What is the concept of God philosophically?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Hey Age. I can't hear you. As no one else is commenting. Sorry mate. I was able to re-friend a foe last night, as we've converged to overlapping. I hope that can happen with us. But someone would have to reply to you for me to see if it can.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I don't know and I don't much care. If an idea is reasonable and /or beautiful then I tend to like it. Trinitarianism makes sense to me in my own way.

I don't believe in any magical interventionist miracles, if that is what you are asking.

It matters that scholars (I am not a scholar) examine religious ideas for their historicity because we need to know what religionists are telling us; some of them know very little history or anthropology and come to daft conclusions.

You are too rude to be a scholar so your ideas are suspect.

What do you think of the following?

In psychology, the truth can be offensive due to insecurity and the need to maintain a positive self-image. When a truth challenges one's self-concept, it can trigger insecurity and a desire to reconcile the new information with one's existing beliefs. This can lead to feeling hurt, defensive, or even angry, especially if the truth is perceived as a criticism or threat.

Insecurity and Self-Concept:
A person's self-concept, or how they view themselves, is a crucial factor in how they react to truth. When a truth challenges this self-concept, it can cause discomfort and insecurity. '

Projection:
Insecure individuals may project their own insecurities onto others, misinterpreting comments or actions as criticisms, even when there is no intent to offend.

Values and Beliefs:
Truths that go against a person's values or beliefs are more likely to be perceived as offensive.

In essence, the psychology of offense is often rooted in the desire to maintain a positive self-image and a sense of stability. When the truth challenges this, it can trigger insecurity and lead to defensiveness or anger.

My self image on these forums is learner.
I am not angry or saddened by your criticism of my posting those quotations about the Westar Institute and Jesus Seminar. I feel impatient towards your criticism. I posted the quotations because this ground has previously been covered by scholars. Your intentions are sincere but you are wasting your energy unless you review or at least are aware of previous evidence.

That's most generous of you Belinda. Inspiring. I must emulate you and accord complete sincerity to ThinkOfOne. But I still cannot possibly engage with their utterly sincere, solipsistic, invincible ignorance.

[Belinda]

I'm well aware that, for the most part, there's a clear distinction between the words attributed to Jesus and the commentary NT writers wrapped around them. I'm also aware that a clear distinction needs to be made between the words attributed to Jesus and the commentary Christians have made about Jesus subsequent to the NT writers.

Martin, on the other hand, does not seem to be able to make that distinction. Not sure where Martin is getting lost. As but one example, Martin posted the following:


The fact is that Jesus was NOT "affirming His divine nature" as many Christians seem to believe; as Martin seems to believe. As I pointed out to Martin earlier:


Do you believe that Jesus was ""affirming His divine nature" OR do you believe that Jesus was employing a metaphor?

I don't know and I don't much care. If an idea is reasonable and /or beautiful then I tend to like it. Trinitarianism makes sense to me in my own way.

I don't believe in any magical interventionist miracles, if that is what you are asking.

It matters that scholars (I am not a scholar) examine religious ideas for their historicity because we need to know what religionists are telling us; some of them know very little history or anthropology and come to daft conclusions.

You are too rude to be a scholar so your ideas are suspect.

What he won't understand, by hermetic, hostile, belittling, grandiose, narcissistic, will, is that they are metaphorically literal. God is an ultimate metaphor. Modern Greek for conveyor belt. Do chairs have arms and legs? It is very hard work to avoid metaphor. Do clocks have faces?

Great reply Martin!
Wittgenstein (the meaning of a word is its use) is relevant to you and me. Metaphor is what makes language socially alive.

Social theory of knowledge is helpful to liberals but not to ThinkOfOne who I guess never encountered the idea during their formative years.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I don't know and I don't much care. If an idea is reasonable and /or beautiful then I tend to like it. Trinitarianism makes sense to me in my own way.

I don't believe in any magical interventionist miracles, if that is what you are asking.

It matters that scholars (I am not a scholar) examine religious ideas for their historicity because we need to know what religionists are telling us; some of them know very little history or anthropology and come to daft conclusions.

You are too rude to be a scholar so your ideas are suspect.

What he won't understand, by hermetic, hostile, belittling, grandiose, narcissistic, will, is that they are metaphorically literal. God is an ultimate metaphor. Modern Greek for conveyor belt. Do chairs have arms and legs? It is very hard work to avoid metaphor. Do clocks have faces?

