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

[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?