is this not a fair position about God?

[Jayson]

@alyoshka

@TheStumps

Humanity is too large of a construct for the individual to actually tangibly rely on as a realistic force,

But a nation state isn’t? (As per your patriotism example…)

A nation is controlled by a direct group of identifiable humans; the Government.
This makes it far more tangible than all of humanity.
A single government holds to a set of rules and guidelines; humanity does not.
A government can be taken to court in many countries; humanity cannot.

The miraculousness of Jesus’ life, for example, is that he blows away all expectation when he does what he does… And that’s just it: I can collapse this back down to the individual level and say it is just as unexpected to see love practiced there as it is to see it practiced across humanity as a whole…

As an idea; a force of Love to offer control by proxy is far more of a sacrifice (Jesus, the Savior) than simply Love in action for principle (Jesus, the revolutionary).

This wraps back around to what I said before:
Force creates conviction.
Principle creates ambition.

A belief is in a force.
A philosophy is in a principle.

And conviction elicits more radical reaction out of man than principle.

Consider it as such; the count of religious extremists (including Monks) on the planet that are compelled by conviction to follow a behavioral creed is far more in successful numbers than any philosophical principle has ever accomplished to produce such reactions out of man.

Thus, like Thomas More I state; if one wishes to accomplish an ethical action in life as a consistent average, then one is needed to believe in a religious belief that appeals to a higher authority; whatever that higher authority may be, as long as it is a proxy of control to a force normally outside of man’s control.

Again…man has morbid interest in this innately, and naturally understands this concept; man simply doesn’t realize that he does.
Current modern man stands in one of two states:

1. holding that there is nothing of which exists outside of the eventual potential of man’s control or prediction.
2. holding that there are some things that are outside of the eventual potential of man’s control or prediction.
   [3)] (there is a third option of course) doesn’t give a shit. (but I don’t find value in examining this function as it is mostly just laziness that causes this one)

If 1:
Then: evaluate need for belief in religion (return 1.1, 1.2;)
Else: 2

If 1.1 (where 1.1 equals no need for belief)
Then: evaluate philosophical ethics for rules that justify method of life one should live for greatest happiness and/or greatest need
Else: 1.2

If 1.2 (where 1.2 equals recognizing need of belief)
Then: 2
Else: 1.1

If 2: evaluate belief that fits comprehension of reality and the justification for reality.
Else: 1

But more importantly it is desirable at all levels (at least to me), and this is what I think should fuel our faith in it and/or our conviction to live lovingly.

Should…but won’t.

Think on this for a moment; people get off of drugs through a self-professed reliance on a religious control proxy of a force.
In America, this is often the Christian God.

It is not the many, by any stretch at all, that walk out of rehab saying that they only made it because of the power of Existentialism or Post-Modernism.

As such, if Love is but a thought in principle; it cannot be relied on as it is not a force with the ability to control and relieve man on it’s own right.
However, if Love is a religious control proxy (some agent of Love), then the proxy can be relied on to provide Love for man; the ability to control Love for man and relieve man with Love.

This translates to belief, which stands over time. For, as even though the practice may falter through time, the construct of the religious proxy agent of Love (that you would have designed) would not have, and would still be reliable as a provider of the force of Love.

@TheStumps

You have to figure out if you want Love to be powerful or provocative; force, or shock.

Can’t I have both?

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough; I mean that it can either come from one or the other.
A force or a thought.

Force is outside of man; thought is inside of man.
This is in reference to the construct of the ideal that you aspire for Love, not the Love itself.

I don’t care, really, what his motivations were, i.e., if it was because he loved me in particular or believed in practicing love in general.

The metaphor only goes so far (because the man is not able to be proxy), so I’m not going to try to further it here, but let me re-posit this.

If you wish for a person to find conviction in a principle, apply the principle to the formula of religion.
If you wish for a person to simply think and expand their thought from a principle, then leave it as a principle.

In the end, when he practiced love in general it led to his loving me in particular. Conversely if he keeps practicing love in particular, then he ends up loving in general, no? i.e., his particular actions go to show what his principles are?

Yes, but it will compel no one to do anything exactly as there is no answer to the doubt of humanity; there is no greater force in the idea than humanity itself, and if there is a lack of trust in the ability of humanity, which I’ve established is not trusted as a controlling proxy.
One cannot address all of humanity and seek for hope in it directly.

