Zone1 How much of what you defend is just fear of collapse?

[frigidweirdo]

You’re not actually engaging the substance of the post. “That’s just words” isn’t an argument. It’s a dodge. If you want to challenge someone’s belief, you have to do more than mock its vocabulary. You have to grapple with the architecture of meaning behind it.

Not at all.

Saying "God is love" doesn't mean anything to anyone. It's just something people say.

I'm not mocking in the slightest. I'm trying to get him to expand on what he's saying.

 

[Meriweather]

That's just words. It doesn't mean anything.

You say God is love, and yet God supposedly killed all humans except a few in a flood. And a lot of animals too.

Let's bring it closer to home--the flash flood in Texas where over a hundred have been killed and about 170 still missing. Do you believe this disaster is greater than God's love or even eclipses God's love?

 

[Anomalism]

Not at all.

Saying "God is love" doesn't mean anything to anyone. It's just something people say.

I'm not mocking in the slightest. I'm trying to get him to expand on what he's saying.

Fair enough. Tone online can easily mask intent, and I may have misread yours.

 

[Meriweather]

Even if the experience is narrow, what’s the mechanism for testing its reliability? If someone from another tradition described a similarly narrow moment with their deity, how would you distinguish between revelation and projection, between divine contact and internal psychology?

Saying “many names for one God” does bridge some gaps, but doesn’t it still leave open the question of how we discern truth from familiarity? Even if you and someone else both describe real encounters, those encounters might still point in morally or theologically incompatible directions, so how do you tell the difference? Not just between names, but between paths?

It would take too long to write out specifics, but perhaps a brief sketch. The first happened when I was ten-years-old, and had to do with praying for souls in purgatory. Years later, I shared this story with middle school students in a Continuing Catholic Education class. My aide was a newly converted Catholic and she later confided to me she still wasn't sure about Catholic teaching on purgatory. Because of my story, she took action...and had her own experience.

The second was when I became involved in a parish retreat for women, intending to be background support. I had an insistent "call" that I was to give one of the presentations as a particular experience of mine was needed--and which I stubbornly refused to do. None-the-less present I did. One woman in particular was in tears, telling me it was exactly what she needed to hear. I still have the small picture she painted for me.

Third, one day I was in church for Mass at a time different than I usually attended. God told me he wanted me to give the woman sitting on the opposite side of the aisle several pews in front of me a message. Being my usual cooperative self, I responded, "Tell her yourself. If you can tell me, you can tell her." He insisted and I said, okay, but I need a sign. If I am going to give a strange lady a message from you, I've got to be more than certain. Have her remove her hat before she goes to communion." (The last thing a woman wearing a hat to church would be to remove it before going to communion.) But wouldn't you know it...on her way to communion she suddenly took off her hat and plopped it on the head of the little girl following her. So...after Mass I approached her and said, "This is going to sound strange, but while I was praying before Mass, God said I should tell you that you should go." She was first amazed and then delighted. She told me she had been praying for weeks whether or not she should go (I've forgotten where). Her relief that she now had her mind made up was palpable.

I've never had an experience that was morally or theologically incompatible. What it? Considering how hard it is to go up to a strange woman and tell her God said she should go, I would guess that if it were something morally or theologically incompatible, I would put my foot down. I still wonder why God couldn't have just told the lady himself. Inscrutable. Unsearchable.

 

[Anomalism]

It would take too long to write out specifics, but perhaps a brief sketch. The first happened when I was ten-years-old, and had to do with praying for souls in purgatory. Years later, I shared this story with middle school students in a Continuing Catholic Education class. My aide was a newly converted Catholic and she later confided to me she still wasn't sure about Catholic teaching on purgatory. Because of my story, she took action...and had her own experience.

The second was when I became involved in a parish retreat for women, intending to be background support. I had an insistent "call" that I was to give one of the presentations as a particular experience of mine was needed--and which I stubbornly refused to do. None-the-less present I did. One woman in particular was in tears, telling me it was exactly what she needed to hear. I still have the small picture she painted for me.

