To "Know God"

[PairTheBoard]

Taking this from
Sullivan's last Reply to Harris in their Debate
====================
(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

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.