The Problem of Religious Philosophy

I disagree: I think the notion of God being all-powerful should be read literally (he can do all that's logically impossible, I believe).

Why is language about God necessarily figurative? I'm still not sure why you say this. Because he is greater than us and we can't understand him? Because he is infinitely greater than us and we can't grasp infinity? What if infinity tells us about itself literally?

It's not just abiding by his prescriptions; it's cultivating honest compassion for your fellow man. The idea is to live as Christ-like a life as possible, and when you do, what you end up with is Heaven-like.

Interpretations can differ. We might say that living a perfectly Christ-like life is to be in Heaven, or we might say that when everyone lives perfectly Christ-like lives we have Heave. But it doesn't really matter: the point is that we should be as good as we can be. We should strive to be saints.

To use the old Buddhist analogy: don't take the finger for the moon. Descriptions of God, the ineffable, point to the truth. That's why they are figurative. God is effable only in that we can discuss God in figurative language, thus, he is ultimately ineffable.

And I would argue that to define a Christian as someone who only looks to Christian scripture for guidance is to define Christianity in such a way as to exclude a great many people who are most certainly Christians.

A great example would be Thomas Merton. He was a Christian monk who studied other religions, especially Buddhism and Taoism. If a Christian can only turn to Christian scripture for guidance, then that Roman Catholic monk was not a Christian. So, I do not think such a definition works.

... my definition does not exclude people who only turn to Christian scripture, rather, it opens the door for people such as myself and Father Merton to be considered Christians

And we already know that my definition is not meaningless

Aedes, I would be grateful if you kindly enlighten us WHAT IS "highly irrational" formal philosophical writings of J.P.Sartre.

But where did you derive this notion to act "Christ-like"? From the scriptures, interpreted literally, no?

Perhaps with your notion of God. However, you speak of "God" as if you're the only making an appraisal here, when you are not -- it is a constructed notion, often times abstract in nature, which anyone can attempt to define if they so choose. If I wanted, I could construct a notion of "God" that was completely effable, just as I can construct a notion of "Goblin" that was completely effable.

Excluding people? You say this as if it's a great fan club or something. Why would one want to be defined as "Christian", anyway?

...why do you want him to be dubbed, "Christian"? Does it take something away from his character or something if he's not?

And it seems as though you really are relishing this door being open. Again, why?

You're right, "meaningless" was a bad choice of word. "Misleading" is a little better. Again, one that is open to all religions, I'd dub spiritual. So, I would call you spiritual instead of Christian (even though you favor Christian scripture). If you're willingly open to acquire all new wisdom (which I feel is an absolutely wonderful thing -- I try to do so myself), why the need to label? Isn't this feeding right into the deviation of religion, the notion of "religion being political, favoritism, pissing contest" that you're so adamant against?

No: from reading scripture and taking the example of this mythologized figure to heart. If I took the example literally, I would be roaming the country looking for money-changing tables to overturn in Jewish temples. Instead, I'm here on this forum.

Yes, you could redefine God for your own purposes: but then we are not talking about the same thing, we would just happen to be using the same word for different concepts.

That's not the point, Zetherin, and you know it. You are trying to turn this discussion about the definition of Christian into a discussion of me. But I'm not the only Christian in the world. Our definition of Christian should be accurate, which means that it should include Catholic monks like Father Merton, people who are obviously Christians.

We do not need the label Christian any more than we need the label "car". It just so happens that these labels are useful.

By showing that Christians are not limited to just Christian scripture, we make evident the open-mindedness of the tradition.

By developing a clear and accurate understanding

"Taking the example of this mythologized figure to heart" is reading something in the scriptures literally! You're taking the notion of "Christ-like" to be actual, in effect, and this was derived from reading -- a literal reading. If you regarded all of this as figurative or metaphorical, you wouldn't be actually applying it!

If every notion of "God" is ineffable, then how in the world would you be talking about the same thing with anyone? Of course, unless you agree on a notion of "God" beforehand -- such as what religion allows. Of course, not everyone is religious, though!

This is the most important part, and I don't want you to overlook this: We all can redefine "God" for our own purposes; it's an abstract notion we can each contemplate. So, of course, yes, we could be talking about two different concepts, and neither of us would be "right" or "wrong"! The nature of an abstract notion, such as "God", begs for this open interpretation!

