Okay, but this sort of thinking and feeling is deemed no less “fluffy” to me.
That you are in fact able to achieve this frame of mind works for you in that it allows you to sustain a level of equillibrium and equanimity that most of us are unable to attain. Let alone to sustain. But I am more interested in understanding how this frame of mind is applicable to your interactions with others. In particular interactions that come into conflict with those who have a very different understanding of that which is deemed to be wise for the future.
So, the slaughterhouse that is nature and hellholes that natural disasters can become in inflicting terrible pain and suffering on mere mortals from the cradle to the grave…this is just something that you are able to subsume in the manner in which you have thought yourself into believing what you do. Or would you explain it differently?
On the other hand, when push comes to shove, you insist that your own rendition of God is there to protect your destiny. But what of the hundreds and hundreds of denominational narratives out there that have very different assumptions about God? Are they all just subsumed ecumenically in your own set of assumptions?
I call them assumptions only until you are able to demonstrate to us that what you believe is true here “in your head” is in fact true for all of us.
Instead, in my view, you merely assert things like this:
And this must be true because the whole point of believing it is true is that it sustains the emotional and psychological comfort and consolation that such a belief engenders.
In my own opinion, more of the same. The point seems not to broach, describe and then to demonstrate that what you believe is true, but to note that the fact that you believe it is true is what allows you to nestle down in it triumphantly. After all, any number of others can profess to have achieved the same sort of “lucidity” with entirely different renditions of God and religion.
It just so happens that yours and only yours is the one and the only true calling.
Ever and always keeping it vague. That, in my view, is the whole point of general descriptions like this. Whereas I created this thread in order to go in the opposite direction:
When you are out and about interacting with others, what moitivates you to choose particular behaviors…as this relates to the assumptions you make about God and religion as this relates to that which you construe your fate to be on the other side of the grave?
Are you willing to bring the rhetoric down to the reality of defending your own value judgments on this side of the grave?
Instead, from my own perspective, transcendental thinking of this sort is more in sync with this:
Let’s focus in on a context in which men and women, in thinking about God and religion, might experience this sort of thing.
When, more specifically, would escapism give way to all those other things? Can you cite examples from your own life?
Again, what would you deem to be wrong behavior on this side of the grave? And suppose others with conflicting views of God and religion insisted that this behavior was actually right instead. Regarding an issue like abortion. Which has been in the news here of late in America.
In detail, note your own chosen behaviors regarding an issue like this [on this side of the grave] and how and why you chose it given your assumptions regarding your fate on the other side of the grave.