Christianity

[Nick_A]

Does this make sense to you; the idea that the universe is an interconnected whole we are a part of which only a few can understand?

This idea was long integrated even in the most ancient societies. I fail to see what's new!

A real person would be one who has experienced what leads to deductive reason and understands how inductive reason, when based on the revelations of deductive reason, furthers the cause leading to human purpose. Can such people exist in the modern world anymore? If so they are few and far between

No amount of inductive, deductive or abductive reasoning will lead to discovering human purpose. To discover such, there has to be such. No one ever, not even Einstein - whom you're so fond of quoting - could discover anything amounting to purpose in any of the processes known to science. Every natural process or event so far understood - which is a lot - is not programmed or predetermined by any measure of intent. Purpose has no place in science: but if you're a mystic or theist that perspective changes radically.

On the other hand there is nothing that stipulates imagination supervised by logic, can't lead in what amounts to a revelation. I'm quite sure that Einstein and very many others have had that feeling upon discovering some fundamental intrinsic unknown having finally revealed itself.

So, what's your point because frankly I have no idea what you're trying to say except that it seems to be what you always say!

I am in the minority since I don't accept either the scientific view on the purpose of life or the religious view that of a personal God dictating morals. The scientific view is that life has no purpose and it seems naive to insist that a personal God would invite all the horrors we witness. There must be a better explanation it seems only a few are aware of. I've been hoping someone would suggest an alternative that satisfies the scientific mind and offers meaning for the heart drawn to religion.

I'm surprised that more have not thought on this question of the purpose of life. It seems the scientific view and the religious view of a personal God are not satisfying yet many accept one or the other. Maybe another will join who has thought on the objective purpose of life and human life in particular and we could discuss it.

[Belinda]

Nick A wrote:

The reason people have difficulty with Meno's paradox is that they try to reason it by associative thought rather than noesis. According to Plato we have four qualities of reason beginning from the top down:

noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought)
pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

The example of noesis that Christians have recourse to is the life of Jesus (or of Jesus Christ if you mythologise). I say "the life of Jesus" as differentiated from the moral code as expounded by Jesus. We can see people living real lives today which reflect to some degree the life of Jesus so the life of Jesus is not mere Biblical hearsay but is substantiated by objective observations through honest and replicable reportage and personal experience of living or deceased reflections of the life of Jesus. As is well known there are avatars of God for sects and humanisms other than the Christian sect.

Personal anecdotes, and novels if they are supported by anthropological or historical evidence, also provide means to noesis.



Dianoia is what we mostly deal with here as well as we can, each of us. Online forums are not suited ,so it seems, to expressive writing. Also we have a lot of pistis, a word that's ripe for puns.

I guess Plato disdained eikasia because he did not know the uses of science fiction and thought experiments.

[Belinda]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

Dionysus is. So the fair statement is to note, and be honest in stating, that there are some things about Life that simply are. They cannot be repressed ultimately. They will always resurge. A simple, intelligible metaphor is to visualize the powerful life-sap coursing through a tree. Or the image of when a tree is cut and the saplings sprout again, indomitably. There you have it! The old gods will never go away because what they are, are processes that are part-and-parcel of Life and lived experience. Be that Dionysian ecstasy of all that Aphrodite connotes -- this is the core of Life itself.

Looking for Spinoza by Antonio Damasio , and Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen deal with the happy synthesis of Dionysus and Apollo.

[Dubious]

Does this make sense to you; the idea that the universe is an interconnected whole we are a part of which only a few can understand?

This idea was long integrated even in the most ancient societies. I fail to see what's new!

A real person would be one who has experienced what leads to deductive reason and understands how inductive reason, when based on the revelations of deductive reason, furthers the cause leading to human purpose. Can such people exist in the modern world anymore? If so they are few and far between

No amount of inductive, deductive or abductive reasoning will lead to discovering human purpose. To discover such, there has to be such. No one ever, not even Einstein - whom you're so fond of quoting - could discover anything amounting to purpose in any of the processes known to science. Every natural process or event so far understood - which is a lot - is not programmed or predetermined by any measure of intent. Purpose has no place in science: but if you're a mystic or theist that perspective changes radically.

On the other hand there is nothing that stipulates imagination supervised by logic, can't lead in what amounts to a revelation. I'm quite sure that Einstein and very many others have had that feeling upon discovering some fundamental intrinsic unknown having finally revealed itself.

So, what's your point because frankly I have no idea what you're trying to say except that it seems to be what you always say!

