What Defines And Drives A Relationship

[Roz]

But.. community is essential for all life, not just humans. We can't ignore that.. even the simplest organisms survive because of their relationships… to each other and the environment. It isn't a special human thing… and is very apparent in even the simplest life forms. Even viruses, which are by definition not even really alive exist because of relationship.

 

I'm sorry but maybe I'm missing the point of this special designation for humans.

 

He's attempting to tie all life form interactions with "yaweh passing on 'logos' to jesus"

The argument makes absolutely no sense from post 1.

[Orbit]

 

So, by "life" you mean positive connection and interpersonal interaction and by "death" you mean negative interaction--selfishness and the like?

Yes, that we could accurately predict what positive interactions are necessary to promote "life" in another. The rest is by default "death".

 

So essentially it's a sequential transfer of "logos" from God to Christ to the apostles to disciples to the world.

 

Evidence is this so far:

 

1) humanity can not define the origin of life

2) communion/community seems essential for humans. (not talking about the religious practice)

 

#1 is a classic God of the gaps argument. Just because the exact mechanism is not known, it doesn't mean God did it. Therefore I reject that part of your premise.

 

#2 It is a given that humans need interaction, in the non-religious sense.

 

Where are you going from #2? Can you do it without introducing religion?

[florduh]

Perhaps this is another example of what I've seen several times before. Essentially, the men who wrote the Bible (or any other "sacred" text, for that matter) and defined their gods could only draw upon human experience and observations when writing their stories. Because of that, some believers get it backwards and think life imitates the magic book rather than that the book imitates life.

[mikey101]

Writing clearly instead of vaguely isn't about style.  It is about good communication.  You don't want your reader to wonder "Well, what does that mean?".

 

 

He's attempting to tie all life form interactions with "yaweh passing on 'logos' to jesus"

The argument makes absolutely no sense from post 1.

 

I've been trying to understand it and I can't make sense out of it.  Clearly the idea needs a lot of work. 

 

Perhaps this is another example of what I've seen several times before. Essentially, the men who wrote the Bible (or any other "sacred" text, for that matter) and defined their gods could only draw upon human experience and observations when writing their stories. Because of that, some believers get it backwards and think life imitates the magic book rather than that the book imitates life.

Now it makes some sense.  

[Roz]

Perhaps this is another example of what I've seen several times before. Essentially, the men who wrote the Bible (or any other "sacred" text, for that matter) and defined their gods could only draw upon human experience and observations when writing their stories. Because of that, some believers get it backwards and think life imitates the magic book rather than that the book imitates life.

 

It's positive reinforcement.  They attend church to interact with each other (just as ex-cs do here) and then they tie it to "a magical 'logos' being passed from their god to them"

[Roz]

Writing clearly instead of vaguely isn't about style.  It is about good communication.  You don't want your reader to wonder "Well, what does that mean?".

 

I don't think it can be done with christianity (I hesitate to say any religion).  When I was a christian it was called "framing your talk so that jesus is more clearly presented to your audience" when in reality it's obscuring the message just enough to bypass normal human logic guards.

[mymistake]

My problem with all of this is that it is so abstract.  It's like trying to divide the flavor of pure sweetness by the color blue.  Can you even divide something by a color?

 

So pure sweet flavor divided by blue, then add the sound of one hand clapping but subtract a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

 

Now divide by the sound of shattered glass.

 

 

 

Something doesn't have to be real in order to analyze it in a clear and precise manner.

[Orbit]

I am curious as to where the idea of panentheism as mentioned by End upthread fits into this. Christianity can be panentheistic, but panentheism is not a Christian concept.

[Roz]

I am curious as to where the idea of panentheism as mentioned by End upthread fits into this. Christianity can be panentheistic, but panentheism is not a Christian concept.

 

I think I saw it when he said  it's a sequential transfer of "logos" from God to Christ to the apostles to disciples to the world.

 

So therefore god is inside all of us since the word was xferred from god > christ > apostles > world.  So obviously christianity's true...?

[ExCBooster]

 

I'm having some serious problems following this one.

 

If "relationship" is something as all-pervading and fundamental as the interactions of matter, of time and space itself, I do not understand how it can be re-framed and identified as conforming to a very specific religious function within a very specific religion, common to just one among nearly infinite philosophical viewpoints in just one species, on just this one tiny planet. How are you identifying this sense of "relationship" as specifically Christian? This is a titanic logical leap, and, so far, has not been clarified.