Third, one day I was in church for Mass at a time different than I usually attended. God told me he wanted me to give the woman sitting on the opposite side of the aisle several pews in front of me a message. Being my usual cooperative self, I responded, "Tell her yourself. If you can tell me, you can tell her." He insisted and I said, okay, but I need a sign. If I am going to give a strange lady a message from you, I've got to be more than certain. Have her remove her hat before she goes to communion." (The last thing a woman wearing a hat to church would be to remove it before going to communion.) But wouldn't you know it...on her way to communion she suddenly took off her hat and plopped it on the head of the little girl following her. So...after Mass I approached her and said, "This is going to sound strange, but while I was praying before Mass, God said I should tell you that you should go." She was first amazed and then delighted. She told me she had been praying for weeks whether or not she should go (I've forgotten where). Her relief that she now had her mind made up was palpable.

I've never had an experience that was morally or theologically incompatible. What it? Considering how hard it is to go up to a strange woman and tell her God said she should go, I would guess that if it were something morally or theologically incompatible, I would put my foot down. I still wonder why God couldn't have just told the lady himself. Inscrutable. Unsearchable.

How do you reliably separate genuine divine communication from internal bias, cultural conditioning, or wishful thinking? You claim never to have encountered anything morally or theologically incompatible, but how can you be sure that your moral framework isn’t itself shaped by the same conditioning you’re trying to test?

You say you’d “put your foot down” if something felt wrong. That’s convenient, but how often do we mistake discomfort with error, or comfort with truth? History is full of deeply sincere people acting on “divine” experiences that justified violence, exclusion, or oppression. If God really speaks through multiple traditions in different ways, and those ways sometimes contradict, what method do you use to discern which is true and which is mistaken? If your answer is “my tradition" then you’re defending cultural inheritance, not divine revelation.

 

[Meriweather]

How do you reliably separate genuine divine communication from internal bias, cultural conditioning, or wishful thinking? You claim never to have encountered anything morally or theologically incompatible, but how can you be sure that your moral framework isn’t itself shaped by the same conditioning you’re trying to test?

Do you know when you are imagining something? Do you know when you are talking to yourself? Do you know when you are dreaming or daydreaming? If so, then you should be able to understand being able identify something outside of self, something that is not self.

Next, consider I was not testing. Absolutely I had been seeking, but at the time of each of the sketches I related, I wasn't even what anyone would call 'actively seeking'. I had been doing my best to serve God, but I wasn't very good at it, and almost as an after thought my final prayer--almost off the shoulder--was, "If this was good enough, could you find a way of letting me know?" And off I went, not giving it a second thought until later. Never again can I ask, "Could you find a way of letting me know?" because that would be a test. The first was pure innocence, anything further would be manipulation/testing.

You say you’d “put your foot down” if something felt wrong. That’s convenient, but how often do we mistake discomfort with error, or comfort with truth? History is full of deeply sincere people acting on “divine” experiences that justified violence, exclusion, or oppression. If God really speaks through multiple traditions in different ways, and those ways sometimes contradict, what method do you use to discern which is true and which is mistaken? If your answer is “my tradition" then you’re defending cultural inheritance, not divine revelation.

It goes beyond if something 'felt' wrong. It would have something more to do with it not being me, or being compatible of what is within me. For example, take a command of, "Kill a baby." First, I could no more kill a baby than I could turn into a silver coin. Second, the Law written in my heart is, "Do not kill." Third, God's love is unforgettable, unimaginable, and who/what he is. Finally, I've heard of people saying they heard a voice inside their head...which I take to mean inside themselves. My experiences I would describe as 'outside' not 'inside'. As you see, hard to explain at all, let alone clearly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let's bring it closer to home--the flash flood in Texas where over a hundred have been killed and about 170 still missing. Do you believe this disaster is greater than God's love or even eclipses God's love?

I don't see God as love at all.

I did ask a religious girl once about God and she said it was about love, and I came to the conclusion that people like unconditional love. Having a baby, having a dog or a cat, it's unconditional love. They need you, rely on you and can't talk back.