No, this has nothing to do with you as a person, but rather you feeling the term "Christian" should be more liberally used. I was trying to get to the bottom of it by asking those questions. Again, I ask, why?

You know why it's useful? Because it clarifies, defines an object! Do you know why it would be a bad idea to call "cars" "boats"? Because we need two different definitions for each object for clarity purposes. If we just let every term run it's merry liberal way, we would all be lost linguistically.

No, you're not showing "Christians" are not limited to just "Christian" scripture. You're showing that humans, "Christian" or not, are not limited to any scripture.

Haha, what?! This is what I'm advocating. I'm advocating a distinction between a "Christian" and another that has faith in another religion. You, however, are blurring the distinction. This is my point.

No, if I took the example as being what I should literally do I would be trying to walk on water, looking for Jewish temples with money-changing tables to over turn, and riding into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey. But I do not do these things, thus I do not take the example literally.

It's not that every notion of God is ineffable, it's that effable notions of God are idolatrous. Unless we advocate idolatry, we have to accept effable notions of God as inaccurate and misleading, and downright spiritually dangerous.

We know we are talking about the same thing due to experience. Compare the language of mystics from around the world and I think you will find they are all pointing to the same truth.

But contemplating and figuratively expressing God is not the same thing as defining. And yes, we each have to personally experience God, and that people can figuratively express God in a multitude of ways is wonderful: but this does not mean that we are redefining God when we do so.

The old Confucian principle of the rectification of names: a student is someone who studies, a teacher is someone who teaches, a Christian is someone who practices Christianity. A student might also teach, a teacher might also study, and a Christian might also use non-Christian practices.

Haha, what?! Boohoo, wallah, high-dee hoe?!

You take the example of "Christ-like", illustrated in the scriptures, literally.

Idolatrous? You're sounding more Christian by the minute, now you're on the right track

Basically, I completely disagree with all you've said here: I don't believe any notion of "God" is idolatrous, for to assert idolatry in the first place is to assume there's a 'true' "God" (otherwise, an idol of what?). With an abstract notion such as this, 'truth' is completely relative, which means there are no idols -- everyone has fair say in their contemplation of "God". Again, there's no "wrong" or "right" answer in my eyes.

I also don't think any of this is spiritually dangerous: Any contemplation of an abstract notion such as this is a positive thing in my eyes, and I would never limit someone by saying, "No, you can't think of your notion of "God" as effable, this is idolatry!". This sounds absolutely absurd, and well, rather fundamentalist.

Through contemplation and expression, one can define "God", yes. If someone conjures a notion of "God" that doesn't require experience (like yours), a definition could be made easily. What if I just said "God" is all that exists. This is a notion of "God" I just conjured which has nothing to do with experience. There's really no 're' defining, as everyone defines their own "God" (unless you just mean one redefines a definition of "God" they've already conjured). Are you implying "God" has a definitive identity? I disagree.

If someone wasn't a teacher professionally, I wouldn't call that person a teacher, just as I wouldn't call someone who studies that isn't enrolled in any sort of school, a student. I mean, if we're going to apply a label to everything we've ever experienced or have done, we'd be here for days. I'm a showerer, a typist, a screen-looker, a masturbator, a car-driver, a thinker.. I don't see much clarity here.

Are you somehow increasingly right in proportion to the number of times you restate this claim? I do not think so.

The truth is not relative: our perception of the truth is relative. Just as we can interpret the same poem in different ways, God can be described in different ways. But also just like the interpretation of poetry, some interpretations can be wrong.

People can, ie are free to, think of God however they like. But that does not mean that no matter how God is conceived of that the conception is accurate.

A definition of God that doesn't require experience is possible, but that would be a definition of something that is not, in the vast majority of traditions, God.

If my definition of Christian is inaccurate, prove it. If your definition is accurate, respond to my criticisms.

I'll try again:

"Christ-like" was not just conjured from you out of thin air. You read of "Christ-like" behavior in the scriptures, you took something he said or did as literal, and then constructed, through a culmination of *things you should do* (being "Christ-like") a philosophy to live by.

We'll agree to disagree on this point then as I don't necessarily believe in objective truth, or some kind of 'ultimate' truth you seem to imply. I believe the truth of "God" is relative.

