also moral and ethical. I personally understand his position to be that we have no real choice except to engage as fully, and honestly, and rationally, as we are able.

While I agree that *ultimate truths* are hard to define, they do exist for us as necessity. If we cannot define them exactly, we must be able to approach them, don't you think?

The question seems to be: Who has the best approximation?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think there's value in talking about what ELSE there is, and that may naturally undermine someone's claims/ideas about something in particular (as well as undermining their own posturing). I think this would be welcomed by people who want to be truthful MORE than they want to be 'right'. If they have become convinced that the only reality is a certain-sized ledge that they are on, they might fear death if they step off of it. But what happens when they let go of needing to be 'right', and realize how much more there is than that? It could be that what they perceived as a limited, known life was a type of death, and what they feared as death was actually a more vibrant life of potential.

My response is that each person (so it seems to me) has to eventually make more or less absolute decisions.

Obviously, I also work within a somewhat relativist position -- but because I want to validate what different approaches achieve. I cannot deny that it is part-and-parcel of our disposition to arrive at concrete decisions, concrete answers. What is the alternative? And what is the effect of that alternative?

So I think in this sense we would have to consider and examine more closely the intellectual tradition that IC is a part of -- that we are all a part of actually.

But what happens when they let go of needing to be 'right', and realize how much more there is than that?

Aren't you here making a personal, philosophical and existential recommendation? Underneath it, it seems to me, is a truth-claim of one sort or another.

So the question I would ask, to you, is What do you gain by holding to that view? (If you do not mind me asking a direct question). What is the function of it?

[henry quirk]

The question seems to be: Who has the best approximation?

But that's not the question at all. Do we seek the best approximation of a camp fire, look for points of agreement among different interpretations, or do we simply go to it and recognize that there is fire?

The question, then, is: who sees most clearly (and, mebbe, directly).

[Alexis Jacobi]

The question, then, is: who sees most clearly (and, mebbe, directly).

Fair enough, and in fact I do agree. But my agreements satisfy me, subjectively. I cannot convince others, necessarily, by saying "2+2=4".

Existential, and thus theological, issues are not like mathematical formulae.

[henry quirk]

But my agreements satisfy me, subjectively.

I've never known a soul who cooked hot dogs over a blazin' agreement.


I cannot convince others, necessarily, by saying "2+2=4".

You don't have to: you can illustrate it by connecting concept to reality. Look here, I got two -- one, two -- coins in my left hand and two -- one, two -- coins in my right...when I put 'em together I have four -- one, two, three, four -- coins.


Existential, and thus theological, issues are not like mathematical formulae.

The formula is abstraction. It can be connected to reality or it can stand alone as gedanke.

The existential (and theological) is not abstract. Answers to the questions -- What is man? What is God? What is the transaction between the two? -- can't be merely approximated, can't be merely a median. We may have to make do with -- as you say -- the approach, but we do ourselves a disservice bein' satisfied with it.

[Immanuel Can]

We have no choice but to *imagine* that person who lived.

That is true, at least initially...just as you would have to "imagine" the person to whom you are writing at this moment.

But in the case of me, you have relatively little to go on, and the imagination is probably going to be considerably different from the reality, because there's nothing by which to correct it.

However, there are two things that correct any "imagining" we have of God: the Word and the Spirit. We are not, as in some other situations, left merely to our imaginings, but to whatever we may imagine at first being continuously corrected by the above two forces. As time goes by, that "imagining" becomes, if we discipline it, more lucid and complete. And while we will never be 100% correct in our imaginings, we will be much better at it in the end than we were at the beginning; and all imaginings will be brought to a close when faith gives way to sight.

"When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known." (1 Cor. 13:11-12)

Many pages back I referred to Richard Weaver's idea of 'our metaphysical dream of the world'.

I like Weaver.

Even when you say, or when you imagine, that God can or does or will manifest (however you conceive this) to you, it occurs in you, within your faculty of imagination.

Apparently not.

Apparently there's an external reality to which this imagination ought to learn to conform. And apparently, that external reality judges the quality of my imagining.

The (Post)Modern mind has given up far too easily on the correspondence theory of truth. It didn't really get disproved; it just got refused. That's quite a different thing.

[Lacewing]

...part-and-parcel of our disposition to arrive at concrete decisions, concrete answers. What is the alternative? And what is the effect of that alternative?

The alternative I see is to always remain open to further possibility while being functional in the world. It is possible to be part of a moving world. One does not have to take up a position and then spend their lives serving that position. It's actually more skillful (I think) to be able to traverse unfolding territories.

But what happens when they let go of needing to be 'right', and realize how much more there is than that?

Aren't you here making a personal, philosophical and existential recommendation? Underneath it, it seems to me, is a truth-claim of one sort or another.

Well, I'm suggesting that there's always 'more'. But I'm not claiming what that is. And I'm suggesting that there's always 'more' because it wouldn't seem to make sense to say there's not... right? Who knows, sees, understands all, in any given moment? Why would anyone even need to? The value of considering that there's always 'more' might help prevent the kind of rigid and static positions that people use to destructively limit growth and awareness for themselves and others. Perhaps the simple act of allowing there to be 'more', enables it to be so.

So the question I would ask, to you, is What do you gain by holding to that view? (If you do not mind me asking a direct question). What is the function of it?

It allows and creates broader potential. My path and my life visibly and continually demonstrate that, as do other people's lives who operate similarly. I am not tied to specific ideologies or stories. I am free to accept awareness from many sources/directions in each moment. I don't have to try to fit everything into a certain limited model. I think that often offers more freedom and clarity.