So, did humans invent God for that unconditional love? No, I don't think so, I think they morphed God into that, in the Old Testament God was an explanation of the world around them. Why is there thunder? God. Why do we have floods? God. How can we reduce these events? Pray, sacrifice, rain dance, do all kinds of things and God will treat us better. Then God sort of morphed into a policeman crossed with a mother providing that unconditional love.

Both ways were convenient to humans condition at the time.

Now in the modern world, with its complexities and loneliness, perhaps a message of "there's some dude up there giving you unconditional love" resonates with a lot of people.

However, does that make God "love"?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fair enough. Tone online can easily mask intent, and I may have misread yours.

Perhaps, but I've spoken a lot about such things with Meriweather, and we often don't agree on things, but we're both interested in the discourse.

 

[Anomalism]

Do you know when you are imagining something? Do you know when you are talking to yourself? Do you know when you are dreaming or daydreaming? If so, then you should be able to understand being able identify something outside of self, something that is not self.

Next, consider I was not testing. Absolutely I had been seeking, but at the time of each of the sketches I related, I wasn't even what anyone would call 'actively seeking'. I had been doing my best to serve God, but I wasn't very good at it, and almost as an after thought my final prayer--almost off the shoulder--was, "If this was good enough, could you find a way of letting me know?" And off I went, not giving it a second thought until later. Never again can I ask, "Could you find a way of letting me know?" because that would be a test. The first was pure innocence, anything further would be manipulation/testing.



It goes beyond if something 'felt' wrong. It would have something more to do with it not being me, or being compatible of what is within me. For example, take a command of, "Kill a baby." First, I could no more kill a baby than I could turn into a silver coin. Second, the Law written in my heart is, "Do not kill." Third, God's love is unforgettable, unimaginable, and who/what he is. Finally, I've heard of people saying they heard a voice inside their head...which I take to mean inside themselves. My experiences I would describe as 'outside' not 'inside'. As you see, hard to explain at all, let alone clearly.

You describe moral intuition and an outside experience as your markers of truth, and I trust your sincerity, but the difficulty remains. These markers are themselves interpreted through the lens of culture, upbringing, and personal psychology. Saying “it’s not me” or “it’s outside me” doesn’t provide an independent test, because we still rely on our own interpretation of what that means.

If two deeply sincere people from different traditions hear “outside” voices that conflict, and both say “this is not me” and “this is outside” how do you decide who is right? If the criterion is simply “it aligns with my heart’s law,” then it’s circular. The experience confirms your existing beliefs rather than challenges them.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't see God as love at all.

I did ask a religious girl once about God and she said it was about love, and I came to the conclusion that people like unconditional love. Having a baby, having a dog or a cat, it's unconditional love. They need you, rely on you and can't talk back.

So, did humans invent God for that unconditional love? No, I don't think so, I think they morphed God into that, in the Old Testament God was an explanation of the world around them. Why is there thunder? God. Why do we have floods? God. How can we reduce these events? Pray, sacrifice, rain dance, do all kinds of things and God will treat us better. Then God sort of morphed into a policeman crossed with a mother providing that unconditional love.

Both ways were convenient to humans condition at the time.

Now in the modern world, with its complexities and loneliness, perhaps a message of "there's some dude up there giving you unconditional love" resonates with a lot of people.

However, does that make God "love"?

I'm speaking of my experience of God. Perhaps consider it is our definition or our outlook on love that differs from the love of God. Try flipping it around. Instead of, 'If God is love, no child would have cancer, mental or physical disabilities, die in floods. If God is love no rape, murder, sex trafficking would be permitted. If God is love, why earthquakes, floods, volcano eruptions in highly populated areas. In other words, humans seem to view love as conditional and set standards for what is or is not love. Flip this around to God loves through anything and everything. An imperfect, malformed child is loved just as deeply--is cared about--as the most perfect child. When we are at our worse or living through our worst nightmare, God is there, with us, not at a superficial level, but at an in depth level. God loves what is, not just what is easiest to love.

