To "Know God"

[PairTheBoard]

Taking this from
Sullivan's last Reply to Harris in their Debate (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/deus_caritas_es.html)
====================
(5) There is a God, but all of our religions have distorted Her reality. Jesus was a man more suffused with divinity than any other human being who has ever lived. God loves everyone and has never been concerned about what a person believes, except that a person know God and accept God's love freely and expresses that love toward everyone he or she encounters. Jesus uniquely showed us how to accept God's love and how to be worthy of it. After death, all people, Christians and non-Christians, simply merge with the Deity in a loving embrace. But Jesus was the proof that such love exists, and that it is divine and eternal, and that it cares for us.

(6) None of us knows anything about these things.

I guess I've tipped my hand by endorsing (5) but acknowledging the wisdom of (6).
=======================

What does it mean to "know God"?
Consider the following viewpoint:

Since God is Love, if a person "knows Love" he "knows God". If a person values Love, Compassion, Empathy, Tolerance, Good Will, Charity, Humility, Integrity; he embraces God and accepts God's love. If he strives to practice these principles in his life he is expressing God's love toward those he meets and is doing God's will. If his heart's desire is to grow in these traits, God hears his heart's desire as a sincere prayer just as if he said the prayer to God with words.

So in this view an Atheist can "know God" just as well as someone who is inclined toward Theistic language. While the Atheist would reject the language in this viewpoint and thus not see it as providing common ground for himself with the Theist, the language could be acceptable to the Theist and provide himself with a view of common ground with the Atheist.

So, I think the Theist should accept this viewpoint. It provides the Theist with a bridge across the Central Gap between him and the Atheist. It provides the Theist with a viewpoint that transforms his talks with the Atheist into an Ecumenical discussion rather than a contentious debate. The Atheist may not see it that way. Nevertheless, the tone of the discussion will change. The attitude the Theist brings to it will be an agreeable one rather than contentious. The Theist becomes respectful, as he should be, when invited into the Atheist's home.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Since God is Love, if a person "knows Love" he "knows God". If a person values Love, Compassion, Empathy, Tolerance, Good Will, Charity, Humility, Integrity; he embraces God and accepts God's love. If he strives to practice these principles in his life he is expressing God's love toward those he meets and is doing God's will. If his heart's desire is to grow in these traits, God hears his heart's desire as a sincere prayer just as if he said the prayer to God with words.

[/ QUOTE ]
Change 'since' to 'if' and this sort of statement is the only one that can be correct (people may disagree about some of the properties listed).

but its a disaster for organised religon so naturally the organised religionists will insist its religous practice that matters.

chez

[Utah]

This appears to assume that love exists or that there is some sort of concrete definitive definition of it. I believe "love" is as fictitious as "God".

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
This appears to assume that love exists or that there is some sort of concrete definitive definition of it. I believe "love" is as fictitious as "God".

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to expand on this? Doesn't love just describe a feeling? Are you denying a feeling?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since God is Love, if a person "knows Love" he "knows God". If a person values Love, Compassion, Empathy, Tolerance, Good Will, Charity, Humility, Integrity; he embraces God and accepts God's love. If he strives to practice these principles in his life he is expressing God's love toward those he meets and is doing God's will. If his heart's desire is to grow in these traits, God hears his heart's desire as a sincere prayer just as if he said the prayer to God with words.

[/ QUOTE ]
Change 'since' to 'if' and this sort of statement is the only one that can be correct (people may disagree about some of the properties listed).

but its a disaster for organised religon so naturally the organised religionists will insist its religous practice that matters.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It's meant to be a proposal to the Theist who already agrees with the assertion that "God is Love". So for that audience I used "since". But I agree that as an assertion with no presuppositions, the proper form would be with "if".

