I misplaced a damn temple

[WendyDarling]

@Turd Ferguson

It doesn’t want to be limited in it’s options nor forced to conform, likes the options of swinging both ways.

Energy IS the limiter of options and the force of conformity, so what in the heck are you talking about?

[The_Golden_Turd]

IS isn’t a limiter of THAT, as limitation is a compound of a particular universalized via metric in matrix.

You can’t get that from is, or us from that, as both are just in and of itself, proto-solipsist. Honestly, am I the only one who watched Inception? Not all constructs originate the same, even if beheld, but beholding always is equal.

[WendyDarling]

Go back to your fabricated temple for there is no such thing as jumping on the ficticous bandwagon with regards to history. LOL!

[iambiguous]

@Turd Ferguson

I wonder how Turd would reconcile the "transcendent incommunicable ‘One’, with, say, the Christian God?

Well, first off, Christianity views creation of physicality as distinct from God, the existence of angels, of devils, or even locals such as The Garden of Eden. It is a creation Ex Nihilo. We differ from the Neo-Pythagorian account of a trinitarian existence as given by the pagan Numenius of Apamea, in which a central unmoved mover illuminates and moves a world soul (matter) into a mimicry of illuminated awareness, via depositional ecosystem ls, species. We don’t presume this at all. Some Christians, such as hardcore Christian orthodox (not all) incorporate the Platonic/Neo-Platonolic concept of the rarification of the soul via celestian gatehouses, but not the more western or better educated Greeks in the east, who know that was a later adaptation. Searle is right and wrong in questioning “where is the soul located in the mind”, we never described it as material based even in older mainstream patriarchal writings. It is something different from matter yet directly linked to God. I personally wouldn’t even use the term Nous, as it is of the Christianized Neo-Platonic school, and not authoratively Christian. It is a adopted terminology to explain a idea, not too different from embracing other concepts like Tao or Modern Physics to explain a idea.

There is a expectation that via intuition and reasoning in the new testament, one can arrive at a understanding of God, even in isolated ignorance. While we possess the onus of the original din, we also have access to the love of God, and have a ethics left to us in how to approach one another. Likewise, God describes himself as similar to us.

God isn’t described as Transcendental, this isn’t a Christian concept, it isn’t a aspect of our physics, hence why we never developed a system of yoga for liberation, we have meditative schools every bit as old and complex as Japanese meditive schools, but it isn’t founded on the same idea of Karma-Liberation. Simultaneously, as a default, we never expected science to either affirm nor refute our physics, we would be bewildered in fact if CERN discovered proof of God, as the universe was created by God but not God. It is a paradox a lot of people fail to grasp in the science vs religion debate.

Admittedly the question was more or less tongue in cheek. But let’s consider your answer…

You make a series of points regarding what various religious folks [Christians in particular] have come to believe “in their head” about God.

They believe different things, don’t they?

But: With so much at stake [immortality and salvation and Divine Justice] is it or is it not crucial for mere mortals to be reasonably certain that any one particular God does in fact exist? And that their own rendition of a God, the God, my God be the one that those who wish to be saved subscribe to?

Now, reading your rather scholarly assessment of all this above, how on earth would you go about connecting the dots between this rather academic and “spiritually” speculative “analysis” and an argument that does in fact demonstrate that only your own narrative here is the correct one?

An argument that, among others, scientists might be able to sink their own tools into.

And consider, in turn, why different individuals come to embrace so many, many, many different renderings, depictions, portrayals of God.

Is this because, at a particular point in their lives, they set aside days, weeks, months in order to explore the question of religion in depth — from the perspective of theology, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychologically, political science, etc.?

Or, instead, are their views far, far more likely to be embodied in their own particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

In other words, they lived a particular life, had particular experiences, met particular people, had access to particular sources of information and knowledge and, as a result, came existentially to be predisposed to one or another denomination or sect or cult?

Which seems most likely, most reasonable, most in sync with the lives that we actually live?

Note to others:

I would advise watching the A&E series on Scientology with Leah Remini: aetv.com/shows/leah-remini-s … -aftermath

The focus here of course is on the Church Of Scientology but, really, it could just as well be in regards to any other objectivist religious denomination.

Indeed, perhaps Christianity might consider its own rendition of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Org#B … commitment

You may not live for all eternity, but at least you are guaranteed a billion years. Well, if only “symbolically”. [-o<

[The_Golden_Turd]

But: With so much at stake [immortality and salvation and Divine Justice] is it or is it not crucial for mere mortals to be reasonably certain that any one particular God does in fact exist?

No.

And that their own rendition of a God, the God, my God be the one that those who wish to be saved subscribe to?

Again, no.

Now, reading your rather scholarly assessment of all this above, how on earth would you go about connecting the dots between this rather academic and “spiritually” speculative “analysis” and an argument that does in fact demonstrate that only your own narrative here is the correct one?

