Ask a Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist Christian Stuff

[quatona]

Isn't that why anyone believes anything, really?

No, some claim it to be about the truth/Truth/TRUTH.
However, from my perspective you get a resounding: Yes, sure!
I was just asking if I hadn´t missed anything.

The above (last post), plus an answer that's a little weird: the biggest convincer in any setting aside from deep, dark, abstract philosophy is the way the person presenting the argument goes about things. I might think communists are evil, until I realize my friend, who is a very nice and caring person, presents his case with equal niceness and care. I wrote this thought down last night (murder it as you will):

We are compelled more by beauty than thought, and the Aristotelean creation of the self ethically is an aspect of beauty. From this, it is at least just as compelling as objective truth for someone to be persuaded by a system of thought that results in a more beautiful person than an alternative. Hence Christianity, when it’s perceived correctly and lived fully, results in an inward inclination to believe parallel to any evidence. This is one of the major reasons why living out our faith is an absolute requirement.​

The same could be claimed for any belief system. The point is that we don't just consider things in an objective conceptual sense regarding the argument, but also the arguer. We're looking for systems that aren't merely true, but also (and moreso perhaps) result in a better person (beautiful here means something perceived for its own sake, like when we say "that was a beautiful thing you did"). There's something compulsive about a system that results in a happier person.

I agree, to a certain extent.
Speaking for myself, though, I feel the way you describe it overstates its importance by far.
Firstly, I am not even sure what the happiness of this person resulted from. His metaphysical belief system - besides the option that it is the sole cause for his happiness - could be only contributing to it to a certain degree, could have nothing to do with it, or the causation could even be reversed: being a happy person, he can afford the metaphysical view he holds.

Secondly (notwithstanding the deep impression that a happy person leaves me with), at best I would conclude that he has succeeded in tailoring himself a metaphysical view that not only fits his individual needs perfectly, but also matches his idea of beauty; and possibly that he has attached to it some fancy applications that have personal meaning to him.
That´s a great thing to do and to have!
It just doesn´t mean it suits everybody in general, or me in particular.

E.g. you have told me that a certain concept of "justice" has a high value for you (a concept of justice that I personally couldn´t care less about). Noticing that this "justice" cannot be had here on earth, you naturally incorporate it into your metaphysical view (there is a God who will provide this justice in the afterlife). I can see why that might make you a better and happier person, and that´s fine.
Just doesn´t mean that it does anything for me.

So don't be. I'd say though (and this is me being an evil therapist) that there is at least some granule of need or inclination or else you'd be debating on another board. Maybe.

Ah, nonsense. My presence in the philosophy forum doesn´t demonstrate my need or inclination towards the ComplicatedEcumenicalExistentialistUniversalists view than your presence demonstrates your need or inclination towards EvilAtheism or RadicalConstructivism or FundyDivineCommandTheory.

I´m just interested in the ways different people create their second level reality. That´s all.
That´s why I asked in a "neat" way.

 

[Received]

I agree, to a certain extent.
Speaking for myself, though, I feel the way you describe it overstates its importance by far.
Firstly, I am not even sure what the happiness of this person resulted from. His metaphysical belief system - besides the option that it is the sole cause for his happiness - could be only contributing to it to a certain degree, could have nothing to do with it, or the causation could even be reversed: being a happy person, he can afford the metaphysical view he holds.

You gotta read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, then. It's a trudge, for sure, but a brilliant one. A would say that it isn't a belief that results in happiness so much as a life lived in accordance with virtue, which presupposes seeking the good, which for him means contemplating things all day, and of course for us would be different (different conceptions of the virtues presuppose a different conception of the paradigmatic human being from which his actions and character are chopped up and made into virtues for us to follow). So probably with Aristotle, he'd hold what you conclude: that metaphysical views are the result of, or a symptom of, a happy person, which is a person with a qualitative type of character. But he'd also say that attempting to reason things out and think of things in general is part of the path of becoming a virtuous, therefore happy (eudaimonia, flourishing), self.