The idea is to provide the Theist with an ecumenical approach to the Atheist as opposed to a strictly proslytizing one. There has been a great deal of interest in ecumenical discussions between denominations and between different world religions. This even though there are some who oppose such discussions as "going too far", sinking into syncretism, and courting "disaster", as you put it, for the integrity of whatever faith the complainant holds to. Nevertheless, the discussions continue as I think they well should.

As I see it, this approach provides a way for the Theist to reach out in fellowship with those not inclined toward Theist language. It provides a way to include those not inclined toward Theist language in the ecumenical discussion. This is the way people of differing views on our life as human beings should meet. Not coming at each other in coflict, but coming together seeking common ground.

The word "Jihad" translates as "Struggle". Seeking common ground is the real struggle in my view. It's too bad the Jihadists of the different religions don't see it that way as well.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
This appears to assume that love exists or that there is some sort of concrete definitive definition of it. I believe "love" is as fictitious as "God".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you need to believe "love exists" in any philisophical or metaphysical sense in order to value human qualities like Compassion, Empathy, Tolerance, Good Will, Charity, Humility, Integrity etc. The word "Love" may be too connotatively charged. I don't think it's necessary for the discussion except as a guidepost word for those agreeable to it.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This appears to assume that love exists or that there is some sort of concrete definitive definition of it. I believe "love" is as fictitious as "God".

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to expand on this? Doesn't love just describe a feeling? Are you denying a feeling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think Utah is mixing up his word usages here. I don't think the OP meant love in the 'spiritual connection, soul-mates, love at first sight' sense, but rather the strong emotional feelings you have for certain things, events, people and memories.

[Subfallen]

Religious love has a "shall" component that gives it the enduring continuance of any other religious duty. Love is a mutual duty shared by all men, and is not connected with an emotional response.

[PairTheBoard]

The following is a post vhawk made in response to me in another thread. I thought it was more relevant to the discussion here than the one on that thread. So I'm copying it below. I'll respond in a while. Enjoy.
=======================
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When we accept the premise that you don't need to validate your actions in light of any common, human innate sense of morality, what makes 'Thou shall not kill' any more valid than 'Eat babies?'. We are then left to fight out which religion has the better message, a battle that cannot be won since there is no objective standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've just given a valid standard which people may use to judge the merits of different religions. If the religion violates the "common, human innate sense of morality" you refer to, good judgement rejects it in part or in whole if necessary. The Vatican in recent years has come to recognize this necessity in its placing of Primacy on the individual human conscience.

Just because tenets of Faith lie beyond objective evidence does not mean there is no basis on which to judge the relative merits of different Religions. Reasonable people may differ on their judgements. But such lack of uniformity does not imply absence of value.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand where you are going with this and many of your other points. It seems to me that your optimistic vision for religion is a slow melding or refinement (I'm purposely trying not to disparage this or call it a 'regression' or anything like that) towards secular humanism. Its a reasonable goal. I am still a little confused as to the merits or necessity of subjective experience (as you've defined it) but at least I understand. I don't have anything AGAINST subjective experience, I have subjective experiences all the time, I just see no real reason to accept it as valid, and I know my own subjective experience is flawed in predictable ways. IOW, subjective experience may very well be a valid method of ascertaining Truth, but I don't see how its necessary. Why do I need it (or religion) to get to where we both want to get to?

[/ QUOTE ]
=================

PairTheBoard

[andyfox]

Are there a lot of Theists who believe that God is love only? Or are there more of them who believe that God is love, but that He is also much more? A Theist who believed God is love would not believe in the inferiority of religions other than his own, would he?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there a lot of Theists who believe that God is love only? Or are there more of them who believe that God is love, but that He is also much more?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose different Theists will say different things. And they will probably assert different implications from the statement that "God is love". I think some will say that although it's true that "God is Love" it's not the case that "Love is God". Regardless of what else they might say about God, I would still urge them to consider and adopt the viewpoint in my OP.