 

(And no, "because: faith" is not going to cut it at all. Many, many, many religions frame their faith in terms of relationship. The first act in so many mythologies is the primal pair having sex, for this exact reason. It's why prayer or propitiation in any sense is possible in these ideologies. Why pray to something that has no relationship? All religions have faith, and all religions have relationship, in this sense, or - by definition - they're not religions. The problem here is why Christianity? Faith is insufficient to distinguish between all these viewpoints, because they all have that in common. You need independent proof.)

 

My main issue here is scale.

 

How do you manage to bridge the gap between the all-encompassing interactions of the universe (have a look at these, for scale. Seriously) and then try to squish it into the infinitesimally small viewpoint of a tribal group of humans (we are as a speck of dust in the infinite void of space and time, and you fit your God into that) that can be summed up in one of their cultural productions, John 17.  What. How, precisely, do you justify this incredible leap to conclusions? That's a writing of just one species, a production of just one biological template of relationship. What then, the God of the Prairie Voles? Or Wolf Spiders. Or, for that matter, E. coli. The God of the Bible, of John 17, is so small, narrow, and petty, by comparison.

This is the physical half of the question Ex. Great leap of thought. It's my opinion that the physical behaves very much like the Spiritual in framework. Since this is wonderfully difficult to discuss, could we please set it aside for a bit?

 

Thank you.

 

No, it is not "great" as in "good" - it is a "great" big, fat unsupportable hole. Which is exactly my point, and I don't care how "wonderfully difficult" it is to discuss, that is precisely what you are here to do, if you're going to start the discussion. I'm not going to set anything aside, especially since you put it up for discussion, in the first place. This is getting pretty rude, to just brush off points you ourself brought up, just because you don't like the response, or you find it too hard. It's not a discussion, and it's not honest, if you refuse to engage like this. And, if our part of the discussion isn't going to be engaged with honestly, I don't have to play, whether nice, or, at all.

[Orbit]

 

I am curious as to where the idea of panentheism as mentioned by End upthread fits into this. Christianity can be panentheistic, but panentheism is not a Christian concept.

 

I think I saw it when he said  it's a sequential transfer of "logos" from God to Christ to the apostles to disciples to the world.

 

 

So therefore god is inside all of us since the word was xferred from god > christ > apostles > world.  So obviously christianity's true...?

 

And that view makes it a contradiction. To say there is a transmission from one to the other is dualist. It's a dualist view, that God is separate from his creation. Panentheism holds that God is immanent in creation AND transcends creation, but is not separate from it. Only if you are separate can you *transmit* something.

[Roz]

It's End-style christianity, I'm just trying to make some sense out of what he's trying to say.

 

But yes, I get your point, the act of xferring some 'lifeforce logos' must be between separate entities.

[Roz]

 

So, by "life" you mean positive connection and interpersonal interaction and by "death" you mean negative interaction--selfishness and the like?

Yes, that we could accurately predict what positive interactions are necessary to promote "life" in another. The rest is by default "death".

 

So essentially it's a sequential transfer of "logos" from God to Christ to the apostles to disciples to the world.

 

Evidence is this so far:

 

1) humanity can not define the origin of life

2) communion/community seems essential for humans. (not talking about the religious practice)

 

 

Trying to be civil here.  Can anyone point out why evidence 1 and 2 are valid support for End's 'logos' propagation?  

[Guest end3]

 

 

I am curious as to where the idea of panentheism as mentioned by End upthread fits into this. Christianity can be panentheistic, but panentheism is not a Christian concept.

 

I think I saw it when he said  it's a sequential transfer of "logos" from God to Christ to the apostles to disciples to the world.

 

 

So therefore god is inside all of us since the word was xferred from god > christ > apostles > world.  So obviously christianity's true...?

 

And that view makes it a contradiction. To say there is a transmission from one to the other is dualist. It's a dualist view, that God is separate from his creation. Panentheism holds that God is immanent in creation AND transcends creation, but is not separate from it. Only if you are separate can you *transmit* something.

 

Dualist in the sense that the quality "life" is transmitted even though a transcended God. Death is the balance.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

I am curious as to where the idea of panentheism as mentioned by End upthread fits into this. Christianity can be panentheistic, but panentheism is not a Christian concept.

 

I think I saw it when he said  it's a sequential transfer of "logos" from God to Christ to the apostles to disciples to the world.

 

 

So therefore god is inside all of us since the word was xferred from god > christ > apostles > world.  So obviously christianity's true...?

