Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:
I'm just showing off the picture... no one is forced to like it.

Umm..."The God of the Gaps" is a derisive expression that both Christians and skeptics use to show that the very idea of a gap-dependent "God" is irrational. They don't believe in it. Nobody does.

You've missed the irony, I fear.

Who created God if God created everything. You did.

Dontaskme wrote:Who created God if God created everything. You did.

Silly question. God (I.e. the Supreme Being) is uncreated, by definition. If he's a "created god," he's not God at all.

But also off topic. "The God of the Gaps" idea has nothing to do with that at all.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:Who created God if God created everything. You did.

Silly question. God (I.e. the Supreme Being) is uncreated, by definition. If he's a "created god," he's not God at all.

Exactly, only the mind is born not you. This whole human drama is a story told by no one.

Immanuel Can wrote:But also off topic. "The God of the Gaps" idea has nothing to do with that at all.

The gap is imagined, the filling it in is imagined.

And please stop trying to think you know what I'm thinking and saying - you know nothing of how I view reality...so shut your gap before you fall in it.

I'm just expressing a view that makes sense to me. I don't give a hoot whether it meets with your approval or not. Only I understand my God...not you.

Dontaskme wrote: Only I understand my God...not you.

Fine. Have a good life.

Immanuel Can wrote:

(Belinda had written)The Crucifixion as told by the Gospel writers is mythical in the sense of an important story.

(IC replied)That's a half truth. The only reason it was important to them is that they considered it real. You can be sure of that, because

a) the story was told and believed widely even while the involved parties were still alive and could refute it with real-world evidence, if it had been merely a myth,

b) the disciples and other people who told of the crucifixion died for it...a thing people do not do for things they know to be merely pretty stories about morality, and

c) the doctrine of the Christian church specifically affirms that if the crucifixion didn't actually happen, it has no value -- mythic or otherwise -- at all.

1 Cor. 15:17, for example, says, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." That would show that the OP question is not about "mythic" value, but about historical reality or nothing.

For historical reasons the myth of Christ is an important story for many if not most people.
I don't believe that you are a creditable historian. I don't believe the historicity of what the disciples did according to Immanuel Can.

c) the doctrine of the Christian church specifically affirms that if the crucifixion didn't actually happen, it has no value -- mythic or otherwise -- at all.

I am aware that this is the defining doctrine. You don't seem to understand that the Crucifixion stands as the story which makes the point that to carry one's cross until the bitter end is required of the very good person. Some real individuals do and did a fairly good job of imitating Christ. I don't know about the individuals whom you named.

You're interested in the degree of historicity in the Christian doctrines and claim that the doctrines are historically correct. But you are unaware that there is a more important discussion to be had, i.e. about the future of life on Earth, and the part that religion may or may not play.

The great myths are analogies of the human condition. They are great because, like all great literature, they don't depend upon preaching to keep them alive and relevant. One needs to understand how to interpret analogies about the human condition .You treat the religious myths like a scientist regards scientific evidence, or as an historian regards historical evidence, and you seem to be unable to appreciate the value of mythic awareness.

This is potentially dangerous. Hitler's Aryan myth was influential partly because many people at the time failed to understand that it was a myth not scientific or historical fact.Not only the historical evidence but also the meaning of Hitler's Aryan myth was false. The interpretation of Christ's crucifixion is true and the truth of its meaning doesn't depend upon whatever historicity attaches to the Crucifixion event. Many humans have been sacrificed or sacrificed themselves for the sake of others. Most of those are obscure individuals.For all of them and for all of us the supreme sacrifice of Christ can stand as the paradigm case. Your quibbles about historicity miss the point and cause Christianity to become a Jesus cult.

Belinda wrote: For historical reasons the myth of Christ is an important story for many if not most people.
I don't believe that you are a creditable historian.

I don't believe you would have a way to know, actually. Have we met?

I don't believe the historicity of what the disciples did according to Immanuel Can.

And I haven't asked you to. What I've said is really uncontroversial, historically. Nobody doubts crucifixion, the basics of the life and death of Christ, the way the disciples spoke and died, and so on. Even easier is finding out that what I said about Christian doctrine is true...I even gave you the reference.

But you can find that out by doing the research. I certainly would not insist you take my opinion -- after all, you have no idea who I am, as I said.

...you are unaware that there is a more important discussion to be had, i.e. about the future of life on Earth, and the part that religion may or may not play.