Saying additional things about God is, I think, different from saying, God is Love but God is also much much more. It may be that if we had a perfect conceptualization of God we wouldn't have to say anything except "God is". Or as God put it from his perspective, "I am" or maybe "We are" - I sometimes question how well that was translated. Similarly, if we had a perfect conceptualization of Love we might not have to say anything more than "Love is". With a perfect conceptualiztion of both it might be the case that saying "God is Love" is actually redundent. But lacking a perfect conceptualization of either, we say "God is Love" and then go on to say other things about God as well. Regardless, I think it would show a lack of humility on the part of a Theist for him to claim a perfect conceptualization of anything.

[ QUOTE ]
A Theist who believed God is love would not believe in the inferiority of religions other than his own, would he?

[/ QUOTE ]

If "God is Love" was the only thing that every religion said then I can see how that might follow. But it's not the only thing they say. In fact, I'm not sure all of them say that. Even if that was the only thing they said about God, they might still go on to say different things about Love. All of that is open to ecumenical discussion. Finding common ground is not easy. I don't expect to just wave the magic wand of the Love word and expect everyone to come into agreement. That's why I described it as a struggle. A Jihad of conciliation rather than confrontation.

The point of the OP is that there can be kinship between the Theist and the Atheist in values like love, compassion, empathy, human dignity, etc, so that the Theist should consider Atheists with these values as part of the ecumenical discussion rather than hostiles to it. Who knows? The Atheist might even end up playing a special moderating role in the overall ecumenical discussions.

I don't think you have to be an absolutist to make judgements on the relative merits of the different religions. You can also be critical of certain aspects of a Religion without being obliged to throw it all out, or to condescendingly declare it "inferior". You can also point out elements of your religion which you find give special insight. For example, look at how Sullivan, from his perspective of humility in the statement, "There is a God, but all of our religions have distorted Her reality" still goes on to defend his particular faith:

From the OP link. Sullivan -
=====================
For me, the radical truth of my faith is therefore not that God exists, but that God is love (a far, far less likely proposition). On its face, this is a preposterous claim, and in my defense, I have never really argued in this dialogue that you should not find it preposterous. It can be reasoned about, but its truth itself is not reasonable or reachable through reason alone.
...
This, it seems to me, is the true mystery of the incarnation, the notion that in Jesus, God became man. I believe this in the only way I can: that one man represents, for all time, God's decision to truly be with us. The reason I call myself a Christian is not because I manage to subscribe, at any given moment, to all the truths that the hierarchy of my church insists I believe in, let alone because I am a good person or a "good Catholic." I call myself a Christian because I believe that, in a way I cannot fully understand, the force behind everything decided to prove itself benign by becoming us, and being with us. And as soon as people grasped what had happened, what was happening, the world changed forever.
====================

Yet despite all this Sullivan has the further humility to acknowlege the wisdom in the position held by many that "None of us knows anything about these things."

So different people will say different things. In my view, the struggle - the Jihad - is not in defending or imposing our differences, but in finding common ground. It's out of that struggle I think something better will emerge FTW.

PairTheBoard

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
This appears to assume that love exists or that there is some sort of concrete definitive definition of it. I believe "love" is as fictitious as "God".

[/ QUOTE ]

wow

ur life must suck

anyways God isn't love... God is God... love is love...

2 different things

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This appears to assume that love exists or that there is some sort of concrete definitive definition of it. I believe "love" is as fictitious as "God".

[/ QUOTE ]

wow

ur life must suck

anyways God isn't love... God is God... love is love...

2 different things

[/ QUOTE ]

Bible says different, dosesn't it?

I John 4:16 on a quick search.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand where you are going with this and many of your other points. It seems to me that your optimistic vision for religion is a slow melding or refinement (I'm purposely trying not to disparage this or call it a 'regression' or anything like that) towards secular humanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really not sure where this ecumenical dialogue will take us vhawk. What I see when I look at the broad sweep of history is a long, often painful, coming together of humanity. The process has often involved the breaking down of doors rather than waiting to be invited in. Perhaps if we were better guests we would find ourselves invited in more often. And perhaps we could be better hosts when doing the inviting as well.