 

And that view makes it a contradiction. To say there is a transmission from one to the other is dualist. It's a dualist view, that God is separate from his creation. Panentheism holds that God is immanent in creation AND transcends creation, but is not separate from it. Only if you are separate can you *transmit* something.

 

Dualist in the sense that the quality "life" is transmitted even though a transcended God. Death is the balance.

 

In the discussion of religion, "dualist" has a special definition. It means the idea that God is separate from his creation. A God who is immanent in creation (panentheistic) doesn't need to transfer anything; everything already *is*.

[Guest end3]

Perhaps this is another example of what I've seen several times before. Essentially, the men who wrote the Bible (or any other "sacred" text, for that matter) and defined their gods could only draw upon human experience and observations when writing their stories. Because of that, some believers get it backwards and think life imitates the magic book rather than that the book imitates life.

When man dries and floods and dries and floods and brings the mechanism of life to the science class, I'm not of the same opinion.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

I am curious as to where the idea of panentheism as mentioned by End upthread fits into this. Christianity can be panentheistic, but panentheism is not a Christian concept.

 

I think I saw it when he said  it's a sequential transfer of "logos" from God to Christ to the apostles to disciples to the world.

 

 

So therefore god is inside all of us since the word was xferred from god > christ > apostles > world.  So obviously christianity's true...?

 

And that view makes it a contradiction. To say there is a transmission from one to the other is dualist. It's a dualist view, that God is separate from his creation. Panentheism holds that God is immanent in creation AND transcends creation, but is not separate from it. Only if you are separate can you *transmit* something.

 

Dualist in the sense that the quality "life" is transmitted even though a transcended God. Death is the balance.

 

In the discussion of religion, "dualist" has a special definition. It means the idea that God is separate from his creation. A God who is immanent in creation (panentheistic) doesn't need to transfer anything; everything already *is*.

 

Thanks, that is where I differ because in the Christian scenario, I see God creating but relegating creation to separation through sin. Thus placing God temporarily outside of creation. Hence the need for Christ to come bring something "into".

[Guest end3]

 

 

I'm having some serious problems following this one.

 

If "relationship" is something as all-pervading and fundamental as the interactions of matter, of time and space itself, I do not understand how it can be re-framed and identified as conforming to a very specific religious function within a very specific religion, common to just one among nearly infinite philosophical viewpoints in just one species, on just this one tiny planet. How are you identifying this sense of "relationship" as specifically Christian? This is a titanic logical leap, and, so far, has not been clarified.

 

(And no, "because: faith" is not going to cut it at all. Many, many, many religions frame their faith in terms of relationship. The first act in so many mythologies is the primal pair having sex, for this exact reason. It's why prayer or propitiation in any sense is possible in these ideologies. Why pray to something that has no relationship? All religions have faith, and all religions have relationship, in this sense, or - by definition - they're not religions. The problem here is why Christianity? Faith is insufficient to distinguish between all these viewpoints, because they all have that in common. You need independent proof.)

 

My main issue here is scale.

 

How do you manage to bridge the gap between the all-encompassing interactions of the universe (have a look at these, for scale. Seriously) and then try to squish it into the infinitesimally small viewpoint of a tribal group of humans (we are as a speck of dust in the infinite void of space and time, and you fit your God into that) that can be summed up in one of their cultural productions, John 17.  What. How, precisely, do you justify this incredible leap to conclusions? That's a writing of just one species, a production of just one biological template of relationship. What then, the God of the Prairie Voles? Or Wolf Spiders. Or, for that matter, E. coli. The God of the Bible, of John 17, is so small, narrow, and petty, by comparison.

This is the physical half of the question Ex. Great leap of thought. It's my opinion that the physical behaves very much like the Spiritual in framework. Since this is wonderfully difficult to discuss, could we please set it aside for a bit?

 

Thank you.

 

No, it is not "great" as in "good" - it is a "great" big, fat unsupportable hole. Which is exactly my point, and I don't care how "wonderfully difficult" it is to discuss, that is precisely what you are here to do, if you're going to start the discussion. I'm not going to set anything aside, especially since you put it up for discussion, in the first place. This is getting pretty rude, to just brush off points you ourself brought up, just because you don't like the response, or you find it too hard. It's not a discussion, and it's not honest, if you refuse to engage like this. And, if our part of the discussion isn't going to be engaged with honestly, I don't have to play, whether nice, or, at all.

 

I requested that we put that discussion aside for a bit as it involves chemistry and physics and a lot of theoretical. So yes, it's difficult and yes it's a big hole at the moment.