I don’t, wouldn’t even want to. Why should I? Said I wasn’t a theologian a few hundred times on this site, even was cursed out by Pezer for not mentioning stuff like this. You asked me, I gave a brief answer with historical resources I don’t very much you’ll read.

An argument that, among others, scientists might be able to sink their own tools into.

No. If you take thecock out of your ears and reexamine what I wrote, and especially the book by Seraphim Rose, you would of quickly grasped that is a dead end. Systematic experimentation has limits.

And consider, in turn, why different individuals come to embrace so many, many, many different renderings, depictions, portrayals of God.

Is this because, at a particular point in their lives, they set aside days, weeks, months in order to explore the question of religion in depth — from the perspective of theology, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychologically, political science, etc.?

Yes, I’m considering. Never asserted it was correct, nor a plurality of correct ones can exist, nior that they could be desposed of, etc. You seem to be wanting me to be a stereotypical domino you can knock over with ease, when in fact the world is far more complex, as well as individuals, than you can suppose in your Dasein worldview you try to trap everyone into belonging in, without much in terms of supporting evidence. Perhaps I’m approaching matters in undisclosed terms completely alien to all your stated suppositions so far? Reasonable given I am smarter than you.

Or, instead, are their views far, far more likely to be embodied in their own particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

In other words, they lived a particular life, had particular experiences, met particular people, had access to particular sources of information and knowledge and, as a result, came existentially to be predisposed to one or another denomination or sect or cult?

Which seems most likely, most reasonable, most in sync with the lives that we actually live?

Or maybe you have incorrectly balanced your juxtaposition, and asserted a answer to a failed question?

Your questions in the negative don’t apply to me, Christians in general, or most people, and in regards to the latter, aspects are true, and are common sense, but you’ve utterly failed to make a coherent point, as you failed rhetorically to isolate me or anyone for that matter. You’ve managed to deliver a proscription against no one, and in fact theological arguments have historically been made between your negative and positive arguments, in regards to the universality of god, self deception, and inability to see God, and that rites and rituals are historically inherited. This is a subject that most religions, including Christianity, haven’t abandoned.

And I don’t think it was tongue in cheek. You saw me mention Iamblichus, Google’s him, and asked a question you thought could provoke me, and failed when you discovered I already well knew of these matters,and that you did not, when ai had to point out I was talking about soneone else entirely.

I recommend instead of tryimg to salvage this conversation, you just get the two books I listed and improve the arguments you originally intended to ask,but this time from a pisition of knowledgeable competency. I like it when people challemge me with evident prior learning.

Shhhhh… read.

[iambiguous]

@Turd Ferguson

But: With so much at stake [immortality and salvation and Divine Justice] is it or is it not crucial for mere mortals to be reasonably certain that any one particular God does in fact exist?

No.

Okay, but I suspect that literally millions and millions and millions of religious folks [Christian or otherwise] would beg to differ.

Sure, some are more preoccupied with that which seems to be of interest to you here – the historical, scholastic record – but I would surmise that the part about morality on this side of the grave and immortality, salvation and Divine Justice on the other side of it, is by far the focus of the overwhelming preponderance of religious folks.

And that their own rendition of a God, the God, my God be the one that those who wish to be saved subscribe to?

@Turd Ferguson

Again, no.

In that case, I am willing to allow others here to choose for themselves that which is the more reasonable assessment. For example, “for all practical purposes”.

Now, reading your rather scholarly assessment of all this above, how on earth would you go about connecting the dots between this rather academic and “spiritually” speculative “analysis” and an argument that does in fact demonstrate that only your own narrative here is the correct one?

@Turd Ferguson

I don’t, wouldn’t even want to. Why should I? Said I wasn’t a theologian a few hundred times on this site, even was cursed out by Pezer for not mentioning stuff like this. You asked me, I gave a brief answer with historical resources I don’t very much you’ll read.

That is certainly your prerogative. And, after all, my own interest in God and religion has little to do with theology. All of that ponderous “intellectual” and “academic” stuff: plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Instead, I am far, far, far more interested in bringing these largely pedagogical assessments down to earth and plugging them into the lives that we actually live. In particular when they come into conflict as a result of value judgments that “for all practical purposes” are at odds.

Note to others:

If this aspect of religion intrigues you more in turn please consider contributing your thoughts on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929&start=750

And consider, in turn, why different individuals come to embrace so many, many, many different renderings, depictions, portrayals of God.

Is this because, at a particular point in their lives, they set aside days, weeks, months in order to explore the question of religion in depth — from the perspective of theology, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychologically, political science, etc.?