Secondly (notwithstanding the deep impression that a happy person leaves me with), at best I would conclude that he has succeeded in tailoring himself a metaphysical view that not only fits his individual needs perfectly, but also matches his idea of beauty; and possibly that he has attached to it some fancy applications that have personal meaning to him.
That´s a great thing to do and to have!
It just doesn´t mean it suits everybody in general, or me in particular.

That seems to assume that all conceptions of what is beautiful (which to A is in the same field as virtue, character, the good, and happiness) are equal rather than hierarchical.

E.g. you have told me that a certain concept of "justice" has a high value for you (a concept of justice that I personally couldn´t care less about). Noticing that this "justice" cannot be had here on earth, you naturally incorporate it into your metaphysical view (there is a God who will provide this justice in the afterlife). I can see why that might make you a better and happier person, and that´s fine.
Just doesn´t mean that it does anything for me.

I think it would if you were to really grasp a person who executed this justice as part of his network of virtues, compared to, say, someone who doesn't hold to justice in general or even has the same conception of justice. "Whoa," you'd say, "there's something about this guy and his sense of justice that just seems, well, right," or beautiful, or good, or virtuous, or attributing to his happiness.

Ah, nonsense. My presence in the philosophy forum doesn´t demonstrate my need or inclination towards the ComplicatedEcumenicalExistentialistUniversalists view than your presence demonstrates your need or inclination towards EvilAtheism or RadicalConstructivism or FundyDivineCommandTheory.

I´m just interested in the ways different people create their second level reality. That´s all.
That´s why I asked in a "neat" way.

Fair enough.

 

[quatona]

You gotta read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, then. It's a trudge, for sure, but a brilliant one. A would say that it isn't a belief that results in happiness so much as a life lived in accordance with virtue, which presupposes seeking the good, which for him means contemplating things all day, and of course for us would be different (different conceptions of the virtues presuppose a different conception of the paradigmatic human being from which his actions and character are chopped up and made into virtues for us to follow). So probably with Aristotle, he'd hold what you conclude: that metaphysical views are the result of, or a symptom of, a happy person, which is a person with a qualitative type of character. But he'd also say that attempting to reason things out and think of things in general is part of the path of becoming a virtuous, therefore happy (eudaimonia, flourishing), self.

Except that it wasn´t what I concluded. I just mentioned it as one of several possible explanations.

That seems to assume that all conceptions of what is beautiful (which to A is in the same field as virtue, character, the good, and happiness) are equal rather than hierarchical.

I fail to see how it does (and I am not A, btw., and don´t want to be associated with him).
I am assuming, however, that different people - due to different needs, different parental and societal conditioning, due to different genetic make up, due to different paths and stages of self-actualization, and probably a couple of more differences - perceive different things as beautiful, characterful, charismatic, happy (or else we´d all be married to the same lady ), or have different personal hierarchies.
Since you were the one who brought up the impression that a person leaves with others for the key criterium, you were the one who left the field of objective hierarchies (should there exist such) as relevant. This impression has a lot to do with the person who is having it and her personal needs - not with an objective hierarchy (should there exist such).

Not to Godwin this thread, but you´d just have to acknowledge how hugely charismatic Hitler was perceived by millions of people (or read the incredible amount of love letters he received) in order to forget about this approach.

I think it would if you were to really grasp a person who executed this justice as part of his network of virtues, compared to, say, someone who doesn't hold to justice in general or even has the same conception of justice. "Whoa," you'd say, "there's something about this guy and his sense of justice that just seems, well, right," or beautiful, or good, or virtuous, or attributing to his happiness.

All I´d conclude - in avoiding to jump at conclusions - would be what I have written in my last post. Which would be quite a huge compliment for his accomplishment of tailoring himself a metaphysical view that appears to fit him perfectly, and on top for walking the way he talks (and, yes, THAT I do consider a virtue).
That´s far from considering his concept "right", "good" or worth of adopting, though.