I am in the minority since I don't accept either the scientific view on the purpose of life or the religious view that of a personal God dictating morals. The scientific view is that life has no purpose and it seems naive to insist that a personal God would invite all the horrors we witness. There must be a better explanation it seems only a few are aware of. I've been hoping someone would suggest an alternative that satisfies the scientific mind and offers meaning for the heart drawn to religion.

I'm surprised that more have not thought on this question of the purpose of life. It seems the scientific view and the religious view of a personal God are not satisfying yet many accept one or the other. Maybe another will join who has thought on the objective purpose of life and human life in particular and we could discuss it.

Hasn't that been interminably discussed already under the rubric of "What is the meaning of life" type of question! As an "objective", it would have to flow from the outside-in almost as if such a mainstay could be scientifically established which obviously then wouldn't refer only to human life.

Only subjective views are possible since purpose or meaning has no function in the cosmos. What seems to be objective is the functional need of consciousness - the human kind at least - to devise a purpose or destiny for itself which it has never ceased to do in one form or another. It's a fixed yearning to transcend the simply objective by customizing it into a more personal, agreeable reality.

It's not unlike decorating a Christmas tree. The tree is an objective fact naturally grown, the same for everyone. It's the way we decorate it which customizes it according to our own preferences.

Any definition of Purpose upon an indifferent universe operates in much the same way.

[Nick_A]

This idea was long integrated even in the most ancient societies. I fail to see what's new!

No amount of inductive, deductive or abductive reasoning will lead to discovering human purpose. To discover such, there has to be such. No one ever, not even Einstein - whom you're so fond of quoting - could discover anything amounting to purpose in any of the processes known to science. Every natural process or event so far understood - which is a lot - is not programmed or predetermined by any measure of intent. Purpose has no place in science: but if you're a mystic or theist that perspective changes radically.

On the other hand there is nothing that stipulates imagination supervised by logic, can't lead in what amounts to a revelation. I'm quite sure that Einstein and very many others have had that feeling upon discovering some fundamental intrinsic unknown having finally revealed itself.

So, what's your point because frankly I have no idea what you're trying to say except that it seems to be what you always say!

I am in the minority since I don't accept either the scientific view on the purpose of life or the religious view that of a personal God dictating morals. The scientific view is that life has no purpose and it seems naive to insist that a personal God would invite all the horrors we witness. There must be a better explanation it seems only a few are aware of. I've been hoping someone would suggest an alternative that satisfies the scientific mind and offers meaning for the heart drawn to religion.

I'm surprised that more have not thought on this question of the purpose of life. It seems the scientific view and the religious view of a personal God are not satisfying yet many accept one or the other. Maybe another will join who has thought on the objective purpose of life and human life in particular and we could discuss it.

Hasn't that been interminably discussed already under the rubric of "What is the meaning of life" type of question! As an "objective", it would have to flow from the outside-in almost as if such a mainstay could be scientifically established which obviously then wouldn't refer only to human life.

Only subjective views are possible since purpose or meaning has no function in the cosmos. What seems to be objective is the functional need of consciousness - the human kind at least - to devise a purpose or destiny for itself which it has never ceased to do in one form or another. It's a fixed yearning to transcend the simply objective by customizing it into a more personal, agreeable reality.

It's not unlike decorating a Christmas tree. The tree is an objective fact naturally grown, the same for everyone. It's the way we decorate it which customizes it according to our own preferences.

Any definition of Purpose upon an indifferent universe operates in much the same way.

A seeker of truth when pondering our universe is struck by the deep question of its purpose. It seems to be an infinite living machine functioning as a whole but why? Can something so vast be just an accident? This doesn't make sense. Then the seeker of truth considers the normal explanation of a personal God created universe with the intent of teaching morality. But again the question is why? Why not just create the perfect universe? You may be content to say this vast living machine is just an accident with no purpose. But there are others who prefer to think deeper and contemplate "why". There must be a logical premise which doesn't insult the scientific mind but yet satisfies the needs of the heart to feel meaning. I believe it is known but humanity as a whole is not ready to contemplate it so remains in the background.

[DPMartin]

the struggle between cold Apollonian categorization and Dionysiac lust and chaos really doesn’t apply in true Christianity (born of the Holy Spirit). Man’s nature and God nature are not the same nor do they coexist. A real Christian is one who lives and walks in the Spirit, Spirit of God, therefore God’s nature and ways, that replaces the man’s nature (hence Paul’s old man new man discussion). John also explains dual mindedness isn’t a walk with the Lord his God in Christ.

the struggle between cold Apollonian categorization and Dionysiac lust and chaos is man’s nature such as self-discipline is merely survival instinct to have a desire fulfilled (meet a goal) or maintain what is valued, that shouldn’t be misconstrued as God’s nature manifested in man.