Great reply Martin!
Wittgenstein (the meaning of a word is its use) is relevant to you and me. Metaphor is what makes language socially alive.

Social theory of knowledge is helpful to liberals but not to ThinkOfOne who I guess never encountered the idea during their formative years.

Yes Belinda, their sincere idiolect is impenetrably, invincibly ignorantly, idiosyncratic.

[Lacewing]

I will forego the sword of rationalism, which in its purist form is as guilty as our feeble transpersonal projection

Yes!

It's all grasping.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I will forego the sword of rationalism, which in its purist form is as guilty as our feeble transpersonal projection

Yes!

It's all grasping.

[Lacewing]

Jesus of Nazareth knew nothing about the natural environment in extreme danger

Yes. However, the whole system we exist in appears to be natural, and anyone who was so inclined might be able to notice destructive effects/threats rippling throughout it at any time in history. Obviously, I don't know what Jesus might have known or tapped into. I've only heard what other men have described based on their own understanding. I don't know if Jesus has been fully understood and truly represented. I've wondered if he was speaking on a different bandwidth/channel, that most other human beings weren't fully 'getting' (and still don't). It has been this way throughout history for visionaries, yes?

Did Jesus think of himself as uniquely the son of God? Or is that what other people placed on him?

It seems to me that religion (in general) is greatly at odds with Jesus' teachings. It is, instead, the religion of MAN. Interesting! Why isn't there more of a challenge for accountability and clarity in regard to that? I guess because it serves man!

Jesus said that God cares about the death of a sparrow therefore He cares much more about each of us.

That's beautiful... and makes sense to my way of thinking: it's ALL "God" (so to speak)... but human beings separate the concept of God from all else. Why??

[Lacewing]

Hey Age .../... someone would have to reply to you for me to see...

It won't be me.

[Belinda]

Jesus of Nazareth knew nothing about the natural environment in extreme danger

Yes. However, the whole system we exist in appears to be natural, and anyone who was so inclined might be able to notice destructive effects/threats rippling throughout it at any time in history. Obviously, I don't know what Jesus might have known or tapped into. I've only heard what other men have described based on their own understanding. I don't know if Jesus has been fully understood and truly represented. I've wondered if he was speaking on a different bandwidth/channel, that most other human beings weren't fully 'getting' (and still don't). It has been this way throughout history for visionaries, yes?

Did Jesus think of himself as uniquely the son of God? Or is that what other people placed on him?

It seems to me that religion (in general) is greatly at odds with Jesus' teachings. It is, instead, the religion of MAN. Interesting! Why isn't there more of a challenge for accountability and clarity in regard to that? I guess because it serves man!

Jesus said that God cares about the death of a sparrow therefore He cares much more about each of us.

That's beautiful... and makes sense to my way of thinking: it's ALL "God" (so to speak)... but human beings separate the concept of God from all else. Why??

Supernaturalism is still popular because philosophy is seldom taught to young children at school.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But I still cannot possibly engage with their utterly sincere, solipsistic, invincible ignorance.

This is understandable. Mine, I report, is slowly softening, though twice the size of Greenland. Perhaps, if the mood strikes, you may find it in your heart to help out.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

But I still cannot possibly engage with their utterly sincere, solipsistic, invincible ignorance.

This is understandable. Mine, I report, is slowly softening, though twice the size of Greenland. Perhaps, if the mood strikes, you may find it in your heart to help out.

According to the Roman church, Alexis, all die hard non-Catholics are invincibly ignorant. And I certainly was as a non-Catholic believer for 50 years. Beat that! When belief ceased, instantly, after a final loop of deconstruction that I couldn't reconstruct from, 5 years ago, at the age of 65, all that was left was infinite ignorance, apart from that of the knowledge - not colloquial belief, empty, axiomatic faith - of the coherent, justified true belief, i.e. knowledge, of infinite, eternal, unchanging nature, probably right down to self tuning rather than to fallacious fine tuning. An' that. If you need me, boy are you in trouble. I need you to help me help you out.

[Alexis Jacobi]

According to the Roman church, Alexis, all die hard non-Catholics are invincibly ignorant. And I certainly was as a non-Catholic believer for 50 years. Beat that! When belief ceased, instantly, after a final loop of deconstruction that I couldn't reconstruct from, 5 years ago, at the age of 65, all that was left was infinite ignorance, apart from that of the knowledge - not colloquial belief, empty, axiomatic faith - of the coherent, justified true belief, i.e. knowledge, of infinite, eternal, unchanging nature, probably right down to self tuning rather than to fallacious fine tuning. An' that. If you need me, boy are you in trouble. I need you to help me help you out.