In reality, this is because humanity is too easily identifiable; it cannot be placed on a pedestal.

All that matters to me is the action itself…

Like More; given the examples that we have throughout history, I am therefore simply explaining how it is the greatest potential for getting that action as a result that you aspire for masses of man to act on.

Around ILP, people always talk about the violence of religion.
This violence is only possible because there are people that understand religion’s power, like More did, and use it for corrupted purposes.

With a religion of Love, however, it is harder to corrupt into violence.

For those that have a good nature at heart, that truly wish goodness of compassion upon humanity, resides the responsibility to activate man towards such good ends by the means necessary for this benefit.

[alyoshka]

@TheStumps

Consider it as such; the count of religious extremists (including Monks) on the planet that are compelled by conviction to follow a behavioral creed is far more in successful numbers than any philosophical principle has ever accomplished to produce such reactions out of man.

Hmm. So you don’t think reason, as an example of a philosophical principle, has produced much of a reaction out of man? More specifically what about something like Aristotle’s hitting the mean (or moderation)? Or Kant’s categorical imperative? Or Mill’s greatest good?

@TheStumps

Current modern man stands in one of two states:

1. holding that there is nothing of which exists outside of the eventual potential of man’s control or prediction.
2. holding that there are some things that are outside of the eventual potential of man’s control or prediction.
   [3)] (there is a third option of course) doesn’t give a shit. (but I don’t find value in examining this function as it is mostly just laziness that causes this one)

If 1:
Then: evaluate need for belief in religion (return 1.1, 1.2;)
Else: 2

If 1.1 (where 1.1 equals no need for belief)
Then: evaluate philosophical ethics for rules that justify method of life one should live for greatest happiness and/or greatest need
Else: 1.2

If 1.2 (where 1.2 equals recognizing need of belief)
Then: 2
Else: 1.1

If 2: evaluate belief that fits comprehension of reality and the justification for reality.
Else: 1

A thought that struck me:

First, to you religion is a means of taking control of what is uncontrollable through a proxy.
Second, from this quoted piece of logic, taking control or being in control is a core human drive/concern.
Assuming I follow you, from this I conclude that religion is simply one mechanism among many that humans use to satisfy this primary drive/concern.

Now thinking Biblically for a moment, would you disagree that a major theme in the text, or at least one of God’s actions, is to confound/destroy human attempts to control? If we associate this controlling spirit with a conquering spirit, we can see this expressed in, for example, Nimrod and Egypt. Nimrod’s efforts to control/conquer are told in the story of Babel, where God confounds man’s efforts. Egypt’s efforts to control/conquer are told in Exodus, and God destroys the Egyptions.

I loosely take this to mean that God purges Man of his conquering/controlling spirit. But if religion is a means of taking control, and if what I just said is true, then religion is something God would purge, no? Just a thought…

I personally think God wants us to relinquish control, or at least God wants us to stop thinking we can take full control, and instead admit and follow through on the fact that we are utterly dependent creatures.

So following your logic I would have to take path 2; but while I would certainly try and comprehend reality (to keep following your logic), I would not want to justify it. Like you my comprehension of reality tells me there is suffering, and so instead of trying to justify it I would want to save it. Hence love as my response to life’s conditions…

@TheStumps

It is not the many, by any stretch at all, that walk out of rehab saying that they only made it because of the power of Existentialism or Post-Modernism.

No denial here, but let’s face it: the Bible is more entrenched and more accessible (in many senses of the word) than Sartre or Derrida or Heidegger or… There is also the fact that many people’s religious perception is an uptake of philosophy. You’ve already mentioned Christianity’s uptake of Platonism. In other words, many so-called Christians are not Christian at all but rather Platonist (or Aristotilean or Kantian or Utilitarian…)!

@TheStumps

As such, if Love is but a thought in principle; it cannot be relied on as it is not a force with the ability to control and relieve man on it’s own right.
However, if Love is a religious control proxy (some agent of Love), then the proxy can be relied on to provide Love for man; the ability to control Love for man and relieve man with Love.

This translates to belief, which stands over time. For, as even though the practice may falter through time, the construct of the religious proxy agent of Love (that you would have designed) would not have, and would still be reliable as a provider of the force of Love.

