tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post7102532912253095535..comments2024-03-28T08:35:59.048-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Dave uncovers the secret behind belief in God.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-75965631408226270962012-04-08T17:42:51.851-07:002012-04-08T17:42:51.851-07:00I also watched 1xt Methodist on TV. they did their...I also watched 1xt Methodist on TV. they did their eastern thing.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-67278474849028176532012-04-08T17:42:18.171-07:002012-04-08T17:42:18.171-07:00Naw, never did. I was just following the appeal of...Naw, never did. I was just following the appeal of intellectual curiosity and social activism.<br /><br />How will you be medicating in the morning? ;-)<br /><br /><b>Did I say Medicating? I meant Meditating. I don't do eastern syle Medication I say the Jesus prayer and try ot time it with breathing and do Madame Guyon style "silent prayer." wordless reflection no Jesus.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-78984522338540704252012-04-08T17:40:46.473-07:002012-04-08T17:40:46.473-07:00interesting Kristen. I'll check out your blog....interesting Kristen. I'll check out your blog. Peter Marshall, I have never read him but years ago used to hear how go he was.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-39499313713273681622012-04-07T20:32:43.475-07:002012-04-07T20:32:43.475-07:00I have been thinking along these same lines more a...I have been thinking along these same lines more and more lately. That the ways we think about God are not wrong, just limited. But limited is all we've got. In that sense we must expect God to be paradoxical to us, because two ways of thinking about God that seem diametrically opposed may both be grasping part of the truth.<br /><br />I am posting a selection from Peter Marshall's sermon "The Grave in the Garden" on my blog for Easter tomorrow. In the morning, as I always do, I will get up before the rest of the family, put on some sweats, and go out in the back yard to sing hymns and give thanks. Then we will go to Sunday service, and come home for baked ham with pineapple rings.<br /><br />Whatever you do for Easter, Dave and Joe, I pray it will be meaningful for you. Happy Easter!Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-56934245375430557272012-04-07T15:28:17.067-07:002012-04-07T15:28:17.067-07:00Naw, never did. I was just following the appeal of...Naw, never did. I was just following the appeal of intellectual curiosity and social activism.<br /><br />How will you be medicating in the morning? ;-)tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13751519026858836762012-04-07T14:09:03.687-07:002012-04-07T14:09:03.687-07:00you are not wrong to follow your conscience. If yo...you are not wrong to follow your conscience. If you feel that you don't share the faith then that's where you are at the moment. I am curious about what actually happened. It seemed like you did then came back from Africa and everything was different.<br /><br />I will pray and medicate on Christ and the resurrection in the morning as a celebration.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-18522371243083347722012-04-07T10:34:37.378-07:002012-04-07T10:34:37.378-07:00I just wanted to spell things out in case I needed...I just wanted to spell things out in case I needed to apologize for miscommunication or in case there was still some lingering confusion. <br /><br />On a different track, have you done anything for Holy Week? I attended the Eucharistic services for Maundy Thursday and Good Friday, but I did not participate (i.e. no Communion, etc). It feels really hypocritical and disrespectful to participate when I know I have no sense of or faith in Tillichian depth of even the most general kind, let alone when I don't share the beliefs upon which the rituals are based. In that sense my Baptism was completely invalid, unless one assumes it is a magic ritual where only the special words and enchanted objects, rather than the interior state of the individual, are what matters.<br /><br />I considered going to the Easter Vigil tonight, but I would have to go to the Episcopal cathedral in the larger city thirty miles away late in the evening, and it seems like a waste of time and gas when it is just a show I am attending and not anything meaningful. I went last year and it was very massive and had some grandeur, but I'll probably just stay in and read this time.tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-6145090097644977162012-04-07T08:32:19.148-07:002012-04-07T08:32:19.148-07:00DAVE says:
