What Defines And Drives A Relationship

[Roz]

 

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.

 

 

So very much this...

[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.

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

To interpenetrate is the opposite of being separate.

[Guest end3]

To interpenetrate is the opposite of being separate.

How then do you make sense of personal experience. How come we are not constantly on a God high?

[bornagainathiest]

 

To interpenetrate is the opposite of being separate.

How then do you make sense of personal experience. How come we are not constantly on a God high?

 

 

Careful, End.

 

That which is objective is true for everyone.  

 

That which is subjective, isn't.

 

You want what is true for everyone about relationships - not just what you subjectively think is true.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

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?  

 

It doesn't.  It's a non sequitur.

[Orbit]

 

To interpenetrate is the opposite of being separate.

How then do you make sense of personal experience. How come we are not constantly on a God high?

 

When I was a Christian I had several mystic experiences. Is that what you mean by "God high"? Like BAA says, I recognize that those were subjective experiences. Those experiences do not point to an objective reality, rather to a subjective shift in my own consciousness.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

To interpenetrate is the opposite of being separate.

How then do you make sense of personal experience. How come we are not constantly on a God high?

 

When I was a Christian I had several mystic experiences. Is that what you mean by "God high"? Like BAA says, I recognize that those were subjective experiences. Those experiences do not point to an objective reality, rather to a subjective shift in my own consciousness.

 

 

Which is why any argument you make about relationships cannot be based on just your own, subjective experiences, End.

 

There's no good reason why something you believe is true for everyone about relationships... IS true for everyone.

 

Your personal speculations, your personal leaps of faith and your personal experiences don't make the cut, when it comes to framing a proper argument.  They are all subjective.  

 

Objective truth about reality, that applies to everyone equally and that everyone can agree on is where you need to be on this.  

.

.

.

Your question, "Does this match what we see in reality?" is a good start.

 

Objective truth that applies to everyone, equally is what WE see in reality.  Your own personal and subjective experiences of reality only apply to YOU.  

 

Try and find what's true for everyone.

[bornagainathiest]

End,

 

I've done some more thinking on the objective vs subjective issue and I'd like to share these thoughts with you - in the hope they'll be helpful.

 

In post # 101 Ravenstar sounded a note of caution about this thread. 

She knows that Christians are allowed to evangelize and proselytize in the Den, but was worried that this proselytization would spill over into the Coliseum.  Here's the gist of what she said... "I think moving this thread would be a mistake. If the argument had some valid foundation it would be different, but it is proselytization, not philosophy that is happening here."

 

These are wise words End and I think you should heed them.

Your argument needs a valid foundation - that we can all agree on.  But that foundation cannot be based solely on what YOU think is true, on what YOU believe is true or on what YOU hope might be true.  Otherwise that foundation is based only on what is personal to you.  On what is subjective.  As Orbit and myself have observed, your foundational argument has to be objective, not subjective.  It has to be something that is true for everyone and that applies to everyone.  If the line you're following here is that your thoughts, your beliefs and your hopes should apply to others, then you aren't philosophizing any more - you're evangelizing and proselytizing.  You're saying that what is true for you MUST or SHOULD be true for everyone else.

 

Ok! Ok! I know it's not your intention to go that far, End. 

You're in exploration mode, right?  But there is a danger that you will overstep the mark in your enthusiasm and drift into an evangelical mode of posting.  Also, there's a danger that others will pick up on the way you keep pressing on with certain personal (i.e., subjective) ideas and they'll see this as evangelization on your part.  As Ravenstar has observed, the Den is the only part of this site where evangelization is allowed  - and we're no longer in the Den.  We've moved here at your request.  So now the onus is on you to think and write as objectively as possible, leaving your subjective, personal beliefs behind in the Den.

 

My final point agrees nicely with the need for objectivity.

Your private and personal (subjective) thoughts, hopes and speculations can't give you the objective foundational argument you need. They don't necessarily apply to anyone else and they aren't necessarily true for anyone else.  That's because they're not objective (true for everyone) but subjective (true for you).  So, imho what you need to do is to leave your subjective, evangelical mode of thinking in the Den and to think as objectively as you can, here in the Coliseum.

.

.

.

Now, there IS a tried-and-tested way of doing this, End.  There IS an effective way of thinking objectively.  There IS a way open to you that gets results.  I'm willing to share this way with you and I'm sure that there are others who'd like to come on board and help you in this too.

.

.

.

Now it's over to you.  What do you say?.

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[Orbit]

End, to piggyback on BAA's post, there is a difference between a philosophical discussion about the nature of relationships, or even about the nature of "God" --and approaching these subjects with a religious agenda in mind. If the agenda is for you to share Bible verses and make Christian doctrinal statements, that's not a philosophical discussion--it's "witnessing". Witnessing isn't discussion-- it's a one-way presentation of what you consider to be subjectively true by virtue of your faith.

