Philosophy Now Forum

Greatest I am wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: Love takes two to be true love.
You cannot love all by yourself. A valentine needs a recipient.
Regards
DL

Romantic, but untrue and unnecessary. Or do you qualify a one-sided love as something else? From my own experience, a person can love another person without that love being returned.

What is the difference between 'Love' and 'True Love'?

Unrequited love is just infatuation.

If your love for your favorite singer is the same as those you share love with then I pity those you say you share love with as it would not be any better love than the unrequited type.

Love takes two to create it. One is just something else and a cheep imitation.

Love tales actions and deeds. If you never do anything for those you say you love, then you are not defining love accurately.

As one who is loved, you would expect something in the way of works and deeds, even if just the words and without them you would not likely return love to make it complete.

Regards
DL

I now see that we have different definitions of Love, So be it we disagree, you have yours and I'll keep mine, Thankyou.

Thanks buddy.

You had me thinking of just one of two (sharing) love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22QYriWAF-U

Regards
DL

Upon reflection, it occurs to me that the header of this post is oddly worded.

Firstly, if "seeking God" has any point at all, it would only be on the assumption that God exists. Otherwise, there's no value in "seeking" what is simply not to be found, or that which to find would be inherently to succumb to a delusion. So the writer has to be taking for granted the possibility that God exists, or he would be unable to pose the question intelligibly at all. And it seems he wants to pose it.

But secondly, what is "literalism"? The author must then mean, "Taking what God [is said to have] said at face value." Because again, if there's no God, there's not only no "seeking" but nothing to "literally" take. So a second supposition is necessary: namely, that it is just possible that God may have actually *said* something, a thing which we could be taking "literally" or not. And still, the author seems to want to ask that question.

But if that's right, then the question really gets weird: for then it means, "Assuming God exists, is it more comfortable to believe literally what He said, or not?"

"Pleasant"? Would that be the point? Would it even have any value, once we've already opened the possibility that God exists and has spoken? Would a rational goal be seeking the most "pleasant" way?

So he's asking, essentially, "Was 'seeking God' a more 'pleasant' thing when we don't have to take what we [think He may have] said 'literally'?"

Is that really the question?

It's a bit like asking, "Was cancer more pleasant before chemotherapy."

The answer is "Probably. And with similar consequences."

Immanuel Can wrote:Upon reflection, it occurs to me that the header of this post is oddly worded.

Firstly, if "seeking God" has any point at all, it would only be on the assumption that God exists. Otherwise, there's no value in "seeking" what is simply not to be found, or that which to find would be inherently to succumb to a delusion. So the writer has to be taking for granted the possibility that God exists, or he would be unable to pose the question intelligibly at all. And it seems he wants to pose it.

But secondly, what is "literalism"? The author must then mean, "Taking what God [is said to have] said at face value." Because again, if there's no God, there's not only no "seeking" but nothing to "literally" take. So a second supposition is necessary: namely, that it is just possible that God may have actually *said* something, a thing which we could be taking "literally" or not. And still, the author seems to want to ask that question.

But if that's right, then the question really gets weird: for then it means, "Assuming God exists, is it more comfortable to believe literally what He said, or not?"

"Pleasant"? Would that be the point? Would it even have any value, once we've already opened the possibility that God exists and has spoken? Would a rational goal be seeking the most "pleasant" way?

So he's asking, essentially, "Was 'seeking God' a more 'pleasant' thing when we don't have to take what we [think He may have] said 'literally'?"

Is that really the question?

It's a bit like asking, "Was cancer more pleasant before chemotherapy."

The answer is "Probably. And with similar consequences."

Good logic.

To get around all that I guess that most would have to define God as I do and that is just as the best set of rules to live life by. We cannot seek a real live God as he is absentee but we can analyse what some think he said, as literal or not and determine of those laws are worthy of a being claiming to be God.

If you analyse what Jesus is purported to have said, since much of it is just un-workable rhetoric and some is anti-love and immoral, we can decide that Jesus would make an immoral God or a man with poor moral tenets.

As well, if one wants to insist that there is a God, as a Gnostic Christian I am not put off by that as we think that God is a man.

Who but men have ever shown the will of God? There has only ever been men.

Regards
DL

Good logic.