 

[Received]

Except that it wasn´t what I concluded. I just mentioned it as one of several possible explanations.

I know, you're quatona, which means you like not doing the most cool thing (which is why you prefer classical over acoustic).

(Actually I think classical is rad, but I'm jealous because I have no money.)

[Actually I think 12-string acoustics are best, minus the tuning part.]

I fail to see how it does (and I am not A, btw., and don´t want to be associated with him).
I am assuming, however, that different people - due to different needs, different parental and societal conditioning, due to different genetic make up, due to different paths and stages of self-actualization, and probably a couple of more differences - perceive different things as beautiful, characterful, charismatic, happy (or else we´d all be married to the same lady ), or have different personal hierarchies.
Since you were the one who brought up the impression that a person leaves with others for the key criterium, you were the one who left the field of objective hierarchies (should there exist such) as relevant. This impression has a lot to do with the person who is having it and her personal needs - not with an objective hierarchy (should there exist such).

Not to Godwin this thread, but you´d just have to acknowledge how hugely charismatic Hitler was perceived by millions of people (or read the incredible amount of love letters he received) in order to forget about this approach.

Sounds like an impasse. I say there's an objective hierarchy which, precisely according to the differences you mentioned above, actualizes itself in different ways; you're saying there is no objective hierarchy. But important to my point is not just the idea that people have different conceptions of hierarchies, but that different people can be judged as more or less happy (flourishing, which goes way beyond good feelings) according to the values they have. This means, e.g., that not all cultures are created equal. Hitler was *not* a person who flourished in a truly virtuous sense; neither were his followers, who were at the very least the middle of the barrel.

 

[quatona]

I know, you're quatona, which means you like not doing the most cool thing (which is why you prefer classical over acoustic).

(Actually I think classical is rad, but I'm jealous because I have no money.)

[Actually I think 12-string acoustics are best, minus the tuning part.]

I think 12-string sucks. I mean, I suck on 12-string.

Currently I am focussing on the electric and the bass, playing heavy rock with my new band.

Sounds like an impasse. I say there's an objective hierarchy which, precisely according to the differences you mentioned above, actualizes itself in different ways; you're saying there is no objective hierarchy.

No, I didn´t say that. Au contraire, my argument acepted the premise that there is such a hierarchy (or at least didn´t require me to reject it).

But important to my point is not just the idea that people have different conceptions of hierarchies, but that different people can be judged as more or less happy (flourishing, which goes way beyond good feelings) according to the values they have. This means, e.g., that not all cultures are created equal. Hitler was *not* a person who flourished in a truly virtuous sense; neither were his followers, who were at the very least the middle of the barrel.

Exactly my point: The idea that a person can be judged by the impression that he leaves on others is demonstrably false.

 

[Received]

Bump

 

[Received]

Rebump

 

[variant]

Because I don't like thinking up threads on my own.

When I feel like this I go play chess instead.

 

[Received]

Sounds like a good idea. Might be getting a weekly chess game together with a friend for the first time in a few years. Great game. Infinite possibilities.

 

[Tree of Life]

How would you define salvation?

 

[Tree of Life]

And this one is purely out of curiosity - not meant to pick a fight. Is there a local body of believers of which you're a part that agree with you that you are, indeed, a Christian?

 

[Received]

How would you define salvation?

From "salve", originally a healing agent, meaning "wholeness" or "healing". To have salvation means a qualitatively changed life, not simply adding years to your life, given that the unsaved will also live forever. In a Christian sense, salvation means a relationship with God (John 17:3), where "knowing" here is relational, and most decidedly *not* conceptual, which only causes all types of havoc with practical application. This relatedness to God necessarily involves action, following the will of God, which is handed down by God the Father in the form of the Logos, or Christ in incorporeal form, which functions as the "word" or command grasped by our conscience at any moment, usually in a preconscious sort of way: go do this, go do that. This fulfilling of the will of God, revealed by the spirit and given content by the Word, is what it means to live in God's kingdom; a kingdom is a place where a king's will is made apparent. Hence the kingdom of God is a practical, here-and-now place, which is increasing or decreasing in size depending on the number of people who fulfill the will of God in their lives.