I feel "accuracy" is out of the realm of this discussion. This is where our beliefs differ, as noted above.

So we should limit our own spiritual journey because of tradition? You're not really presenting me with appeal to tradition fallacy, are you?

I don't care what "tradition" tells me. If I want to define "God" as something, I can. I have just as much power as they do in conjuring an abstract notion. My spiritual journey may fly in the face of centuries of tradition, and I should avoid this why??

I did respond to your criticisms. It's quite insulting you act as I haven't attempted the same clarification.

Again, if I took the example as an example of what I should literally do, I would be trying to walk on water. Instead, I took the example as an example of what I should figuratively do, so I try to treat people nicely. Even the teaching "Love thy neighbor as thyself", which I apply, is not something that I apply literally: because literal application of a figure of speech (in this case it is a simile) is, by definition, impossible.

the experience is the same for all of us, but we also all experience the drink in different ways

Geroge Carlin made a joke about this. He decided to redefine God as Joe Pesci. Which is fine: but that doesn't mean that when other people use the word "God" that they are talking about Joe Pesci

Where did you explain to me the way in which your definition does not exclude people like Father Merton from being label "Christian"? Where did you explain to me that your definition can exclude people like Thomas Merton and still be accurate?

If you redefine God as something effable, it's not the your spiritual journey flies in the face of tradition, it's that your no longer talking about spirituality. Unless, of course, we want to redefine spirituality in the same spirit you suggest we can redefine God - which only recreates the problem: using the same word for two entirely different ideas.

Now, I was not insulted because I know you are getting beyond what you understand, but others might very well be insulted, and I wouldn't blame them.

To make that assertion you would have to first experience God.

But let's get to the heart of this problem: how can human notions be applied to God? Isn't that anthropomorphism? And therefore figurative?

We can/i] speak literally about God: and to do so would make us fundamentalists. Check out that quote in Boagie's signature, the Joseph Campbell line.

It's that to speak about God in literal terms is idolatry: it mistakes the finger for the moon. I can describe the moon all day, but my descriptions are not the moon. Only the moon is the moon. Now, the difference between the moon and God is that they are sensed in different ways: We can speak literally about the moon because the moon can be measured. Unless you can find a way to measure God, speaking literally about God is necessarily mistaken.

Ask yourself: why, in terms of spiritual practice, do we argue about and contemplate God? Is the answer 'so that we can better experience God'?

To better understand God is a step in better experiencing God, don't you think?

You say that the experience of God is not inherently important. But that is the aim of spirituality, in any tradition. If you are not on a path toward that experience, you are not on a spiritual path. If all you are looking for is an intellectual understanding, that's fine I suppose, but that is not spirituality: it's the academic study of spirituality rather than the practice of spirituality.

No, I do not experience God as I write on this forum: instead, I use this forum as an outlet for some of my contemplation, a sounding board for my intellectual studies. But I also know that God is not completely understood intellectually.

First off, I want to apologize if I come off as brash, I'm really not trying to attack you, just trying to understand. I think I probe questions in ways that can be interpreted as rude, but I'm really not trying to offend. I want you to know I appreciate the discussion.

I don't understand how you interpret "Love thy neighbor as thyself" to be a figure of speech. I can literally abide, the notion boiling down to: Love everyone, including oneself. To me, "Love thy neighbor as thyself" isn't a figure of speech, but a literal command. If you apply this to your life, you're reading it literally.

So, let me ask, specifically, how you apply "Love thy neighbor as thyself" without applying it literally?

If we are experiencing the soda in different ways, how is the experience the same for all of us? We can define the soda as "sweet", but we cannot be sure everyone is having the same experience (we even know this is not true because not everyone has the same spectrum of taste -- some can literally taste things others cannot)

This aside, I don't see how your analogy is relevant. The taste of soda is a sensory experience, specifically taste, feel. "God" is an abstract notion, open for interpretation: There's no definitive experience, in my opinion. We can measure the amount of sugar in the soda and can define it as X sweet (which is now what I think you're saying by "having the same experience"), but how can we measure an abstract notion?

I believe George Carlin was making the distinction between what he worships and what he prays to, not focusing on the definition of "God", per se. He worshiped the sun, but prayed to Joe Pesci because "He looks like the kind of guy that can get **** done!".