 

Philosophical conversations aren't faith-based.

 

I would like for you to present your views in a philosophical, non-religious way. I'm sure we could all have a productive discussion here if you would do that.

[Ravenstar]

hmmmm…. where'd he go?  This concept could have become interesting.

[Guest end3]

 

 

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.

 

I understand everything you have stated Prof. About the only thing I can do is run through the Chapter and note how it relates in my mind to interpersonal relationships and physical relationships. Don't know that anyone is interested in that.

[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.

 

I understand everything you have stated Prof. About the only thing I can do is run through the Chapter and note how it relates in my mind to interpersonal relationships and physical relationships. Don't know that anyone is interested in that.

 

You think that might have something to do with your attempt to make your subjective ideas into universal truths?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I understand everything you have stated Prof. About the only thing I can do is run through the Chapter and note how it relates in my mind to interpersonal relationships and physical relationships. Don't know that anyone is interested in that.

 

You think that might have something to do with your attempt to make your subjective ideas into universal truths?

 

No worse than anyone else. Maybe I'll get a dog

 

Or trick a blonde into sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the Great Pumpkin...

[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)

 

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.

 

I understand everything you have stated Prof. About the only thing I can do is run through the Chapter and note how it relates in my mind to interpersonal relationships and physical relationships. Don't know that anyone is interested in that.

 

You think that might have something to do with your attempt to make your subjective ideas into universal truths?

 

No worse than anyone else. Maybe I'll get a dog

 

Or trick a blonde into sitting in the pumpkin patch waiting for the Great Pumpkin...

 

 

Not so.

 

When I post a scientific item, that's not a subjective idea.  Science works the same way for Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists.  Anyone and everyone can understand it, if they want to.  Science isn't subjective - it's objective.

[bornagainathiest]

End,

 

I've just posted something for HenryCD's attention, here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65447-the-first-cause-and-was-there-a-god-involved/page-2#entry1005028

 

It's content is very relevant to the problem I reckon you're struggling with in the subjective vs. objective issue in this thread.

 

If you want to come back to me about any part of this, I think it best to do so here, rather than take this discussion into Henry's thread.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Ravenstar]

This really belongs in the Den. imho.

[Orbit]

This poor thread. It just can't win.

[Orbit]

Ok, let's finish this.

 

 

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.

 

Jhn 17:2

 

For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

 

Jhn 17:3

 

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

 

Jhn 17:4

 

I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.

This is unrelated to the argument you are making, or it should be.

 

 

I'm guessing knowing God through His(Christ) sacrifice is pertinent.

 

And I ask myself how do I know someone, where we have trust between us, true friendship.

 

I know my friends because I know intimate details about them and they me. To do so requires sacrificing our own egos regarding our imperfections and trusting that the other will not use them against us. Please refer back to the definition of communion....the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level.

 

When we do this, it seems reasonable that this mechanism of sacrificing to know each other aligns us with Christ's will, which is God's will. The problem being that we can only have faith that we know acting in the best interest to know another. True knowing is an impossibility.

 

And logos fits in here via the Holy Spirit as that is the prescribed way TO know someone outside of omniscience, i.e. the Spirit acts to give us insight within a relationship.

 

Please chew on these verses and we shall continue.

You aren't presenting an argument here, you're making an analogy between human relationships and a relationship with god. That's pure religion; it's not a philosophical argument. Unless you can find a way to get rid of the religious assumptions here, there's nothing I can respond to. It looked like this could go somewhere there for a bit, but it's taken a turn into dogma.

[Guest end3]

You might ask yourself before you relegate it to dogma.... What is God.... Specifically. Don't be so readily quick to dismiss.

[Guest end3]

Double post

[Guest end3]

You said God permeates.... how?

[Orbit]

You might ask yourself before you relegate it to dogma.... What is God.... Specifically. Don't be so readily quick to dismiss.

I'd love to go into that, personally-- as a philosophical/comparative religion matter, but I don't think that conversation would be widely appreciated here in this forum, so I can't engage.

[bornagainathiest]

I have to follow Ravenstar and Orbit's lead on this, End.

 

You aren't presenting an objective argument.

 

Therefore I can't continue either.

[Deva]

End3, you can't just quote a long string of Bible verses in this section and ask people to "chew on these verses"...Take this kind of thing to the Den.

 

Post 166 deleted.

[Guest end3]

I quoted four verses. Four verses that directly go to the point "God Defines and Drives a Relationship" Might we look at past topics like the "Love of Jesus"...started by a former moderator here? Are we going to disallow these type discussions?

 

Quoting Hook, "Bad form Smee". Bad form Dave. Bad form brother.

 

And for the record, "chew on that" is an old expression used by many a educator.