"Actually, I have not tried to “e...DAVE says:<br /><br />"Actually, I have not tried to “expose” people’s reasons for belief. I spotted a pattern in your discussion and debate about God. It wasn’t an attempt to psychoanalyze anyone."<br /><br /><b>I understand that. It's all coll. I was just putting it into an interesting sounding format for argument. Maybe part of the hold habit of being too advaserial I've developed form CARM.<br /><br />I probably need therapy round the close from a team of specialist in Vienna after going on CARM so long.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-27561711270910307782012-04-07T08:28:20.737-07:002012-04-07T08:28:20.737-07:00I am not trying any reductionist tricks. That, alo...I am not trying any reductionist tricks. That, along with claims that I want to deny God or some aspect of God or take away your faith, is the kind of knee-jerk response you have developed when someone challenges an aspect of your theology.<br /><br /><br /><b>It' a habit from being on CARM I guess. I guess the old days when you were an atheist sort of come back for a minute. Old habits, conditioning, Pablov's dogs. Whenever a bell rings I argue with Dave.</b><br /><br /><br /> I have written at least twice in comments over the past month that I was proposing God as beyond personal/impersonal, but that each person would experience the divine based on their own nature. Just because you experience God as love doesn’t mean God is love. Love is the reaction, the way your mind filters or translated the experience. But the nature of what is being responded to is still open.<br /><br /><br /><b>I didn't disagree with that. I guess I've developed the habit of sounding like arguing.</b><br /><br /> If you want to respond with love, then you will want God to be a person. Makes sense. But that doesn’t make God a person. Many explanations of what you experienced are possible. <br /><br /><b>I agree. my final comment waws that I know these are metaphors but we have to respond to the metaphor without literalizing it but without treating it as though ti's not important. Sort of go with the flow of the metaphor.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Some involve God as a person. Some involve God as impersonal. Some involve God as transpersonal. Some involve God as beyond any dichotomy (even a dualistic inclusion) of personal/impersonal. Some involve no God at all. I am not aware how this can be considered a reductionist approach.<br /><br /><b>I would like to see you spelling out in more detail. I'll post them here as a guest spot.</b><br /><br /><br /> I am not attempting to debunk or discredit your beliefs. As I have written on multiple occasions, I may disagree, dislike, or challenge your ideas, but I am not playing the role of spoiler.<br /><br /><b>I understand</b><br /><br /> As you can see, there are many motives and assumptions attributed to my comments that have no relation to what I wrote or intended. This is not a complaint. We are all biased by our own expectations and experiences. I simply strive for increased clarity in communication. I like your bandwidth idea, even if you don’t think it fits. You should revisit it and see what you can make of it.<br /><br /><b>I don't think I did attribute that much to your views.Some things you said were kind of cynical and couple of times you sounded like you were sayign "ah ha!" But I understood that's just the momentary tent on the expression that doesn't convey a ture motive. I don't think I said anything "Dave's true motives are bad, he's a bad man."</b><br /><br /> We all base our views on our own experiences. I have tried to take several views of God, or the divine, or some hidden depth to reality, or what not seriously, including over a year practicing with a Buddhist Sangha, tons of reading books on religion, spirituality, and contemplation in my free time, nearly two years doing going to weekly Eucharistic services and performing the Daily Office, and more besides. I am hardly someone who is predisposed to despising religion or spirituality.<br /><br /> However, as my experience is different I can see things you can’t, just as you can see things I miss. Take my critiques and concerns as you will, but I don’t see God as a person as sensible, necessary, or desirable. It may have limited use and in fact may turn out to be an initially expedient or required fallacy, but overall it seems problematic.<br /> 5:28 PM <br /><br /><b>It's all cool.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-50095254693861084082012-04-06T17:28:25.627-07:002012-04-06T17:28:25.627-07:00I am not trying any reductionist tricks. That, alo...<i>I am not trying any reductionist tricks.