But even if someone was using the word "God" in regards to Joe Pesci, that would be their notion of "God". I may think it's absurd, but who am I to judge?

We just disagree that the word should be liberally used. If we open up the door to everyone, we'll eventually run into a "showerer" problem. What if someone told you they were a "showerer", wouldn't you feel this is a needless inclusion in their description? Well, if you started advocating everyone should be dubbed "Christian", I feel this takes away from a once defined term, and will eventually term into something needless like "showerer". If it doesn't allow some in, then so be it. It doesn't matter if they're in or not, it's a ******* label to begin with. If they want to fight for it, I'd probably just let them win for sake of it (I contested you in order to delve into your psyche). If someone wanted to call themselves an artist simply because they had painted a picture in art class once, and they made a big fuss about it, "Go ahead, son!", I'd shout!

Taken from wikipedia:

"In recent years, spirituality as opposed to religion often carries connotations of a believer having a faith more personal, less dogmatic, more open to new ideas and myriad influences, and more pluralistic than the doctrinal/dogmatic faiths of mature religions"

As noted, "spirituality" does not have to be defined in any sense established by any mature religion. I disagree that defining God as something effable renders me not talking of something spiritual. The "spirit" is just as loosely defined as "God". I can redefine either on a whim, yes.

And if you truly believe I'm getting beyond what I'm capable of understanding, then you're allowed to stop at any moment. I would enjoy the lesson, but if you're not willing to respond to a lessor mind, it's completely understandable (one you perceive was coming off as brash)

"The core of earth is molten rock". I've never experienced the center of the earth. Yet I can talk about it. Similarly, I could say "God is all-powerful, based on what I've read in the Bible and through discussion, without actually experiencing him. So I disagree with your first statment.

Next, just because something is anthropomorphic doesn't mean it's wrong. You can say that something shares a common characteristic with humans (which is anthropomorphism) and be accurately describing it. And if you're accurately describing it, then it's not figurative, it's literal. When I say that monkeys have opposable thumbs, as do humans, I'm not speaking figuratively.

You are correct, description about a thing is not that thing. But if the description is correct, then we have a literal understanding of that thing. I don't get how measurement comes into it, but I don't think I'm ever going to get it either. Are you saying that anything metaphysical inherently can't be measured, and thus all language is necessarily metaphorical? If so, I simply disagree: I think we can speak literally about metaphysics.

No, it is not the answer. It is so I can have a better understanding of God. This is simply different from experience. What about in other realms: is experience the only way we know anything?

I think I agree, true spirituality requires experience. And to ignore this would turn religion into academic study. I am not saying that experience isn't important, only that it's not the ONLY important thing. Yes spirituality is part of religion, but so is academic study.

Notice the difference in practice: reading the teaching figuratively gives us the practice of loving everyone. Reading the figure of speech literally would mean that I love my neighbors as I love myself: and I very much doubt my neighbors would be happy if I tried to pleasure them in the evenings before they go to bed, eh?

On the other hand, I suggest that God is an experience. To back this up, I rely on the mystic experience of those from Buddhist, Christian, Hindu and Muslim traditions. What supports your assertion? You see, I'm talking about the God of faith traditions. If you are talking about some other non-spiritual notion of God, then the whole conversation is futile. It's like I'm trying to talk about cars but you keep insisting that car is a word for book.

In your opinion there is no definite experience. In your opinion God is nothing more than an abstract notion. Okay, that's fine, and there is nothing much else to say.

On the other hand, I suggest that God is an experience. To back this up, I rely on the mystic experience of those from Buddhist, Christian, Hindu and Muslim traditions. What supports your assertion? You see, I'm talking about the God of faith traditions. If you are talking about some other non-spiritual notion of God, then the whole conversation is futile. It's like I'm trying to talk about cars but you keep insisting that car is a word for book.

But my definition of Christian does not open up the door to everyone, but only to those who primarily turn to Christian scripture for scriptural guidance.

It's not that I think you are a lesser mind, it's that I do not believe you have educated yourself very well about any of this.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. I honestly was not aware that was considered a figure of speech. So, then, you basically interpret figures of speech and derive practices from such, contained within the scriptures, correct?