I am not unaware. It is called "The Secularization Hypothesis." But since the 1960s, no credible sociologist takes it seriously anymore.

The great myths are analogies of the human condition.

Well, the topic of this OP isn't a myth. It's a well-attested historical event. All we're asking is if, in addition to its factual existence, it has any further "why" about it. In fact, without that assumption, the OP can't even really be asked.

you seem to be unable to appreciate the value of mythic awareness.

Well, you'll note I knew enough to identify it with Jung or Eliade, or Durkheim, or Frazer...and I doubt everybody knows what's being said about it today in Cultural Studies and Anthropology classrooms. So you've no way of knowing whether I know this stuff myself, or I'm just googling it and faking it. But maybe you'll guess.

This is potentially dangerous. Hitler's Aryan myth was influential partly because many people at the time failed to understand that it was a myth not scientific or historical fact.

The problem with Hitler is not so much that his crap was believed...it was what was believed. That's a bad myth you've got there. As you say,

Not only the historical evidence but also the meaning of Hitler's Aryan myth was false.

The interpretation of Christ's crucifixion is true and the truth of its meaning doesn't depend upon whatever historicity attaches to the Crucifixion event.

Well, everybody but you thinks it does.

The Atheists certainly think so, and the Christians do too. Only the wobbly middle-liberals don't seem to get that pretty lies don't have the same value as truths. But that's the great failing of modern Leftism...its contempt for truth, for facts, for reason and for evidence, and its enchantment with its own ability to generate fictions.

But both sides of the God-No God debate certainly know better. That's why they contend over historicity: both know it makes all the difference in the world.

And that's how the real world works. Scientists also don't say, "Well, alchemy isn't real, but it's just as valuable as real science, because of its mythic capacity to make us want gold from lead." And doctors don't say to grieving relatives, "Your father died in surgery, but metaphorically, we're going to say he's alive and will be going home Tuesday; I'm sure that makes you just as happy as if he'd lived."

Sometimes the myth just isn't worth anything by itself.

Treated as a "myth," the whole salvation package is simply dead. There would be no reason, as the OP says, to speak mythically of a "sacrifice of Jesus" unless there was a "Jesus" and he was "sacrificed." Otherwise, there's no OP question at all.

I repeat,

Where is it written that God must play by human logic? God plays by God's rules, and if humans can't understand those rules, who is at a loss?

Immanuel Can wrote:

after all, you have no idea who I am, as I said.

...you are unaware that there is a more important discussion to be had, i.e. about the future of life on Earth, and the part that religion may or may not play.

I am not unaware. It is called "The Secularization Hypothesis." But since the 1960s, no credible sociologist takes it seriously anymore.

The sort of ideas you do know are apologetics for literal interpretations and lead me to think that you are a preacher by profession. You are literate and
articulate. I am sorry that preachers by profession have to accommodate the lowest common denominator of imagination among their flocks. Religion has a good future but only if religionists modernise and face up realistically to the problems of the future of life on Earth.

Your silly and facile denigrations of social sciences don't do you credit.

thedoc wrote:I repeat,

Where is it written that God must play by human logic? God plays by God's rules, and if humans can't understand those rules, who is at a loss?

I doubt there would have been a sacrifice at all.. had it been known in advance that humans would sin. If I was God I would have just let them rot in hell.

DontAskMe wrote:

I doubt there would have been a sacrifice at all.. had it been known in advance that humans would sin. If I was God I would have just let them rot in hell.

A lot of people would endorse that. Why cannot you combine your strong feelings with reason? If there were a God I expect that He would endorse reason, and know that we sometimes struggle with emotional reactions.

Belinda wrote:DontAskMe wrote:

I doubt there would have been a sacrifice at all.. had it been known in advance that humans would sin. If I was God I would have just let them rot in hell.

A lot of people would endorse that. Why cannot you combine your strong feelings with reason? If there were a God I expect that He would endorse reason, and know that we sometimes struggle with emotional reactions.

I don't understand what you mean...what is combine my strong feeling with reason? ...reason for what?..what is that supposed to mean?

God is not an experience, knowledge of God comes in the experiencing, it's an existential knowledge within the beholder. How does one reason love? If we have ever felt love, then we all have knowledge that cannot be put into words. Transferring the knowledge of what it felt like to love will never be accomplished. Yet, for those who have held their own newborn child, we all just sort of know what we are trying to talk about when we talk about the love experience. The same thing can be said about the love of God.