Think about it. If you were working with the handicapped, would you be thinking, "I love this person so much, that if I could, I would remove the handicap. That's how much I love this child." Deep down, isn't the thought, "Caring for the sick and handicapped is such a burden on me...things would be so much better if I could just remove the handicap." God loves through the handicaps to the person, just as they are. They don't need to be 'improved' to be lovable or to be worthy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

How much of what you defend is just fear of collapse?​

 

[Meriweather]

You describe moral intuition and an outside experience as your markers of truth, and I trust your sincerity, but the difficulty remains. These markers are themselves interpreted through the lens of culture, upbringing, and personal psychology. Saying “it’s not me” or “it’s outside me” doesn’t provide an independent test, because we still rely on our own interpretation of what that means.

Consider that it is not the event or the experience that is at fault, but the description. I have a nephew that is wholly colorblind. He only sees in black, white, and greys. At stoplights he has to pay attention to which light is glowing. Imagine trying to describe 'blue' to him--or even sound to a deaf person. Could it be that what I struggle to describe, the one who hears can only imagine this through the lens of culture, upbringing, and personal psychology? And, of course, the very natural wish to test. We test everything in the physical world.

One of the Commandments is, "You shall not test God." The usual interpretation of this is that "testing" God is wrong. Instead, look at from the same point of view if you are told, "You shall not walk through solid granite." It describes simple truth, and the simple truth about God is that he cannot be tested any more than you or I could walk through granite.

If two deeply sincere people from different traditions hear “outside” voices that conflict, and both say “this is not me” and “this is outside” how do you decide who is right? If the criterion is simply “it aligns with my heart’s law,” then it’s circular. The experience confirms your existing beliefs rather than challenges them.

The Church teaches that the experience should not go against scripture. For example, I struggled the longest time trying to relate my experience of God to the description of God in the Old Testament. It took a Jewish atheist, whose first language was Hebrew, who helped resolve this issue as the King James English is quite different from the original Hebrew. Explaining language and culture had me seeing things from an entirely different perspective, and my experience of God was no longer at odds with the Old Testament. That's my experience with conflicting views, but it may not be what you meant?

 

[Anomalism]

Consider that it is not the event or the experience that is at fault, but the description. I have a nephew that is wholly colorblind. He only sees in black, white, and greys. At stoplights he has to pay attention to which light is glowing. Imagine trying to describe 'blue' to him--or even sound to a deaf person. Could it be that what I struggle to describe, the one who hears can only imagine this through the lens of culture, upbringing, and personal psychology? And, of course, the very natural wish to test. We test everything in the physical world.

One of the Commandments is, "You shall not test God." The usual interpretation of this is that "testing" God is wrong. Instead, look at from the same point of view if you are told, "You shall not walk through solid granite." It describes simple truth, and the simple truth about God is that he cannot be tested any more than you or I could walk through granite.

The Church teaches that the experience should not go against scripture. For example, I struggled the longest time trying to relate my experience of God to the description of God in the Old Testament. It took a Jewish atheist, whose first language was Hebrew, who helped resolve this issue as the King James English is quite different from the original Hebrew. Explaining language and culture had me seeing things from an entirely different perspective, and my experience of God was no longer at odds with the Old Testament. That's my experience with conflicting views, but it may not be what you meant?

That actually reinforces my original point, that all of this is still being filtered through human subjectivity. If scripture requires translation, context, and reinterpretation, and if even spiritual experience depends on our capacity to understand it correctly, then how do we ever get outside ourselves? Every layer adds more room for cultural sway, error, or projection. You say god cannot be tested, but if god can’t be tested, then how can we distinguish revelation from imagination, or truth from non-truth, especially when people of deep faith come to contradictory conclusions? The tools we use to make sense of everything are subject to error. That matters, especially when people build their entire moral and political worldview on these interpretations.