Listen everyone! DPMartin knows what "a true Christian " is. Good for you. DPMartin!

its to bad you have a problem with that

[DPMartin]

the struggle between cold Apollonian categorization and Dionysiac lust and chaos really doesn’t apply in true Christianity (born of the Holy Spirit). Man’s nature and God nature are not the same nor do they coexist. A real Christian is one who lives and walks in the Spirit, Spirit of God, therefore God’s nature and ways, that replaces the man’s nature (hence Paul’s old man new man discussion). John also explains dual mindedness isn’t a walk with the Lord his God in Christ.

the struggle between cold Apollonian categorization and Dionysiac lust and chaos is man’s nature such as self-discipline is merely survival instinct to have a desire fulfilled (meet a goal) or maintain what is valued, that shouldn’t be misconstrued as God’s nature manifested in man.

Quite true. A Christian is one who walks in the precepts of Christ. A person who wants to be a Christian but cannot is a pre-Christian while a person with no interest is a non-Christian. The question becomes how a pre-Christian becomes a Christian.

its not a problem, Jesus explains in detail in Gospel according to John chapter 3

[DPMartin]

the struggle between cold Apollonian categorization and Dionysiac lust and chaos really doesn’t apply in true Christianity (born of the Holy Spirit). Man’s nature and God nature are not the same nor do they coexist. A real Christian is one who lives and walks in the Spirit, Spirit of God, therefore God’s nature and ways, that replaces the man’s nature (hence Paul’s old man new man discussion). John also explains dual mindedness isn’t a walk with the Lord his God in Christ.

the struggle between cold Apollonian categorization and Dionysiac lust and chaos is man’s nature such as self-discipline is merely survival instinct to have a desire fulfilled (meet a goal) or maintain what is valued, that shouldn’t be misconstrued as God’s nature manifested in man.

It doesn't come as a surprise to know that Christianity had so few Christians in it!

its really not my place to say one way or the other, but by observation it seems, what you say is true.

[Nick_A]

the struggle between cold Apollonian categorization and Dionysiac lust and chaos really doesn’t apply in true Christianity (born of the Holy Spirit). Man’s nature and God nature are not the same nor do they coexist. A real Christian is one who lives and walks in the Spirit, Spirit of God, therefore God’s nature and ways, that replaces the man’s nature (hence Paul’s old man new man discussion). John also explains dual mindedness isn’t a walk with the Lord his God in Christ.

the struggle between cold Apollonian categorization and Dionysiac lust and chaos is man’s nature such as self-discipline is merely survival instinct to have a desire fulfilled (meet a goal) or maintain what is valued, that shouldn’t be misconstrued as God’s nature manifested in man.

Quite true. A Christian is one who walks in the precepts of Christ. A person who wants to be a Christian but cannot is a pre-Christian while a person with no interest is a non-Christian. The question becomes how a pre-Christian becomes a Christian.

its not a problem, Jesus explains in detail in Gospel according to John chapter 3

It has been my experience that many claim to be born again but don't walk in the precepts of Christ. They may be pre-Christian but far from being born again

[Alexis Jacobi]

Quite true. A Christian is one who walks in the precepts of Christ. A person who wants to be a Christian but cannot is a pre-Christian while a person with no interest is a non-Christian. The question becomes how a pre-Christian becomes a Christian.

I notice that you left out another category -- the post-Christian. I think we can say, fairly and accurately, that we are all of us living out of a post-Christian 'reality' and also perhaps a perspective. It is not something we are personally responsible for. It happened and we are subsumed by it.

I wanted to find a clip where the protagonist (of the Bergman film Winter Light) asks when looking at the crucifix "And what about those who want to believe but can't"?

[I only found this one which is still illustrative.]

This as I understand it is the essence of the problem: when it comes to pass that as much as one would like to, one cannot rise to the point of having that strange thing called 'belief'; now, who is to blame for that? The individual? But this individual, of which there are fine examples right here among us, is not manifesting a malicious, personal opposition. Yet this is what those so-called committed Christians will say:

"You disbelieve because you are malicious! And soon (a tip of the hat to IC) you will suffer unreal & eternal punishments...because you refused!"