For those writings in the scriptures that aren't figures of speech: Do you abide by these? Is "Do not kill" also a figure of speech?

I understand this is personal, and I do apologize, but I'm very curious as to where one as educated and intelligent as yourself draws the line when abiding by a 2,000 year old scripture.

It's my fault for not clarifying beforehand -- my take on "spirituality" is much less defined, and much more personal. That is, it is not necessarily based on any tradition, of any religion; Whether it's in the form of an enlightened understanding from conversation, guided by introspection, from an experience, or from simply scriptures, I feel it's still part of one's spirituality. If it 'sits well' with one, it 'sits well' with one. It's contemplation, critical thinking on all levels, it's a process, one which I don't believe ever has an end, as every human can still learn, grow, and become more enlightened until death (whichever path they may choose). The only 'support' I have is my experience as a human thus far. All I can say is: This is how I feel.

I feel "God" can be many things for many different people. In other words, I don't feel "God" necessarily has to be intertwined with experience, or any known mystic tradition. I understand your belief, however, and thank you for sharing.

Fair enough, I still find that a bit vague, but then again, as you know, I don't have a definitive solution myself. It appears each case would just have to be subjectively evaluated.

That's fair, but I would like you to know that I consistently contemplate many metaphysical concepts, such as "God", and do quite a bit of writing on the matter. Am I very educated? No, but then again, I don't really understand what I would be 'educated' concerning? I suppose you're speaking of Theological training, but I've made sure not to pick out any religions within this debate as I am very aware I am not that versed in any of them specifically: All I can go off is what I've learned thus far from my own personal journey. I understand you're seeking 'proof' and 'support' for my philosophical ramblings, but I don't really have much. The majority of this is conjured when I sit down and critically think 3-6 hours a day.

As required by my open-mind syndrome, however, I would like to ask you to recommend me some titles which you feel would educate me. Thanks.

I imagine that you are reffering to either Exodus Chapter 20 or Deuteronomy Chapter 5. In both places, God commands "Thou shalt not murder." And that is no figure of speech when it stands alone; however, I would argue that these passages are figurative in that they are narrated by God to Moses. But the commandment not to murder is not a figure of speech and is as direct as can be imagined. Yes, I try to abide by them, not just because they are in scripture, but because they seem to be solid moral teachings.

But let's think about this: if someone defined God as Joe Pesci, would that understanding of God be spiritual? I do not see how.

Sure, and God is many things to many people: we all have the experience in a unique way. My point is that to use the term God in such a way that it has nothing to do with a transcendant experience is to use the word in a way that spiritual people just do not use the word. At that point, you are talking about something else, no matter what you call it.

So, then, there are some things in the Bible you do read literally and abide by? Or, are these just like the "Thou shalt not kill"; you abide by them not only because they're in the scriptures, but because they are 'solid moral teachings'?

If you answer "yes" to the former, then that is what I was speaking about from the beginning.

Well, the best example I can give is



This man believes he is Jesus Christ and the Antichrist, and supposedly has thousands of followers. These followers worship him, believing he is "God", just as one could worship Joe Pesci. Even though I find it ridiculous, I feel this could be a spiritual experience.

Yes, as noted, we simply have different conceptions of "God". For the record, I wasn't trying to say either conception is more 'reasonable'.

Thank you for the book recommendations. Out of all you listed which I'm familiar with, I favor Rumi the most. Part of his well-known writing,

"Beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there"

nearly makes me cry every time I read it. It's one of the more beautiful pieces I've been exposed to.

What these people are doing is something like spirituality, resembling spirituality at the first glance, but is ultimately the very reverse of spirituality. That's probably why you find th whole thing rediculous.

---

Ah, well we would disagree: I think some conceptions, if not more reasonable, are better suited for the spiritual life. It seems to me that when we begin to call God something other than this transcendent experience of spiritual tradition, we are leaving behind spirituality for spiritual materialism.

I've seen you quote that before, and the passage is also one of my favorites, from any source. But how do you interpret this passage? It seems to me that Rumi is suggesting that God is something to be experienced ("there is a field./I will meet you there.") and that academic discussion ("ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing") is not sufficient for spiritual practice: the spiritual seeker has to go to the field and meet God, experience God personally. At least that's how I've read it.