So what I see in the future is more coming together by way of conciliation rather than confrontation. I think this is inevitable. But who knows. I wish I could live long enough to see it happen. I suspect what eventually emerges would have pleasant suprises in it for both of us if we could be there to see it. On the other hand, we might be NotReady for it. Let's hope love prevails.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't have anything AGAINST subjective experience, I have subjective experiences all the time, I just see no real reason to accept it as valid, and I know my own subjective experience is flawed in predictable ways. IOW, subjective experience may very well be a valid method of ascertaining Truth, but I don't see how its necessary. Why do I need it (or religion) to get to where we both want to get to?


[/ QUOTE ]

You can escape religion vhawk - and many would say, thank god for that. But you can't escape subjective experience. I don't think I've ever argued that you should necessarily find religious interpretations to be most suitable for you personally. My arguments have only been to defend those who do find them suitable. I suspect that if you were somehow manipulated into investing yourself in a religious interpretation it would likely be detrimental to you in some ways. It would not really ring true for you and when push came to shove you would find little real comfort in it. You have to be true to yourself.

But you will continue to live with your subjective experiences. Your sense of awe at the beauty and majesty of the Universe. Your sense of wonder at the laws of physics that make it work. Your amazement over the intricacies of biological function. The sense of intrigue in the mystery of existence. The disconnect with your past in the grief over loss of a loved one, or birth of your child. Everything involved with being human including love, compassion, empathy, character, etc.

As time goes on you may develop your own inner poetic interpretations for these experiences. Who knows what you might come up with. If you ever need a religious one, let's hope one is available that suits you. Or maybe you will come up with one of your own. Or maybe it will be something neither of us can conceive at this moment. At any rate, I assume you have the one that suits you for now. It's not my intention to trample your garden.


PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This appears to assume that love exists or that there is some sort of concrete definitive definition of it. I believe "love" is as fictitious as "God".

[/ QUOTE ]

wow

ur life must suck

anyways God isn't love... God is God... love is love...

2 different things

[/ QUOTE ]

Bible says different, dosesn't it?

I John 4:16 on a quick search.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see I have that underlined in my Bible vhawk. From the NIV Study Bible:
I John 4:16
===========
"And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him."
===========

So I don't think my OP is without Scriptural support, for those who value such support. I don't assert any authority from it. However I do think it indicates that there was one spiritually minded fellow held in high esteem by the early Christian Church who was evidently thinking along the same lines as my OP.

PairTheBoard

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
You can escape religion vhawk - and many would say, thank god for that. But you can't escape subjective experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

But who can escape the subjective aspect? I don't have much of a problem with people killing one another, but I do make a distinction between killing someone and murdering someone. To take it out of a strictly human confrontation and act, we don't think too much about killing a cow to get food, but that's something quite different than standing in a pasture and shooting a bunch of cows.

This all comes back to a question of intention. No one knows what God is. God is Love is an intention, or as Aquinas would say - a movement of the will - a choice.

Going on the premise that God is Love - God is and always will be a choice - for the simple reason that Love is an act of volition.

It's pretty easy to throw the word, "love," around, but we really don't stop and ask what that word really means. We can all cruise through a post quickly enough, but do we ever really slow down enough to dip into the philosophical aspect?


What is love? I have a hard time imagining it being something that is biologically, physically, or mechanically induced.

However I sort it out, there's an idea of, "endowment," associated with my conception of love. In other words it's something we choose to give, and more to the point, love is something we have the power to withhold.

I've yet to run across a proof for God's existence, but I've run across a few compelling arguments. So I'm basically left with the possibility of asserting the following premise and conclusion: If God exists, and if God is love; then how could a Being realize the reality of Love without the existence of a being that has the power to withhold love?