So, to propose 'precepts of Christ' now, today, for us, is in my view and understanding more-or-less impossible. First, because *Christ* has become for us (and maybe always was?) just a image that we hold in our mind, imagination and awareness. I do not propose to suggest that, for a Christian, that Jesus Christ does not communicate with the devotee. That is a central tenet of Christianity, Evangelical Christianity certainly. These Christians see themselves as being actively 'discipled' by Jesus. For many such a notion sounds impossibly weird but I accept it though I cannot, I find, accept it at 'face value'. I have to interpret it.

As we have proceeded through this long conversation I have come to recognize not just the fact that I am a post-Christian but that I am a product of a culture that has moved onto a post-Christian platform of perception. If there is to be any *recovery* of that state of *being a Christian* I will have no choice but to reconsider, re-visualize and reinterpret just about everything that has to do with what Jesus Christ is, what Christianity is, and what Jesus Christ (as God) wants.

Thus I confront what surely God as Providence has established for me to confront. Since God is 'all-knowing' then God knows all of this. And if God sees what is going on, On what basis could God condemn? Who would God condemn? Certainly not the individual, certainly not most individuals. Their lack of belief-possibility was not devised by themselves. It happened.

So I propose that the question for us is actually: How a post-Christian becomes what it is that a post-Christian could possibly become. Because on one level -- I know that some won't accept this -- it could be said that the true post-Christian is Nietzsche himself. If the one true Christian died on the cross and all others are simulacra, then similarly all of us who are in our various ways post-Christians have not yet completed the journey from *belief we can no longer sustain* to a definition (a stance, a metaphysical description) that is still on its way.

Finally, there is another category: A person who wants to be something other than *a Christian*. That person does not feel compelled to be concerned with the terrible threat that looms behind the Christian choice -- eternal punishment for *not getting it*, not toeing the line, not 'seeing' and 'hearing' what was supposed to have been seen and heard. So it is not so much that the Christian choice is refused (it may or it may not have been) but simply that one lives out of another mode -- and there are many. We know that Christianity promises 'life in greater measure', right?

So then those who decide not to enter the stream of Christianity enter the stream they do with the same hope and belief -- to enjoy life in greater measure -- (otherwise why involve oneself?) and they pursue the same object along other paths.

That you blow love upon the summers of my loved ones /
that you blow summer upon those loves of my love . . .

[Dubious]

A seeker of truth when pondering our universe is struck by the deep question of its purpose

The ultimate incipience, that which boils from the void, may not require a purpose but instead create purposes through the conscious entities IT has created. That's the real mystery; how elements combine to create that which questions itself and everything it encounters.

It seems to be an infinite living machine functioning as a whole but why? Can something so vast be just an accident? This doesn't make sense.

One of the most difficult things to understand and come to terms with is that the reason for anything existing is simply due to a process without any inherent purpose. A purpose requires intent; who is there to provide it except those like ourselves capable of imagining there must be such a thing, or what's it all for? Those like yourself somehow feel diminished when no blueprint for a grand design exists, carried forward to establish a meaning for our somewhat late existence. For you, it seems to make no sense that whatever exists had an equal probability of not existing...which turns the question on its head: what's the purpose of something not existing which could have existed?

You may be content to say this vast living machine is just an accident with no purpose. But there are others who prefer to think deeper and contemplate "why".

You may think as deep and contemplate the why's as much as you like, ⁣but that merely defaults to your insistence there MUST be a reason to justify it being there...and that's where god necessarily fills the gap to create its own mystery...not a natural one but an independent creation of that which has no purpose. No matter! The universe won't mind!

There must be a logical premise which doesn't insult the scientific mind but yet satisfies the needs of the heart to feel meaning.

As you say, "the needs of the heart", which, in your personal experience of such needs, you are solely responsible to satisfy supervised by your own awareness. It makes zero sense to me that such needs can only be fulfilled by a universe anointed with some preceding purpose of its own to give humans a sense of value. Regardless, how contemplated, such a requirement is viable only when referenced to overt theism.

[Alexis Jacobi]

One of the most difficult things to understand and come to terms with is that the reason for anything existing is simply due to a process without any inherent purpose. A purpose requires intent; who is there to provide it except those like ourselves capable of imagining there must be such a thing, or what's it all for? Those like yourself somehow feel diminished when no blueprint for a grand design exists, carried forward to establish a meaning for our somewhat late existence. For you, it seems to make no sense that whatever exists had an equal probability of not existing...which turns the question on its head: what's the purpose of something not existing which could have existed?

If break this down to some degree what I believe is being said is: the Universe which we conceive of as arising out of some singular, nearly impossible to conceive event, out which everything arose, did so without there being any *purpose* to it.

This is to say, essentially, that Being -- the fact that Being came to exist when it is contrasted with its other, i.e. no Being, no Manifestation, no Existence of all things (not just our own being) -- arose for no reason at all. But how has this been determined? Who says this?