@Turd Ferguson

Yes, I’m considering. Never asserted it was correct, nor a plurality of correct ones can exist, nior that they could be desposed of, etc. You seem to be wanting me to be a stereotypical domino you can knock over with ease, when in fact the world is far more complex, as well as individuals, than you can suppose in your Dasein worldview you try to trap everyone into belonging in, without much in terms of supporting evidence. Perhaps I’m approaching matters in undisclosed terms completely alien to all your stated suppositions so far? Reasonable given I am smarter than you.

Either my assessment of dasein relating to the particular narratives that particular individuals are brainwashed as children to espouse is relevant here or it is not. Either my assessment of dasein as it relates to adults accumulating particular existential experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge etc., out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially is relevant here or it is not.

And what makes the world complex is precisely all of the existential variables that come together at any one particular point in time out in any one particular world construed from but one particular point of view. To the extent that you recognize contingency, chance and change as important factors in accumulating your own personal values is the extent to which you recognize my own frame of mind here as reasonable.

And it is I who am trapped. Trapped in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Of course if you are able to talk yourself into believing in the existence of any one particular God, there are no dilemmas here are there?

You merely read the Scripture and that tells you the difference between the saint and the sinner. Providing of course that your Scripture is the word of the one and only God.

So, is yours?

Or, instead, are their views far, far more likely to be embodied in their own particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

In other words, they lived a particular life, had particular experiences, met particular people, had access to particular sources of information and knowledge and, as a result, came existentially to be predisposed to one or another denomination or sect or cult?

Which seems most likely, most reasonable, most in sync with the lives that we actually live?

@Turd Ferguson

Or maybe you have incorrectly balanced your juxtaposition, and asserted a answer to a failed question?

Noto to others:

How is this actually related to the points that I am raising here?

@Turd Ferguson

Your questions in the negative don’t apply to me, Christians in general, or most people, and in regards to the latter, aspects are true, and are common sense, but you’ve utterly failed to make a coherent point, as you failed rhetorically to isolate me or anyone for that matter.

My questions revolve around the relationship between a particular belief in a particular God and how that is relevant pertaining to the behaviors that we choose on this side of grave in order that, on the other side of the grave, we might come to embody [or experience “spiritually”] immortality, salvation and Divine Justice.

How do they not apply to everyone who chooses to become a believer in God? Or chooses to have faith in God?

@Turd Ferguson

You’ve managed to deliver a proscription against no one, and in fact theological arguments have historically been made between your negative and positive arguments, in regards to the universality of god, self deception, and inability to see God, and that rites and rituals are historically inherited. This is a subject that most religions, including Christianity, haven’t abandoned.

But we both agree that theology isn’t really the main concern here. You’re not a theologian, nor am I. Instead, on this thread religion revolves around the historical record and a temple.

Again if that is of interest to you, fine.

I, on the other hand, am considerably more intrigued by the extent to which an accurate historical record is able to establish the existence of this particular God. After all, if it can be established that this God does in fact exist, that is all anyone would be talking about, right? And certainly not just here. Every media source would be preempting every other news story to pounce on this.

God does exist! And He is our God! Are you saved?!

@Turd Ferguson

And I don’t think it was tongue in cheek. You saw me mention Iamblichus, Google’s him, and asked a question you thought could provoke me, and failed when you discovered I already well knew of these matters,and that you did not, when ai had to point out I was talking about soneone else entirely.

You are a run of the mill objectivist to me. It’s just that, unlike the run of the mill objectivists over at sites like KT, you happen to subscribe to a belief in God. Don’t you?

But: Since you are obviously quite intelligent and articulate [at times] I am interested in the extent to which your frame of mind might have an impact on my frame of mind.

In other words, as I noted to Gib on another thread,

[b][i]…as I often point out to folks like Phyllo, “for all practical purposes” they have me pinned to the mat. Why? Well, not only are they able to talk/think themselves into believing that they have chosen the right behaviors on this side of the grave, but, for some, they are able to connect the dots between virtue on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

None of that is within my reach. At least not “here and now”.[/i][/b]

So, is it within your reach?

[The_Golden_Turd]

Shit dude, that’s too many quotes. I’m not reply because that’s gonna turn into a quote pyramid abomination, change it’s ordering into a more homogeneous construction. I’ll read it then. Threads that do this become the most absurd mess ever on forums.

Not saying you had bad ideas, just like… Mush it together into a smaller coherent body. Only if you want me to respond. Nothing against you or your ideas, just the absurdities that arise from the format.

[iambiguous]

@Turd Ferguson

Shit dude, that’s too many quotes. I’m not reply because that’s gonna turn into a quote pyramid abomination, change it’s ordering into a more homogeneous construction. I’ll read it then. Threads that do this become the most absurd mess ever on forums.

Not saying you had bad ideas, just like… Mush it together into a smaller coherent body. Only if you want me to respond. Nothing against you or your ideas, just the absurdities that arise from the format.

Note to others:

This doesn’t surprise you does it?

Well, I hope he finds his temple.