To get around all that I guess that most would have to define God as I do and that is just as the best set of rules to live life by. We cannot seek a real live God as he is absentee but we can analyse what some think he said, as literal or not and determine of those laws are worthy of a being claiming to be God.

Thank you.

At the same time, to speak of "seeking God" sounds like a very odd way to state, "looking for the best set of rules". You run the risk of being completely misunderstood. And then there's the problem of "a being claiming to be God." Yes, you could use it merely as a heuristic concept, I suppose, but why would it be heuristically more helpful to use an anthropomorphism like "God," when "rule" is far more explicit and clear? Why would we even need to *posit* the existence of a "being claiming to be God" in order to get to "best rules"?

That seems an incredibly indirect -- not to say potentially very misleading -- way to use language. You'd need to show some very great advantage to justify such indirectness, I think, since it generates such confusion.

Greatest I am wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Firstly, if "seeking God" has any point at all, it would only be on the assumption that God exists.

Good logic.

Doesn't work for me. I don't think it is necessary to assume the existence of something to seek it, I don't think you have to assume there is a cure for cancer or a resolution to the middle east for there to be a point seeking them. That said, seeking god is of a different order and those that find one have trouble showing it to people that the god doesn't reveal itself to.

I've just read Gee's link about the Trolls http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/articles ... net-trolls . Who knows? Maybe these two are one number 7. (I wonder what such a suggestion makes me.)
Anyway, on the subject of literalism, before and after, I'd love to hear how anyone who takes the bible seriously interprets this:

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Doesn't work for me. I don't think it is necessary to assume the existence of something to seek it, I don't think you have to assume there is a cure for cancer or a resolution to the middle east for there to be a point seeking them. That said, seeking god is of a different order and those that find one have trouble showing it to people that the god doesn't reveal itself to.

What I asserted was this:

"...the writer has to be taking for granted the possibility that God exists, or he would be unable to pose the question intelligibly at all."

You are correct to say he does not have to believe God necessarily HAS to exist -- only, as in your proposed cases of cancer and the Middle East, that a "finding" of the answer is possible. That is a sufficiently modest epistemic claim to make your criticism simply off-point.

To illustrate: if, somehow, it were knowable-of-a -certainty that there IS and CAN BE no cure for cancer and NO POSSIBLE resolution to the Middle East, then no rational person would every have reason to seek either one. It is only because we do *not* not know there is no such thing as a solution that an ongoing search for either becomes rational. Likewise, any "search" for God, if we undertake one, implies we believe in the *possibility* that we can find Him; and if not, people would be perfectly right to accuse us of being irrational.

The author posits a "seeking" of God. I merely pointed out the rational implication of his positing.

The final part of your rejoinder above, I don't really pretend to understand. It would seem you're saying that if one person has genuine evidence for something and cannot show it to another person, then that thing cannot be real. But then, if I had been to New York and you had not, that would entail that belief in New York was irrational for you. I'm sure I must be misunderstanding your point.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Good logic.

To get around all that I guess that most would have to define God as I do and that is just as the best set of rules to live life by. We cannot seek a real live God as he is absentee but we can analyse what some think he said, as literal or not and determine of those laws are worthy of a being claiming to be God.

Thank you.

At the same time, to speak of "seeking God" sounds like a very odd way to state, "looking for the best set of rules". You run the risk of being completely misunderstood. And then there's the problem of "a being claiming to be God." Yes, you could use it merely as a heuristic concept, I suppose, but why would it be heuristically more helpful to use an anthropomorphism like "God," when "rule" is far more explicit and clear? Why would we even need to *posit* the existence of a "being claiming to be God" in order to get to "best rules"?

That seems an incredibly indirect -- not to say potentially very misleading -- way to use language. You'd need to show some very great advantage to justify such indirectness, I think, since it generates such confusion.

It is not my fault that people are easily confused and have miss-used the word God forever.

What else could someone be seeking when seeking God other than his laws and rules?

Some flying guy?

If you were to seek God, knowing he has been describes as non-corporeal and invisible, what else could you possibly seek?

Regards
DL

What else could someone be seeking when seeking God other than his laws and rules?

Why, a Person, of course. Not a "big, flying guy," obviously: that would be childish. But a Supreme Entity with a consciousness, will, identity, purposes, characteristics and qualities of His own, one with Whom one could engage, appeal, learn, interact, and in short, enter into a genuine spiritual and personal relationship. The goal of "seeking" is nothing less that to *know* God!