Yet, enclosed within everything that did manifest, and predating it, inside of it as latency, all that did arise -- the order of things, the arrangements of galactic and planetary systems, and then biological life and ecosystems. How are these things explained? The implication is that *things invent themselves as they go along*. So this contradicts the original assertion it seems to me.

If purposes arise, then, *purpose* had to have been part of that otiginal singularity but again in latent form. Would this not be a necessary proposition? So purpose and intent are parts-and-parcels of things.

When you say that we come along to imagine or invent purpose, against a backdrop of 'reality' that you say does not have it, is elegant in its way. But with your statement you, too, are edging toward the very *blueprint* argument (a necessary one) that you see in Nick's view. The odd thing in your assertion is that you seem not to imagine that the *purpose* and *design* or *blueprint* that we invent or discover had also to have been there in latency. What arises in latent in what it arises out of. How is this explained?

Blueprints arise here. They must necessarily arise in all parts of this Manifestation. The issue is that the blueprint is, let's say, metaphysical because it originates (in conscious thinking beings) in thought. And thought arises in a psyche. So Psyche then is the originator.

What happens when different psyches, from different reaches of the manifestations, or is some other of the (necessary) infinite Manifestations that necessarily must go on -- what happens when the elements of the blueprints are compared? I assert that they would point to a common origin (within a world, a Kosmos, that contains blueprints in latency).

For you, it seems to make no sense that whatever exists had an equal probability of not existing...which turns the question on its head: what's the purpose of something not existing which could have existed?

How do you know this? [that whatever exists had an equal probability of not existing?]

I wonder who has determined the *equal probability* [that nothing could have come to be and thus no Being /Existence have arisen]. The fact is that Being shows itself to have existed. And if this is so Being is infinite and eternal. There is no beginning to it -- except as they say in God but since God is infinite God may create and uncreate at will, that is any 'manifest world'. (My own view is that there are any number of entire Universes that exist simultaneously. Thus whatever or whoever the Creator is is capable of anything. If just one Universe and Kosmos exists, and it is as strange and impossible as our is, I see no reason to apply a limitation. But this is mystic thought I admit).

The question: "What is the purpose of something not existing which could have existed" -- what does this mean?

[RCSaunders]

A seeker of truth when pondering our universe is struck by the deep question of its purpose.

Only the superstitious and irrational ponder that false premise. All purpose and meaning begins and is derived from human consciousness. Except for human chosen objectives and goals there are no purposes or meaning. "The purpose of the universe," is mystic nonsense.

[Alexis Jacobi]

1a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation. b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition.
__________________________________

Only the superstitious and irrational ponder that false premise.

The opposite of superstitious is factual, rational, scientific, etc., but it certainly cannot be fairly said that only those who are superstitious and *irrational* ponder a) the reasons why all this exists, and b) why we exist in it are necessarily irrational or superstitious.

So to ask questions about 'the reason' (why) and about the end of all things, are obviously not at all irrational in themselves. It can be highly rational to ask. However, it is true that there are many superstitious people and superstitious answers.

But when you think about it any answer given must be seen as flawed. How can anyone know? Who therefore can give a definitive answer? All our answers are based on suppositions.

All purpose and meaning begins and is derived from human consciousness. Except for human chosen objectives and goals there are no purposes or meaning. "The purpose of the universe," is mystic nonsense.

Yet we must assume that when we say human consciousness we mean all consciousness that has ever existed, and can ever exist, in our world, in all previous manifestations of *worlds*, in the infinite past and in the infinite future.

'Meaning" and *value" (in my view) must exist as necessities. That is, they exist latently in the unmanifest. Along with everything else!

"The purpose of the universe," is mystic nonsense.

But moreover so is the declarative stance and assertion in the one who made this bold statement. It might not be a mystical statement (derived from a mystical-intuited perception) but it is nonsensical if one were inclined to fairness.

1a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation. b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition.

My assertions are made under pressure from ignorance, fear, trust in semi-rational gasp, as well as false conceptions about causation.

[Dubious]

A seeker of truth when pondering our universe is struck by the deep question of its purpose.

Only the superstitious and irrational ponder that false premise. All purpose and meaning begins and is derived from human consciousness. Except for human chosen objectives and goals there are no purposes or meaning. "The purpose of the universe," is mystic nonsense.

Absolutely! Anyone who occasionally ponders the science of physics and cosmology is at least forced to consider that there's nothing in it which specifies a purpose...not even hypothetically.