And this one is purely out of curiosity - not meant to pick a fight. Is there a local body of believers of which you're a part that agree with you that you are, indeed, a Christian?

I dig all the Nicene Creed, so I'm down with my theologically moderate First United Methodist Church.

 

[znr]

Check her video on the Catholic Church, too.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4C2XrwDj2uQ

From "salve", originally a healing agent, meaning "wholeness" or "healing". To have salvation means a qualitatively changed life, not simply adding years to your life, given that the unsaved will also live forever. In a Christian sense, salvation means a relationship with God (John 17:3), where "knowing" here is relational, and most decidedly *not* conceptual, which only causes all types of havoc with practical application. This relatedness to God necessarily involves action, following the will of God, which is handed down by God the Father in the form of the Logos, or Christ in incorporeal form, which functions as the "word" or command grasped by our conscience at any moment, usually in a preconscious sort of way: go do this, go do that. This fulfilling of the will of God, revealed by the spirit and given content by the Word, is what it means to live in God's kingdom; a kingdom is a place where a king's will is made apparent. Hence the kingdom of God is a practical, here-and-now place, which is increasing or decreasing in size depending on the number of people who fulfill the will of God in their lives.



I dig all the Nicene Creed, so I'm down with my theologically moderate First United Methodist Church.

 

[Tree of Life]

From "salve", originally a healing agent, meaning "wholeness" or "healing". To have salvation means a qualitatively changed life, not simply adding years to your life, given that the unsaved will also live forever. In a Christian sense, salvation means a relationship with God (John 17:3), where "knowing" here is relational, and most decidedly *not* conceptual, which only causes all types of havoc with practical application. This relatedness to God necessarily involves action, following the will of God, which is handed down by God the Father in the form of the Logos, or Christ in incorporeal form, which functions as the "word" or command grasped by our conscience at any moment, usually in a preconscious sort of way: go do this, go do that. This fulfilling of the will of God, revealed by the spirit and given content by the Word, is what it means to live in God's kingdom; a kingdom is a place where a king's will is made apparent. Hence the kingdom of God is a practical, here-and-now place, which is increasing or decreasing in size depending on the number of people who fulfill the will of God in their lives.

Followup questions. "Salve" implies a wound and "salvation" implies some sort of peril. From what are people saved? What wound needs healing?

 

[Tree of Life]

Also, which early church fathers do you think were universalists?

 

[Received]

Followup questions. "Salve" implies a wound and "salvation" implies some sort of peril. From what are people saved? What wound needs healing?

Sin. Which is a disease unto itself, vastly different than how popular theology frames it (usually implicitly), where the problem is the consequences of sin (Hell, etc.), which dangerously misses the power of sin itself as a crippling agent.

Faith is the opposite of sin.

 

[Received]

Also, which early church fathers do you think were universalists?

At least Origen, Clement, and Iraneus. I know there are lots more, but I haven't gotten around to the early church fathers yet.

 

[Tree of Life]

At least Origen, Clement, and Iraneus. I know there are lots more, but I haven't gotten around to the early church fathers yet.

Could you provide some evidence that these fathers believed in universal salvation? I'm surprised to see Clement and Irenaeus on the list.

 

[Tree of Life]

Sin. Which is a disease unto itself, vastly different than how popular theology frames it (usually implicitly), where the problem is the consequences of sin (Hell, etc.), which dangerously misses the power of sin itself as a crippling agent.

Faith is the opposite of sin.

How would you define sin?

 

[Received]

Could you provide some evidence that these fathers believed in universal salvation? I'm surprised to see Clement and Irenaeus on the list.

Not here. I recommend the chapter on the history of universalism in Talbott (ed), Universal Salvation? The Current Debate.

http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Sal...408372532&sr=1-2&keywords=universal+salvation

It's unambiguously there.