 

[Meriweather]

That actually reinforces my original point, that all of this is still being filtered through human subjectivity. If scripture requires translation, context, and reinterpretation, and if even spiritual experience depends on our capacity to understand it correctly, then how do we ever get outside ourselves? Every layer adds more room for cultural sway, error, or projection. You say god cannot be tested, but if god can’t be tested, then how can we distinguish revelation from imagination, or truth from non-truth, especially when people of deep faith come to contradictory conclusions? The tools we use to make sense of everything are subject to error. That matters, especially when people build their entire moral and political worldview on these interpretations.

Let's start with your final sentence, as it no more occurred to me to build a political view or a world view than it would for me to build an Egyptian pyramid. What, exactly does an individual do, what difference can one person do, with a world view or even a political view? I work to make a difference in the small portion of the world, and daily life, in which I live. "Here I am, Lord. Send me." How can I help the people my life touches? Only in very small ways: By being alert/interested, be caring, refraining from indifference. Learn to do my job even better this time around than I did previously.

News, education, history, psychology, etc. goes through that same 'filter'. People in the same professions also come to contradictory conclusions. It happens almost daily at work, sometimes with our friends--it often happens at home. You seem astonished that it also happens with religion/faith. Are you, or am I reading astonishment, when it's not there, into the "contradictory conclusions" question?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm speaking of my experience of God. Perhaps consider it is our definition or our outlook on love that differs from the love of God. Try flipping it around. Instead of, 'If God is love, no child would have cancer, mental or physical disabilities, die in floods. If God is love no rape, murder, sex trafficking would be permitted. If God is love, why earthquakes, floods, volcano eruptions in highly populated areas. In other words, humans seem to view love as conditional and set standards for what is or is not love. Flip this around to God loves through anything and everything. An imperfect, malformed child is loved just as deeply--is cared about--as the most perfect child. When we are at our worse or living through our worst nightmare, God is there, with us, not at a superficial level, but at an in depth level. God loves what is, not just what is easiest to love.

Think about it. If you were working with the handicapped, would you be thinking, "I love this person so much, that if I could, I would remove the handicap. That's how much I love this child." Deep down, isn't the thought, "Caring for the sick and handicapped is such a burden on me...things would be so much better if I could just remove the handicap." God loves through the handicaps to the person, just as they are. They don't need to be 'improved' to be lovable or to be worthy.

Here's a question in response to what you've written.

Does the term "God" have the same definition for everyone, or can "God" be different things to different people?

Also, if God loves a handicapped person, what exactly does God do for that handicapped person? You say "love" but how does that handicapped person get love? God doesn't push them up the ramp, doesn't fix their breakfast.

 

[Meriweather]

Here's a question in response to what you've written.

Does the term "God" have the same definition for everyone, or can "God" be different things to different people?

Also, if God loves a handicapped person, what exactly does God do for that handicapped person? You say "love" but how does that handicapped person get love? God doesn't push them up the ramp, doesn't fix their breakfast.

One person can mean many different things to all that know him/her. I suspect there are also different definitions, but I base that on observing the many different expectations people place on God.

Handicapped persons: Again based on observation of students because from time-to-time I do work with handicapped students. They are some of the most beautiful, refreshing souls I've met up with. God is spirit, and as spirit, it seems to me his work focuses on spirits/souls.

 

[frigidweirdo]

One person can mean many different things to all that know him/her. I suspect there are also different definitions, but I base that on observing the many different expectations people place on God.

Handicapped persons: Again based on observation of students because from time-to-time I do work with handicapped students. They are some of the most beautiful, refreshing souls I've met up with. God is spirit, and as spirit, it seems to me his work focuses on spirits/souls.

One person can mean different things to different people, father, brother, uncle, grandfather, son.

However no matter who they are seen as, they are still a human, who still goes off to work or school, who still needs to eat and drink and breathe.

What are those things in God that are the same for everyone? Is there anything? Probably not.

Maybe the closest thing you'd get is "convenience". God is convenient. Even then God is convenient to some people and not others. Look at Islam, God keeps people in line, stops them committing crimes, but mostly God is convenient for the higher ups, the people who want all the others to do as they say.

