much ado about nothing (again!)

Originally posted by knightmeister
So what use is a religion whoose ultimate reality cannot be understood at all? Theism does not say God can be completely understood but that he can be known personally and is relevant to our lives. God is still transcendent but also present with us. Any God or religion needs to be relevant otherwise what's the point?

It sounds like what you are saying is that it is not important what the reality is so much as whether or not your concept of God is relevant to your life. You start with a need and fill that need by inventing a concept. Then you claim the concept is reality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It sounds like what you are saying is that it is not important what the reality is so much as whether or not your concept of God is relevant to your life. You start with a need and fill that need by inventing a concept. Then you claim the concept is reality.

I don't think so, our needs are there no matter what, what is within
reality is also here no matter what. Our views of reality start getting
built as soon as we are aware.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't think so, our needs are there no matter what, what is within
reality is also here no matter what. Our views of reality start getting
built as soon as we are aware.
Kelly

I was responding to knightmeisters post in which he said that a religion which states that you cannot know anything the ultimate reality is of no use to him. The question then is, what if the reality is that you cannot know anything about the ultimate reality?
He says "Any God or religion needs to be relevant otherwise what's the point?".
Does this mean that:
1. We must all have a religion.
2. That religion must be relevant to us.
If so then if the reality is that you cannot know anything the ultimate reality then 1. and 2. imply you must invent a 'false' religion.

This is very similar to a popular saying "If I am wrong, I don't want to be right"

Originally posted by knightmeister
So what use is a religion whoose ultimate reality cannot be understood at all? Theism does not say God can be completely understood but that he can be known personally and is relevant to our lives. God is still transcendent but also present with us. Any God or religion needs to be relevant otherwise what's the point?

This is a perfect example of your Man-centric views. Reality is reality; it doesn't need to be "relevant" to you. Your type of God is inherently implausible not matter what psychological benefits you personally might derive from his pretended existence. And knowledge of the truth is "relevant" to me even if that truth doesn't give my ego the bump you feel is soooooooooooooooooooo necessary to a religion/philosophy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I was responding to knightmeisters post in which he said that a religion which states that you cannot know anything the ultimate reality is of no use to him. The question then is, what if the reality is that you cannot know anything about the ultimate reality?
He says "Any God or religion needs to be relevant otherwise what's the point?".
Does this mean ...[text shortened]... n.

This is very similar to a popular saying "If I am wrong, I don't want to be right"

That coin has two sides does it not; I'm a firm believer we all have
our own personal world views about all the how and whys the universe
is the way it is with or without God, or gods. So each of us justifies our
belief system, when it comes to the beginning we each start to talk
about the great constant, with me it is God, with an atheist it is the
great nothing, but it is unavoidable. Human constructs are started to
deal with it, and we all run into issues that those that disagree with us
start to point out, such as “prove God” or “show me how everything
can come from nothing”, and we dance around what we cannot prove
yet think the other should accept upon faith, the faith we have since
all of us are displaying beliefs about things that are not easily
understood with human logic.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
It sounds like what you are saying is that it is not important what the reality is so much as whether or not your concept of God is relevant to your life. You start with a need and fill that need by inventing a concept. Then you claim the concept is reality.

That may be what it "sounds like" but it was obviously not what I was saying. The point I was making was that if you posit a God and he makes no difference to anything then it's all fine and dandy but you might as well move on and just play around with theoretical mathematical models. It may be that God does exist but is completely irrelevant to our lives , if this is the kind of "god" or ultimate reality marauder is on about then why get all hot and bothered about it? A god that is not relevant to our lives is not important full stop . Such a god is an intellectual curiousity.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I was responding to knightmeisters post in which he said that a religion which states that you cannot know anything the ultimate reality is of no use to him. The question then is, what if the reality is that you cannot know anything about the ultimate reality?
He says "Any God or religion needs to be relevant otherwise what's the point?".
Does this mean ...[text shortened]... n.

This is very similar to a popular saying "If I am wrong, I don't want to be right"

This is very similar to a popular saying "If I am wrong, I don't want to be right" WHITEY

Similar , but not the same. My point has been subtly misrepresented. Reality is what it is , once we journey on a road to try and find spiritual/ultimate reality we must ask ourselves why we are bothering. If Christians posited a god who had no interest in justice , love , suffering , redemption then you would be one of the first to criticize such a god as irrelevant.

This is not the same as saying " Ultimate reality/god is relevant to our lives because he is " ...it is saying " god may or may not be relevant to our lives but if he's not then what's the point in waffling on about such a god"

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is a perfect example of your Man-centric views. Reality is reality; it doesn't need to be "relevant" to you. Your type of God is inherently implausible not matter what psychological benefits you personally might derive from his pretended existence. And knowledge of the truth is "relevant" to me even if that truth doesn't give my ego the bump you feel is soooooooooooooooooooo necessary to a religion/philosophy.