See, I want to call Jesus the man the “agent of love” you speak of (or the “religious control proxy”). But you already know that! But Jesus the man dies, and so the love he provides ceases. In other words, after Jesus’ death FORCE → PRINCIPLE. His love can no longer do any work. His love has ceased to flow. His love has become a principle once again that, as you say, can only shock or provoke us.

There is also the idea of paradise or heaven, but it too is just an idea and not a real provider of the force of love… The only provider of the force of love are agents of love, but all agents of love are susceptable to death!

Anywho. Perhaps we’ll just say I’m sticking to philosophy! I really don’t want to take that step and posit any real, existing, agent of love that “can be relied on to provide Love for man, the ability to control Love for man and relieve man with Love.” Or more precisely, I don’t want to posit one that can’t falter/die/cease to exist… I don’t want to ascribe this existence any necessity…

[Jayson]

Hmm. So you don’t think reason, as an example of a philosophical principle, has produced much of a reaction out of man? More specifically what about something like Aristotle’s hitting the mean (or moderation)? Or Kant’s categorical imperative? Or Mill’s greatest good?

There is a difference between shifting and evolving human thought and perspective and causing a conviction in a single man strong enough to compel a following of a strict moral guideline.

One opens up paths and the other closes them down.
Philosophy is for learning more paths.
Religion is for focusing on one path.

I loosely take this to mean that God purges Man of his conquering/controlling spirit. But if religion is a means of taking control, and if what I just said is true, then religion is something God would purge, no? Just a thought…

I spoke of this before.
Humility.

Power is sought, through proxy, of those forces that appear to be outside of our grasp or understanding, however dogmatically, religion’s constantly show a distaste for attempting to take control of that power for oneself or to think of that proxy as one’s own control.
In religions, these are commonly tales of punishment and suffering such as you described.

You can find this in countless religious tales around the world.

I personally think God wants us to relinquish control, or at least God wants us to stop thinking we can take full control, and instead admit and follow through on the fact that we are utterly dependent creatures.

In part, but that’s the concept of humility.
But do not polarize on this thought, as the hope part of the thought in religion’s is that even with this utter dependency, there is a hope for control over the given forces addressed by that religion.

In other words, many so-called Christians are not Christian at all but rather Platonist (or Aristotilean or Kantian or Utilitarian…)!

More accurately, Mazdaism (first documents of heaven/hell good/evil opposition that Christianity relies on…wasn’t part of the original Christian thought), with a dualism of the body and soul from Platonism (dualist soul wasn’t part of early Christian thought).

See, I want to call Jesus the man the “agent of love” you speak of (or the “religious control proxy”).

They are both the agent of love for the philosophies and theologies interested in love.

But Jesus the man dies, and so the love he provides ceases.

In this mode, the impact of love expressed by Jesus begins it’s decent to eventual non-existence immediately following his death.
Place a wrapper in a pond:
A pebble thrown in a pond behind the wrapper; at some point in the time line, the ripple will cease, and the wrapper will stop moving across the body of water.

Under the theological approach, the access to this principle of love is still available to inspire a person to continually express the same concepts as their Jesus is still alive and accessible as a proxy for the force of Love they seek in a world they see none of and wish to express.

Place a wrapper in a body of water:
A creek constantly flows water into the pond; the wrapper will continue to move as long as the creek continues to flow.

Jesus is either the pebble or the creek and the wrapper is the Love you are interested in as a method of life.

In other words, after Jesus’ death FORCE → PRINCIPLE. His love can no longer do any work. His love has ceased to flow. His love has become a principle once again that, as you say, can only shock or provoke us.

Exactly as I said just above this, yes.
Even more so, at some point, if he had not been turned into a religious icon, he would nearly have been forgotten and only known as a man that once existed and did some important stuff; like Gandhi.

Or more precisely, I don’t want to posit one that can’t falter/die/cease to exist…

They need to exist if you want the belief that one can be empowered in their own life.

It would be nice to believe that all of man could find the motive inside of themselves to pursue through all with an idealist thought for the better, but, like More, I am no great fool to believe that man can do this.

Man needs religion to find strength to push for the better ideals in himself.

Religion will bring out the evil in man sharply, and gratefully.
Where that is seen, the Utopian-man should be interested in exposing the corruption of that abuse of religion and condemning the actions and practices.

It is unfortunate, yet true, that whatever power exists to enable man toward any form of good will be corruptly used to better a control of power for the greed of a few.