Good heavens, man...if Christianity were about rules and propositions I would not be one for ten seconds! It's much, much more interesting and challenging than that!

Immanuel Can wrote:

What else could someone be seeking when seeking God other than his laws and rules?

Why, a Person, of course. Not a "big, flying guy," obviously: that would be childish. But a Supreme Entity with a consciousness, will, identity, purposes, characteristics and qualities of His own, one with Whom one could engage, appeal, learn, interact, and in short, enter into a genuine spiritual and personal relationship. The goal of "seeking" is nothing less that to *know* God!

Good heavens, man...if Christianity were about rules and propositions I would not be one for ten seconds! It's much, much more interesting and challenging than that!

Then you are in good, if sparse, company as most of the Christians I have encountered welcome rules and dogma (propositions?). We are doing a book study in church after the service and we are discussing "How to be a Christian without going to church" by Kelly Bean and I get the impression that some of the members attending the study have made up their mind from the title and are just attending to criticize the book. I would guess that they accept the rules and dogma of the church without question and are critical of anyone who would challenge them. 2 of the criticisms of the examples in the book are that they are just being selfish in leaving. I raised the question is the church always correct in what it teaches, no-one had any answer to that. The other criticism is that they are no longer studying the scriptures even though nothing was said about that in the book. These people just assumed that because it wasn't mentioned, and the examples in the book left the church, they stopped reading the Bible. I should mention that I don't voice my own ideas to too many people in the congregation till I know their position on the subject. Oddly it's pastors who most often are willing to question the content of the teachings of the church.

Immanuel Can wrote:

What else could someone be seeking when seeking God other than his laws and rules?

Why, a Person, of course. Not a "big, flying guy," obviously: that would be childish. But a Supreme Entity with a consciousness, will, identity, purposes, characteristics and qualities of His own, one with Whom one could engage, appeal, learn, interact, and in short, enter into a genuine spiritual and personal relationship. The goal of "seeking" is nothing less that to *know* God!

Good heavens, man...if Christianity were about rules and propositions I would not be one for ten seconds! It's much, much more interesting and challenging than that!

If you follow the teachings of Jesus as most Christians say they do then you would know that Jesus says to look within ourselves for God and that his laws are written in our hearts.

Some Christians fools do not get that and as you indicate, are looking for a Supreme Entity with a consciousness., which to me is a guy in the sky.

Note how Moses is portrayed in this clip and the emphasis on laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1PDxeUynA

Regards
DL

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

What else could someone be seeking when seeking God other than his laws and rules?

Why, a Person, of course. Not a "big, flying guy," obviously: that would be childish. But a Supreme Entity with a consciousness, will, identity, purposes, characteristics and qualities of His own, one with Whom one could engage, appeal, learn, interact, and in short, enter into a genuine spiritual and personal relationship. The goal of "seeking" is nothing less that to *know* God!

Good heavens, man...if Christianity were about rules and propositions I would not be one for ten seconds! It's much, much more interesting and challenging than that!

Then you are in good, if sparse, company as most of the Christians I have encountered welcome rules and dogma (propositions?). We are doing a book study in church after the service and we are discussing "How to be a Christian without going to church" by Kelly Bean and I get the impression that some of the members attending the study have made up their mind from the title and are just attending to criticize the book. I would guess that they accept the rules and dogma of the church without question and are critical of anyone who would challenge them. 2 of the criticisms of the examples in the book are that they are just being selfish in leaving. I raised the question is the church always correct in what it teaches, no-one had any answer to that. The other criticism is that they are no longer studying the scriptures even though nothing was said about that in the book. These people just assumed that because it wasn't mentioned, and the examples in the book left the church, they stopped reading the Bible. I should mention that I don't voice my own ideas to too many people in the congregation till I know their position on the subject. Oddly it's pastors who most often are willing to question the content of the teachings of the church.

Sure. As long as the person is a potential believer who keeps putting his cash in the collection plate.

You may not have noted that but their conditioning is what you are seeing and not their interest in changing anything of what they have been conditioned to think. It is all a numbers game and they work to keep you as a potential number for the cash.

Regards
DL

Then you are in good, if sparse, company as most of the Christians I have encountered welcome rules and dogma (propositions?).