And knowledge of the truth is "relevant" to me even if that truth doesn't give my ego the bump you feel is soooooooooooooooooooo necessary to a religion/philosophy.MARAUDER

So your god IS relevant to you then!!!! You must get something out of it to bother so much telling me this (and yet you criticise me for claiming my God is relevant????). What do you get out of your "religion"??

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is a perfect example of your Man-centric views. Reality is reality; it doesn't need to be "relevant" to you. Your type of God is inherently implausible not matter what psychological benefits you personally might derive from his pretended existence. And knowledge of the truth is "relevant" to me even if that truth doesn't give my ego the bump you feel is soooooooooooooooooooo necessary to a religion/philosophy.

This is a perfect example of your Man-centric views. Reality is reality; it doesn't need to be "relevant" to you.MARAUDER

So shut up and stop going on about your brahman then ! If what you say is true then you are wasting your time and you might as well go off and read a book!! Why would I need or want to know anything about your religion? , it's...erhem....irrelevant!

Originally posted by knightmeister
And knowledge of the truth is "relevant" to me even if that truth doesn't give my ego the bump you feel is soooooooooooooooooooo necessary to a religion/philosophy.MARAUDER

So your god IS relevant to you then!!!! You must get something out of it to bother so much telling me this (and yet you criticise me for claiming my God is relevant????). What do you get out of your "religion"??

I don't have or need a god. I certainly won't believe in one just to make myself feel better like you apparently do.

As far as what someone gets out of thinking about ultimate issues, I give you this from Kurt Vonnegut:

Tiger got to hunt,
Bird got to fly,
Man got to sit and wonder "Why, why, why".

Tiger got to rest,
Bird got to land,
Man got to tell himself he understand.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is a perfect example of your Man-centric views. Reality is reality; it doesn't need to be "relevant" to you. Your type of God is inherently implausible not matter what psychological benefits you personally might derive from his pretended existence. And knowledge of the truth is "relevant" to me even if that truth doesn't give my ego the bump you feel is soooooooooooooooooooo necessary to a religion/philosophy.

Your type of God is inherently implausible not matter what psychological benefits you personally might derive from his pretended existenceMARAUDER

Which God are you refering to ? The delusional self serving god that is a crutch to the masses and a travesty of true Christianity and put forward by churches everywhere , or the underground, living .breathing God who if he got hold of your life would be anything but "man centric"?

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is a perfect example of your Man-centric views. Reality is reality; it doesn't need to be "relevant" to you.MARAUDER

So shut up and stop going on about your brahman then ! If what you say is true then you are wasting your time and you might as well go off and read a book!! Why would I need or want to know anything about your religion? , it's...erhem....irrelevant!

I do read books; I suggest you give it a try. More knowledge never hurts.

If you are uninterested in other's views on religion/philosophy, why do you post on this forum?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Your type of God is inherently implausible not matter what psychological benefits you personally might derive from his pretended existenceMARAUDER

Which God are you refering to ? The delusional self serving god that is a crutch to the masses and a travesty of true Christianity and put forward by churches everywhere , or the underground, living .breathing God who if he got hold of your life would be anything but "man centric"?

The one YOU are talking about when you insist that God be personally involved in human beings. And don't waste your time evangelizing; stay on topic.

EDIT: Specifically this God: while Western theism insists that it's anthromorphic God can be known, interacts (or has interacted) directly with Man and has attributes that can be understood and described.

If you don't agree that this describes the God you believe in, they please state what parts you feel are incorrect.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The one YOU are talking about when you insist that God be personally involved in human beings. And don't waste your time evangelizing; stay on topic.

EDIT: Specifically this God: while Western theism insists that it's anthromorphic God can be known, interacts (or has interacted) directly with Man and has attributes that can be understood and described ...[text shortened]... t this describes the God you believe in, they please state what parts you feel are incorrect.

EDIT: Specifically this God: while Western theism insists that it's anthromorphic God can be known, interacts (or has interacted) directly with Man and has attributes that can be understood and described.
MARAUDER

This is the God that I mean . However , it was the ego boosting god I was refuting.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The one YOU are talking about when you insist that God be personally involved in human beings. And don't waste your time evangelizing; stay on topic.

EDIT: Specifically this God: while Western theism insists that it's anthromorphic God can be known, interacts (or has interacted) directly with Man and has attributes that can be understood and described ...[text shortened]... t this describes the God you believe in, they please state what parts you feel are incorrect.

And don't waste your time evangelizing; stay on topic. MARAUDER

I wasn't the one who laucnhed into paragraphs of brahmic rhetoric that was at best loosely connected with the thread!!!