[Age]

As I reckon it: God doesn't require man's belief.

It may be, however, man requires God's.

'Man requires God's'? What do you mean?

God created man. We exist cuz He willed it. God, as I see it, doesn't need us to believe in Him, but our existence depends on His interest in us.

So, to you, a person created man.

You exist because a person will it.

And,

A person does not need man to believe in the person, but your existence depends on a person's interest in you.

If this is not correct, then why not?

[Age]

If God can change despairing men to hopeful men, and can change bad men to good men, why does He not always do so?

Because many men will not permit it.

Not everybody wants to change. Change starts with admitting you're no what you ought to be. That's painful and humiliating. Then it means accepting one's helplessness to change oneself. That's also hard to take. Then it means asking God to do what you cannot do. That's trusting, and trust is frightening. And finally, it means life will never be the same again. That's also disconcerting.

So lots of people simply would rather be what they are. From God's side, their freedom to choose is inviolable; because without freedom, no relationship is even possible.

So they get what they have chosen, even when they choose badly.

I like your reply and wish it were so. There remains the problem that if God is all powerful than He could make men want to change.

You have evolved with, and thus have been provided with, 'free will'. So, you change when YOU want to.

Also, you ARE changing ALL THE TIME. But in which way you WANT to change is wholly and completely UP TO YOU.

I doubt if you can answer this as nobody else has ever been able to do so.[/quote]

What was the question, which you claim NOBODY "else" has been able to? I am SURE that answering 'it' would NOT be hard NOR complex, AT ALL.

[Age]

We have no choice but to *imagine* that person who lived.

That is true, at least initially...just as you would have to "imagine" the person to whom you are writing at this moment.

But in the case of me, you have relatively little to go on, and the imagination is probably going to be considerably different from the reality, because there's nothing by which to correct it.

However, there are two things that correct any "imagining" we have of God: the Word and the Spirit. We are not, as in some other situations, left merely to our imaginings, but to whatever we may imagine at first being continuously corrected by the above two forces. As time goes by, that "imagining" becomes, if we discipline it, more lucid and complete. And while we will never be 100% correct in our imaginings, we will be much better at it in the end than we were at the beginning; and all imaginings will be brought to a close when faith gives way to sight.

"When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known." (1 Cor. 13:11-12)

And, 'you', human beings, are ALL just children in Life. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True by the way you ALL speak, think, and reason.

And, a True 'paradox' here is that the younger the human being the MORE LOGICAL and SENSIBLE they 'think' AND 'reason'.

Many pages back I referred to Richard Weaver's idea of 'our metaphysical dream of the world'.

I like Weaver.

Even when you say, or when you imagine, that God can or does or will manifest (however you conceive this) to you, it occurs in you, within your faculty of imagination.

Apparently not.

Apparently there's an external reality to which this imagination ought to learn to conform. And apparently, that external reality judges the quality of my imagining.

The (Post)Modern mind has given up far too easily on the correspondence theory of truth. It didn't really get disproved; it just got refused. That's quite a different thing.

[Belinda]

Because many men will not permit it.

Not everybody wants to change. Change starts with admitting you're no what you ought to be. That's painful and humiliating. Then it means accepting one's helplessness to change oneself. That's also hard to take. Then it means asking God to do what you cannot do. That's trusting, and trust is frightening. And finally, it means life will never be the same again. That's also disconcerting.

So lots of people simply would rather be what they are. From God's side, their freedom to choose is inviolable; because without freedom, no relationship is even possible.

So they get what they have chosen, even when they choose badly.

I like your reply and wish it were so. There remains the problem that if God is all powerful than He could make men want to change.

Actually, He cannot. And the reason why is obvious.

Some things are self-contradictory. And God never does the self-contradictory.

So, for example, God makes no square circles or married bachelors. Why? Not because He lacks power to do something, but because those things don't even make sense; they're self-contradictory entities that cannot even exist in a real universe.

But more importantly, something that cannot exist in a real universe, something equally self-contradictory, is the concept "forced free will." You can't "make" somebody love you, or want a relationship with you. You can provide for them so they can, you can invite them to, you can even behave in a way that makes it winsome for them to want a relationship with you -- but you can never simply force them to love you. Love, by its very nature, has to be freely offered and freely received. Otherwise, it's just not love, whatever else it might be.

After all, we do have synonyms for the term "forced relationship," don't we? But none of them, I think, are complimentary. You know what I mean.

So yes, God could reduce men and women to robots. He could compel them to mouth words of love. He could program them to obey at all times. But he could not thereby induce them to freely choose to love Him. That is simply impossible.

But if you have a free choice, then you always have the choice to do, or not do, something. If you have a free choice to love God, you also have a free choice to reject any offer of love and relationship He makes. He does not force anyone; even though they may make a wretched choice. The surpassing value of having some who genuinely, freely love Him is, in God's view, worth the cost of allowing that they may reject Him as well.

And, of course, some will. For some men make bad choices. And short of turning us all into robots and slaves, even God Himself cannot prevent that, but rather, He affirms our right of choice.

True, love is not love if it's coerced in any way. However if God can intervene to alter His pre-ordained plan, and is a spirit of love, then He would have intervened to stop concentration camps, the Battle of the Somme, and all interminable and useless suffering.

Job was a loving man because Job loved God despite suffering. The lesson from the Book of Job is not that God is all powerful but that God is the indomitable spirit of man that struggles on and on despite.