Tacit knowledge is the sort of knowledge that is experienced. It is difficult, if not impossible, to use language to explain it.
In my opinion, there is only love and everything else is a lie.

Love cannot know evil, but evil can know love.

Dontaskme wrote:

Belinda wrote:DontAskMe wrote:

I doubt there would have been a sacrifice at all.. had it been known in advance that humans would sin. If I was God I would have just let them rot in hell.

A lot of people would endorse that. Why cannot you combine your strong feelings with reason? If there were a God I expect that He would endorse reason, and know that we sometimes struggle with emotional reactions.

I don't understand what you mean...what is combine my strong feeling with reason? ...reason for what?..what is that supposed to mean?

God is not an experience, knowledge of God comes in the experiencing, it's an existential knowledge within the beholder. How does one reason love? If we have ever felt love, then we all have knowledge that cannot be put into words. Transferring the knowledge of what it felt like to love will never be accomplished. Yet, for those who have held their own newborn child, we all just sort of know what we are trying to talk about when we talk about the love experience. The same thing can be said about the love of God.

Tacit knowledge is the sort of knowledge that is experienced. It is difficult, if not impossible, to use language to explain it.
In my opinion, there is only love and everything else is a lie.

Love cannot know evil, but evil can know love.

Reason is the word for what you do when you reflect instead of immediately reacting to emotions. Emotion is great and you obviously have plenty of it. Reason curbs excessive reactions to emotions To reason you use judgement and knowledge of the world.

It's obvious that you have experiential knowledge and are not shy to say so. Your emotional experience includes maternal love and care. I am suggesting that you think, with wider judgement, about how you understand your experiences. For instance maternal love and care is necessary but insufficient for the baby. Mothers and fathers need to know within reasonable limits what is good for the child. Parents' strong feelings are not enough. Some parents have been got at by bad advisors such as advise bad feeding, bad clothing, some bad advisors even say don't give blood transfusions. I recommend, in addition to maternal passionate love for your newborn, reason and the best of up to date knowledge such as the health visitor may recommend . That is what I mean when I say that I wish you would add reason to your passion.

Love can know about evil , have experienced evil, understand evil, and seek means to combat evil. I doubt if persistently evil persons fully experience or understand love.

Belinda wrote:
Love can know about evil , have experienced evil, understand evil, and seek means to combat evil. I doubt if persistently evil persons fully experience or understand love.

Being lead into temptation is what love allows, only because love always wins out in the end through reconciliation. Love is self-teaching, no one can teach you love....a baby is not born evil, it is dependant only on love for it's survival.

A baby already knows tacitly what is not love, and will draw from it's own supply to get it through life...even if it has to sacrifice it's innate innocence of any evil that may exist by falling victim to it without it's consent.

If the child survives it's tormentors, it will now know evil and will avoid it in the future...if it doesn't survive, nothing is lost, because the innocent love energy would have immediately been returned to itself which is the light of heaven. Only the light lives. Darkness cannot live in the light. It cannot find a place to exist without getting extinguished. That's what Jesus taught when he said...

''Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”


I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life

I follow what Jesus said only, imply because I follow truth, and I honestly believe that Jesus was the only prophet that told the real truth.

Anyone who claims to speak the truth is a prophet, that includes a human being. I follow truth because I am truth. I don't need to reason with that. I know that.

Wisdom is knowing I am nothing,
Love is knowing I am everything,
and between the two my life moves.”
― Nisargadatta Maharaj

Belinda wrote:
Reason is the word for what you do when you reflect instead of immediately reacting to emotions. Emotion is great and you obviously have plenty of it. Reason curbs excessive reactions to emotions To reason you use judgement and knowledge of the world.

You can only judge and have knowledge of your world that is true for you..not of a world outside of you...there is no reality outside of your own set of beliefs and values.

I don't agree one must reason before a reaction. A reaction is in the moment which is this spontaneous unitary flow of life. Which cannot be stepped into twice.

To reason before a reaction is to alter the present of what's unavoidably happening into what should have happened.

Reason is permitted after a reaction as one reflects on the situation that has occurred ...only then can one reconcile to a higher deeper truth...which we call wisdom. ..it's drawing upon your own imagination and living that through your own actions, to yourself be true, and only you can judge you.