 

thanks,

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

I am curious as to where the idea of panentheism as mentioned by End upthread fits into this. Christianity can be panentheistic, but panentheism is not a Christian concept.

 

I think I saw it when he said  it's a sequential transfer of "logos" from God to Christ to the apostles to disciples to the world.

 

 

So therefore god is inside all of us since the word was xferred from god > christ > apostles > world.  So obviously christianity's true...?

 

And that view makes it a contradiction. To say there is a transmission from one to the other is dualist. It's a dualist view, that God is separate from his creation. Panentheism holds that God is immanent in creation AND transcends creation, but is not separate from it. Only if you are separate can you *transmit* something.

 

Dualist in the sense that the quality "life" is transmitted even though a transcended God. Death is the balance.

 

In the discussion of religion, "dualist" has a special definition. It means the idea that God is separate from his creation. A God who is immanent in creation (panentheistic) doesn't need to transfer anything; everything already *is*.

 

Thanks, that is where I differ because in the Christian scenario, I see God creating but relegating creation to separation through sin. Thus placing God temporarily outside of creation. Hence the need for Christ to come bring something "into".

 

OK, but that's not panentheism, we are agreed. Panentheism has no place in your formulation. This is just straight Christian doctrine, which I reject.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

At this point we are talking figurative life vs. death through inclusion vs. isolation. Sacrificing, making intimate knowledge known, behavior modification all in the interest of being known to the other person where they are comfortable in their shortcomings as well. I think this process yields God for lack of a better word. The definition of logos fits in here somewhere.

 

 

A figurative understanding of life vs. death will not help you construct a valid, logically-sound argument, End.

 

You're trying to frame a valid, logically-sound argument for why relationships are important in this forum, remember? 

 

Figurative understandings play no part in that.

 

I don't think I have to discuss in any particular style BAA. I get your point though. I will more than likely violate the mode you suggest...it's nothing against you.

 

 

A logical argument isn't an exercise in style, it's a tool for you to make your case about relationships with.

 

If you want that tool then that's the way you've got to go.  I don't use a dentist's drill to mow the lawn.  It's not the right tool for the job.

 

So, do you want to frame a logical argument about the importance of relationships in this forum?  

 

Or not?  

 

It's your call.

 

I guess the broadest term I could use to describe this conversation would be philosophical.

 

 

Ok End, that's your call and I'll respect it.

.

.

.

However, if you change your mind, I'll be watching and can be called upon for advice, help, comment, etc.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am curious as to where the idea of panentheism as mentioned by End upthread fits into this. Christianity can be panentheistic, but panentheism is not a Christian concept.

 

I think I saw it when he said  it's a sequential transfer of "logos" from God to Christ to the apostles to disciples to the world.

 

 

So therefore god is inside all of us since the word was xferred from god > christ > apostles > world.  So obviously christianity's true...?

 

And that view makes it a contradiction. To say there is a transmission from one to the other is dualist. It's a dualist view, that God is separate from his creation. Panentheism holds that God is immanent in creation AND transcends creation, but is not separate from it. Only if you are separate can you *transmit* something.

 

Dualist in the sense that the quality "life" is transmitted even though a transcended God. Death is the balance.

 

In the discussion of religion, "dualist" has a special definition. It means the idea that God is separate from his creation. A God who is immanent in creation (panentheistic) doesn't need to transfer anything; everything already *is*.

 

Thanks, that is where I differ because in the Christian scenario, I see God creating but relegating creation to separation through sin. Thus placing God temporarily outside of creation. Hence the need for Christ to come bring something "into".

 

OK, but that's not panentheism, we are agreed. Panentheism has no place in your formulation. This is just straight Christian doctrine, which I reject.

 

How do you see them as different?

[bornagainathiest]

 

So, by "life" you mean positive connection and interpersonal interaction and by "death" you mean negative interaction--selfishness and the like?

Yes, that we could accurately predict what positive interactions are necessary to promote "life" in another. The rest is by default "death".

 

So essentially it's a sequential transfer of "logos" from God to Christ to the apostles to disciples to the world.

 

Evidence is this so far:

 

1) humanity can not define the origin of life

2) communion/community seems essential for humans. (not talking about the religious practice)

 

 

Oh and just to remind you...

 

# 1 is the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance.

 

You'll therefore want to drop it and concentrate on other matters.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am curious as to where the idea of panentheism as mentioned by End upthread fits into this. Christianity can be panentheistic, but panentheism is not a Christian concept.