Refute the premises all you like, but no one with an ounce of integrity will say that they've been disproven, because they haven't. So with philosophical integrity called into question, and premise(s) that haven't been proven false, one question remains:

How could a Being (God) realize the reality of love without a being that has the capacity to withhold love?

Like I said, you could debate the premises all you like, but you're still left with the fundamental question of theology, and ultimately face the question of how love could exist without God. But you still have to start by answering one question:

How could a Being (God) realize the reality of love without a being that has the capacity to withhold love?

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
Bible says different, dosesn't it?

I John 4:16 on a quick search.

[/ QUOTE ]

that was written by a man... sheesh

i hate when people quote psalms, or some story when a regular guy gives his philosophies or whatever

God never claimed to be love, thats something man said

and they just meant God is loving anyways, which he is

he's all our father

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bible says different, dosesn't it?

I John 4:16 on a quick search.

[/ QUOTE ]

that was written by a man... sheesh

i hate when people quote psalms, or some story when a regular guy gives his philosophies or whatever

God never claimed to be love, thats something man said

and they just meant God is loving anyways, which he is

he's all our father

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand.

And the statement god isn't love that you made up on the spot is more correct, why??

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand where you are going with this and many of your other points. It seems to me that your optimistic vision for religion is a slow melding or refinement (I'm purposely trying not to disparage this or call it a 'regression' or anything like that) towards secular humanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really not sure where this ecumenical dialogue will take us vhawk. What I see when I look at the broad sweep of history is a long, often painful, coming together of humanity. The process has often involved the breaking down of doors rather than waiting to be invited in. Perhaps if we were better guests we would find ourselves invited in more often. And perhaps we could be better hosts when doing the inviting as well.

So what I see in the future is more coming together by way of conciliation rather than confrontation. I think this is inevitable. But who knows. I wish I could live long enough to see it happen. I suspect what eventually emerges would have pleasant suprises in it for both of us if we could be there to see it. On the other hand, we might be NotReady for it. Let's hope love prevails.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't have anything AGAINST subjective experience, I have subjective experiences all the time, I just see no real reason to accept it as valid, and I know my own subjective experience is flawed in predictable ways. IOW, subjective experience may very well be a valid method of ascertaining Truth, but I don't see how its necessary. Why do I need it (or religion) to get to where we both want to get to?


[/ QUOTE ]

You can escape religion vhawk - and many would say, thank god for that. But you can't escape subjective experience. I don't think I've ever argued that you should necessarily find religious interpretations to be most suitable for you personally. My arguments have only been to defend those who do find them suitable. I suspect that if you were somehow manipulated into investing yourself in a religious interpretation it would likely be detrimental to you in some ways. It would not really ring true for you and when push came to shove you would find little real comfort in it. You have to be true to yourself.

But you will continue to live with your subjective experiences. Your sense of awe at the beauty and majesty of the Universe. Your sense of wonder at the laws of physics that make it work. Your amazement over the intricacies of biological function. The sense of intrigue in the mystery of existence. The disconnect with your past in the grief over loss of a loved one, or birth of your child. Everything involved with being human including love, compassion, empathy, character, etc.

As time goes on you may develop your own inner poetic interpretations for these experiences. Who knows what you might come up with. If you ever need a religious one, let's hope one is available that suits you. Or maybe you will come up with one of your own. Or maybe it will be something neither of us can conceive at this moment. At any rate, I assume you have the one that suits you for now. It's not my intention to trample your garden.


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

This could be the most beautiful post ever.

I think it may acknowledge the angry behind the 'angry atheist'. In response to arguments about the existence of god, the theists deny the atheist the dignity of having a meaning to life, love and the other nice things by claiming they have the key and there's only one.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand where you are going with this and many of your other points. It seems to me that your optimistic vision for religion is a slow melding or refinement (I'm purposely trying not to disparage this or call it a 'regression' or anything like that) towards secular humanism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really not sure where this ecumenical dialogue will take us vhawk. What I see when I look at the broad sweep of history is a long, often painful, coming together of humanity. The process has often involved the breaking down of doors rather than waiting to be invited in. Perhaps if we were better guests we would find ourselves invited in more often. And perhaps we could be better hosts when doing the inviting as well.