Wow. That's super sad...but common enough, I suppose. Yet we should not judge a belief by those who fail to follow it properly, should we? Not unless it proves entirely impossible for anyone to do better: and I don't think that's true of Christianity.

We are doing a book study in church after the service and we are discussing "How to be a Christian without going to church" by Kelly Bean and I get the impression that some of the members attending the study have made up their mind from the title and are just attending to criticize the book. I would guess that they accept the rules and dogma of the church without question and are critical of anyone who would challenge them.

That might be right. They might also just be scared. As a philosopher yourself, you'll surely have often seen that ordinary folk can be quite terrified of new ideas. They induce a kind of vertigo, a terrifying feeling of not knowing where you're going; and unless you've had practice and learned that beyond confusion can lie clarity, they just tend to fear this vertigo. I'd just encourage you to be patient with them, and to believe that some...and maybe most...can work past it if you give them enough time and care.

2 of the criticisms of the examples in the book are that they are just being selfish in leaving. I raised the question is the church always correct in what it teaches, no-one had any answer to that.

Yeah. I do. The church is people. People make mistakes. No surprise, eh?

The other criticism is that they are no longer studying the scriptures even though nothing was said about that in the book. These people just assumed that because it wasn't mentioned, and the examples in the book left the church, they stopped reading the Bible.

Well, if Christianity is actually relational, then *mere* reading won't be enough, will it? It's not magic; you have to read in such a way as to be open to being taught, enlightened and transformed by that reading, and with a view to working on that relationship with God, don't you? So I don't see how mere rote reading would help anyone.

I should mention that I don't voice my own ideas to too many people in the congregation till I know their position on the subject. Oddly it's pastors who most often are willing to question the content of the teachings of the church.

Some of them have education...some quite a bit. But I think it's also that they tend to spend a lot more time questioning and answering their own faith-needs. It may incline them to less vertigo. That being said, those among them who have an entrenched interest in keeping things as they are can be quite reluctant to think further.

Thanks for sharing your personal experiences with this. As a thinker, you can't always find it easy. But I do believe people can "come around" to things sometimes.

If you follow the teachings of Jesus as most Christians say they do then you would know that Jesus says to look within ourselves for God and that his laws are written in our hearts.

I do. Unfortunately, you're following old wives' tales. Jesus Christ never said this. Nor does any other part of the Bible. You really need to read it before deciding what you think it says.

If you do, however, you will find in the Epistle to the Romans that it is said that all mankind has a conscience about evil, despite having no knowledge of or love for God.

I assume you weren't referring to that, though

Sure. As long as the person is a potential believer who keeps putting his cash in the collection plate.

This is an easy slander...all too easy. It salves the conscience to think that all Christians are just money-grubbers. It saves the critic from having to think. And it appeals to the moral superiority of the critic who asserts it...

Well, except that it's not even remotely true.

The truth is that Christians are, per capita, far and away the most chartable and giving group of people on the planet. So much so, in fact, that whole societies (like the US, for example) have been largely sustained in their social care networks by the volunteerism and donations of simple Christian folks. (Read deToqueville, and you'll see that its been this way since the early days of the country.) Even today, governments in the West are fighting a losing battle with the recent collapse of social concern sustained for generations by Christian beliefs. Everything from the anti-slavery movement to the public education system, to temperance and the women's movement, to prison reform, welfare and socialized medicine were all sponsored from their inception by conservative, evangelical Christians, and survive largely today due to their influence. That's all statistically and historically really, really easy to verify.

Some facts will really help there.

Most people don't see what is in front of them, While it may seem off topic, to illustrate this I'm going to use an example I've used for years. "What color is a Yield sign?" so far everyone I've asked have gotten it wrong, I asked once around 1980 and a several other people insisted that the sign was yellow and black, I even asked a friend a few days ago and he said yellow and black. Penn DOT started replacing the signs with red and white ones in 1965, I noticed one on a Pa turnpike exit in 1965. It seems that most other people can drive right past them without really seeing them, if that is the case how can we expect them to see something as important as their belief in God? That I noticed my first one shortly after they began to appear, gave me the confidence that I was seeing what was in front of me and few other people do. One final note I believe that my experience in oil painting trained me to see what was in front of me so that I could put it on canvas. Only by accurately seeing things as they are can we accurately represent them in paint or in words.