 

I think I saw it when he said  it's a sequential transfer of "logos" from God to Christ to the apostles to disciples to the world.

 

 

So therefore god is inside all of us since the word was xferred from god > christ > apostles > world.  So obviously christianity's true...?

 

And that view makes it a contradiction. To say there is a transmission from one to the other is dualist. It's a dualist view, that God is separate from his creation. Panentheism holds that God is immanent in creation AND transcends creation, but is not separate from it. Only if you are separate can you *transmit* something.

 

Dualist in the sense that the quality "life" is transmitted even though a transcended God. Death is the balance.

 

In the discussion of religion, "dualist" has a special definition. It means the idea that God is separate from his creation. A God who is immanent in creation (panentheistic) doesn't need to transfer anything; everything already *is*.

 

Thanks, that is where I differ because in the Christian scenario, I see God creating but relegating creation to separation through sin. Thus placing God temporarily outside of creation. Hence the need for Christ to come bring something "into".

 

OK, but that's not panentheism, we are agreed. Panentheism has no place in your formulation. This is just straight Christian doctrine, which I reject.

 

How do you see them as different?

 

In panentheism the creator is not separate from the creation, though it is transcendent. You have separated the creator, so it is not a panentheistic idea of God.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

So, by "life" you mean positive connection and interpersonal interaction and by "death" you mean negative interaction--selfishness and the like?

Yes, that we could accurately predict what positive interactions are necessary to promote "life" in another. The rest is by default "death".

 

So essentially it's a sequential transfer of "logos" from God to Christ to the apostles to disciples to the world.

 

Evidence is this so far:

 

1) humanity can not define the origin of life

2) communion/community seems essential for humans. (not talking about the religious practice)

 

The rest is not necessarily "death" by default.  What about actions that are simply neutral?  When I pay for my groceries the interaction I have with the cashier is neither positive nor is it negative.  It's simply straight forward business.  Therefore, even figuratively, "life" vs. "death" presents a false dichotomy.

 

Secondly, the fact that some interactions are positive while others are negative does not need to have anything to do with any "logos", jesus, or disciples.  Simple human psychology explains it.  People are emotional beings, capable of experiencing a wide range of feelings, impulses, whims, and motivations, each of which might have any number of reasons behind it.  This leads to our interactions with one another being sometimes confusing, other times surprising, and not always either positive or negative.

 

Lastly, the two pieces of "evidence" you cite to support your "logos" transfer claim do not actually support it, nor are they evidence of it.  Just because science has yet to find the answer to a mystery doesn't automatically mean that god transferred anything to anybody.  It simply means that science has not yet found the answer.  That humans are social beings, as well as emotional, also does not demonstrate the transference of any divine word.  If you look at our closest evolutionary cousins, you will find that they, as well as many other species, are also social beings.

 

This is akin to someone making the claim that because certain bacterial species get along with each other but other bacterial species kill them, that means that god exists, the bible is true, and jesus really did die for your sins.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am curious as to where the idea of panentheism as mentioned by End upthread fits into this. Christianity can be panentheistic, but panentheism is not a Christian concept.

 

I think I saw it when he said  it's a sequential transfer of "logos" from God to Christ to the apostles to disciples to the world.

 

 

So therefore god is inside all of us since the word was xferred from god > christ > apostles > world.  So obviously christianity's true...?

 

And that view makes it a contradiction. To say there is a transmission from one to the other is dualist. It's a dualist view, that God is separate from his creation. Panentheism holds that God is immanent in creation AND transcends creation, but is not separate from it. Only if you are separate can you *transmit* something.

 

Dualist in the sense that the quality "life" is transmitted even though a transcended God. Death is the balance.

 

In the discussion of religion, "dualist" has a special definition. It means the idea that God is separate from his creation. A God who is immanent in creation (panentheistic) doesn't need to transfer anything; everything already *is*.

 

Thanks, that is where I differ because in the Christian scenario, I see God creating but relegating creation to separation through sin. Thus placing God temporarily outside of creation. Hence the need for Christ to come bring something "into".

 

OK, but that's not panentheism, we are agreed. Panentheism has no place in your formulation. This is just straight Christian doctrine, which I reject.

 

How do you see them as different?

 

In panentheism the creator is not separate from the creation, though it is transcendent. You have separated the creator, so it is not a panentheistic idea of God.

 

I think wiki uses the word interpenetrates. What does that mean to you and does this match what we see in reality.