Most of what you wrote here I understand. I think you are saying that at the age of 65 you finally completed the conversion? Or are you saying that you sort of gave up on any belief? (a final loop of deconstruction that I couldn't reconstruct from).

[Martin Peter Clarke]

According to the Roman church, Alexis, all die hard non-Catholics are invincibly ignorant. And I certainly was as a non-Catholic believer for 50 years. Beat that! When belief ceased, instantly, after a final loop of deconstruction that I couldn't reconstruct from, 5 years ago, at the age of 65, all that was left was infinite ignorance, apart from that of the knowledge - not colloquial belief, empty, axiomatic faith - of the coherent, justified true belief, i.e. knowledge, of infinite, eternal, unchanging nature, probably right down to self tuning rather than to fallacious fine tuning. An' that. If you need me, boy are you in trouble. I need you to help me help you out.

Most of what you wrote here I understand. I think you are saying that at the age of 65 you finally completed the conversion? Or are you saying that you sort of gave up on any belief? (a final loop of deconstruction that I couldn't reconstruct from).

Sorry. The latter. Deconversion.

[ThinkOfOne]

Jesus of Nazareth knew nothing about the natural environment in extreme danger

Yes. However, the whole system we exist in appears to be natural, and anyone who was so inclined might be able to notice destructive effects/threats rippling throughout it at any time in history. Obviously, I don't know what Jesus might have known or tapped into. I've only heard what other men have described based on their own understanding. I don't know if Jesus has been fully understood and truly represented. I've wondered if he was speaking on a different bandwidth/channel, that most other human beings weren't fully 'getting' (and still don't). It has been this way throughout history for visionaries, yes?

Did Jesus think of himself as uniquely the son of God? Or is that what other people placed on him?

It seems to me that religion (in general) is greatly at odds with Jesus' teachings. It is, instead, the religion of MAN. Interesting! Why isn't there more of a challenge for accountability and clarity in regard to that? I guess because it serves man!

Jesus said that God cares about the death of a sparrow therefore He cares much more about each of us.

That's beautiful... and makes sense to my way of thinking: it's ALL "God" (so to speak)... but human beings separate the concept of God from all else. Why??

Did Jesus think of himself as uniquely the son of God? Or is that what other people placed on him?

Jesus did not "think of himself as uniquely the son of God". Nor did Jesus think of Himself as being literally a son of God. There's way too much evidence to the contrary. I can lay it out for you if you're interested.

I don't know if Jesus has been fully understood and truly represented. I've wondered if he was speaking on a different bandwidth/channel, that most other human beings weren't fully 'getting' (and still don't). It has been this way throughout history for visionaries, yes?

Jesus is poorly understood and poorly represented. Especially by Christianity. It's tragic. It's the underlying reason why so many Christians throughout history and even today are so "unlike Christ". Perhaps, especially today.

It has been this way throughout history for visionaries, yes?

Brings to mind the following quotation:

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift

This is also true of Jesus. It was one of the major themes across the four gospels: many of the Jews did not understand Him; most of the time His "disciples" did not understand Him. The vast majority of Christians today do not understand Him.

Some years ago, I had a series of conversations with a retired pastor regarding the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His gospel as documented in the four gospels. After a number of conversations, I pointed out to him that he interpreted those words of Jesus through the lens of the Pauline gospel. He acknowledged that he did. So I made the following suggestion: “Set aside everything you believe. Then reread the four gospels allowing Jesus’ words to speak for themselves.” He said that he didn’t think that he could do that.

On one hand, I had to give him credit for acknowledging that he interpreted those words of Jesus through the lens of the Pauline gospel. He’s one of the only Christians that I’ve come across who had the intellectual honesty to admit that they did that.

On the other hand, he lacked the intellectual honesty to allow Jesus’ words to speak for themselves. I have subsequently proposed the same challenge to any number of Christians. With one exception, NONE have followed through. This despite that fact that perhaps the most prevalent theme in the gospel preached by Jesus is the importance of His words: hear, understand, believe, follow, abide in and keep His words.

It's as if they have an aversion to, if not a hatred of, allowing Jesus' words to speak for themselves.

[henry quirk]

allowing Jesus' words to speak for themselves.

I think the Jefferson Bible is a good resource for someone lookin' to do that.