So what I see in the future is more coming together by way of conciliation rather than confrontation. I think this is inevitable. But who knows. I wish I could live long enough to see it happen. I suspect what eventually emerges would have pleasant suprises in it for both of us if we could be there to see it. On the other hand, we might be NotReady for it. Let's hope love prevails.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't have anything AGAINST subjective experience, I have subjective experiences all the time, I just see no real reason to accept it as valid, and I know my own subjective experience is flawed in predictable ways. IOW, subjective experience may very well be a valid method of ascertaining Truth, but I don't see how its necessary. Why do I need it (or religion) to get to where we both want to get to?


[/ QUOTE ]

You can escape religion vhawk - and many would say, thank god for that. But you can't escape subjective experience. I don't think I've ever argued that you should necessarily find religious interpretations to be most suitable for you personally. My arguments have only been to defend those who do find them suitable. I suspect that if you were somehow manipulated into investing yourself in a religious interpretation it would likely be detrimental to you in some ways. It would not really ring true for you and when push came to shove you would find little real comfort in it. You have to be true to yourself.

But you will continue to live with your subjective experiences. Your sense of awe at the beauty and majesty of the Universe. Your sense of wonder at the laws of physics that make it work. Your amazement over the intricacies of biological function. The sense of intrigue in the mystery of existence. The disconnect with your past in the grief over loss of a loved one, or birth of your child. Everything involved with being human including love, compassion, empathy, character, etc.

As time goes on you may develop your own inner poetic interpretations for these experiences. Who knows what you might come up with. If you ever need a religious one, let's hope one is available that suits you. Or maybe you will come up with one of your own. Or maybe it will be something neither of us can conceive at this moment. At any rate, I assume you have the one that suits you for now. It's not my intention to trample your garden.


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post. I guess a simple way of saying it is that I live FOR my subjective experiences, but the brunt of the work I let them do for me is on the motivational side of the decision-making paradigm, not the evaluative or conclusive side. I certainly cannot escape subjective experience, nor would I want to. That is the sole reason I do anything. I just see little pragmatic value in using my subjective experience for jobs it doesn't seem suited to do.

In the end, I guess it boils down to my prejudices. I tend to view objective experience as just really, really solid subjective experience. The difference between anecdote and statistical analysis. I understand complete analysis isn't always possible, so I'm forced to rely on anecdotes all the time, but I give those anecdotes no more weight than they deserve (at least, thats the ideal, but I'm a sucker as much as anyone else).

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess a simple way of saying it is that I live FOR my subjective experiences, but the brunt of the work I let them do for me is on the motivational side of the decision-making paradigm,

[/ QUOTE ]

I find that statement especially interesting. I'd be interested in hearing more about how you do that.

PairTheBoard

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This appears to assume that love exists or that there is some sort of concrete definitive definition of it. I believe "love" is as fictitious as "God".

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to expand on this? Doesn't love just describe a feeling? Are you denying a feeling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think Utah is mixing up his word usages here. I don't think the OP meant love in the 'spiritual connection, soul-mates, love at first sight' sense, but rather the strong emotional feelings you have for certain things, events, people and memories.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it depends on what you mean by the word "love". Certainly, love, as a description of a feeling of attraction, exists. However, love, as some intrinsic thing or real force, does not. Same with God.

[ill rich]

[ QUOTE ]
And the statement god isn't love that you made up on the spot is more correct, why??

[/ QUOTE ]

im talking about God the entity

it is possible to make things you god, like money, or love, in which case, yes, you could have a god that is love.

but i'm speaking on the Christian perspective