</i> That, along with claims that I want to deny God or some aspect of God or take away your faith, is the kind of knee-jerk response you have developed when someone challenges an aspect of your theology. I have written at least twice in comments over the past month that I was proposing God as beyond personal/impersonal, but that each person would experience the divine based on their own nature. Just because you experience God as love doesn’t mean God is love. Love is the reaction, the way your mind filters or translated the experience. But the nature of what is being responded to is still open. <br /><br />If you want to respond with love, then you will want God to be a person. Makes sense. But that doesn’t make God a person. Many explanations of what you experienced are possible. Some involve God as a person. Some involve God as impersonal. Some involve God as transpersonal. Some involve God as beyond any dichotomy (even a dualistic inclusion) of personal/impersonal. Some involve no God at all. I am not aware how this can be considered a reductionist approach.<br /><br /><i>I am not attempting to debunk or discredit your beliefs.</i> As I have written on multiple occasions, I may disagree, dislike, or challenge your ideas, but I am not playing the role of spoiler.<br /><br />As you can see, there are many motives and assumptions attributed to my comments that have no relation to what I wrote or intended. This is not a complaint. We are all biased by our own expectations and experiences. I simply strive for increased clarity in communication. I like your bandwidth idea, even if you don’t think it fits. You should revisit it and see what you can make of it. <br /><br />We all base our views on our own experiences. I have tried to take several views of God, or the divine, or some hidden depth to reality, or what not seriously, including over a year practicing with a Buddhist Sangha, tons of reading books on religion, spirituality, and contemplation in my free time, nearly two years doing going to weekly Eucharistic services and performing the Daily Office, and more besides. I am hardly someone who is predisposed to despising religion or spirituality. <br /><br />However, as my experience is different I can see things you can’t, just as you can see things I miss. Take my critiques and concerns as you will, but I don’t see God as a person as sensible, necessary, or desirable. It may have limited use and in fact may turn out to be an initially expedient or required fallacy, but overall it seems problematic.tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-79890774311709370062012-04-06T17:27:32.445-07:002012-04-06T17:27:32.445-07:00Actually, I have not tried to “expose” people’s re...Actually, I have not tried to “expose” people’s reasons for belief. I spotted a pattern in your discussion and debate about God. It wasn’t an attempt to psychoanalyze anyone. <br /><br />If I wanted to do that, I would have written much more. You are reading, as always, far more into what I wrote than what was there or what was intended, and revealing your own assumptions in the process.<br /><br />For example:<br /><br /> <i>I have never suggested that wanting something to be true is an argument that the particular something is not true</i>, any more than wanting something to be true is an argument that it is.<br /><br /><i>I have not “overlooked” other things you have written. The pattern I detected subsumes and incorporates them.</i> You seem to want to believe in a personal deity as Father but also want to go for a mystic/Eastern style ineffable Being. A very large part of your efforts are aimed at reconciling these two desires. It is related your question for a rational warrant, as if you have to find permission to believe in God as a supreme person, an omnipotent individual who loves you.<br /><br />Now, if I wanted to actually psychoanalyze you, I would ask why you would feel the need to get such permission, whose permission it is you might feel you need, and how that ties together with a strong desire to have skeptics and atheists see your positions on these matters as credible and legitimate. But exploring such issues is not my desire or intent.<br /><br /><i>I have no desire to deny God self-awareness.</i> I also have no reason to presume the existence of God as self-aware or otherwise. The effort to try to draw an equivalence here (I want to deny it as much as you want to believe it) is baseless. My arguments have generally questioned God as an *individual* with self-awareness, i.e. God as a person with a distinct mind, and I have previously stated that this is because it seems to be an unnecessary view of God that A) looks like a case of making God in our own image and B) invites the problems of theodicy. Those ought to be legitimate concerns of any serious theology.<br /><br /><i>I do not think I have discovered some deep dark secret.</i> I think it is a fairly apparent pattern.<br /><br />(continued below)tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.com