What is a "spirit/soul"???

To me a soul is merely people asking the question "Why do I experience me?"

And for that we don't have an answer. So people make an answer up which is "we have a soul".

Sometimes hardship makes for better people. People who are born with silver spoons in their mouths can be bad people. I remember working in a golf club for rich Jews in Westchester. One man had a number tattooed on his arm because he'd been in a Nazi concentration camp. The 50 years olds were all good people. The kids, 20 something and down were spoiled brats.

However, does God kill people in order to make others not spoiled brats? Surely there's a better way

 

[Meriweather]

Maybe the closest thing you'd get is "convenience". God is convenient. Even then God is convenient to some people and not others. Look at Islam, God keeps people in line, stops them committing crimes, but mostly God is convenient for the higher ups, the people who want all the others to do as they say.

The issue I have with "convenience" is that it seems to imply make use of, as in, "I'll use this because it's convenient." Or, I'll use the name of God for my own purposes. That is to be avoided.

What is a "spirit/soul"???

To me a soul is merely people asking the question "Why do I experience me?"

And for that we don't have an answer. So people make an answer up which is "we have a soul".

Spirit/soul has been described as the innermost being of a person, the breath of life, and the purpose of this being. People seem to recognize there is more to self than physical parts.

However, does God kill people in order to make others not spoiled brats? Surely there's a better way

People die, but I don't equate that to God killing people. There's an old adage: What doesn't kill me, strengthens me. When it comes to children, I would advise that we don't make their lives too cushy or soft. While child labor can be going overboard, childhood chores are not, and they should be challenging. (My opinion.)

 

[frigidweirdo]

The issue I have with "convenience" is that it seems to imply make use of, as in, "I'll use this because it's convenient." Or, I'll use the name of God for my own purposes. That is to be avoided.



Spirit/soul has been described as the innermost being of a person, the breath of life, and the purpose of this being. People seem to recognize there is more to self than physical parts.



People die, but I don't equate that to God killing people. There's an old adage: What doesn't kill me, strengthens me. When it comes to children, I would advise that we don't make their lives too cushy or soft. While child labor can be going overboard, childhood chores are not, and they should be challenging. (My opinion.)

How many people do you think see God as "I use it for my own purposes"?

Surely "love" is that very thing. As I said about "unconditional love", people will have babies they can't look after properly because they want that, people will have cats or dogs sitting in the home for 18 hours a day while they're at work, or going out, just so they have "unconditional love" for a few hours every day.

Do you not think that people like the Christian God because he's very convenient?


What purpose do we, as humans, have? I look around me and I don't see usefulness. The most useful part of a human is when they die and go into the ground to be worm food, and yet we've even managed to make cremation to take that away from them.

"Purpose" is a human survival aid. Without it we'd probably all kill ourselves because we essentially experience a lot of pain in life, and the only thing that keeps us going is that we tell ourselves that we have some kind of purpose.

I see people wasting their lives away watching Tiktok, unable to see what's right in front of their faces, not experiencing the world, just experiencing their phones.

Seems like God does all the positive things, the devil does all the negative things, but there's only one God. Perhaps the devil is just the bad part of God.

 

[Meriweather]

How many people do you think see God as "I use it for my own purposes"?

Surely "love" is that very thing. As I said about "unconditional love", people will have babies they can't look after properly because they want that, people will have cats or dogs sitting in the home for 18 hours a day while they're at work, or going out, just so they have "unconditional love" for a few hours every day.

Do you not think that people like the Christian God because he's very convenient?


What purpose do we, as humans, have? I look around me and I don't see usefulness. The most useful part of a human is when they die and go into the ground to be worm food, and yet we've even managed to make cremation to take that away from them.

"Purpose" is a human survival aid. Without it we'd probably all kill ourselves because we essentially experience a lot of pain in life, and the only thing that keeps us going is that we tell ourselves that we have some kind of purpose.

I see people wasting their lives away watching Tiktok, unable to see what's right in front of their faces, not experiencing the world, just experiencing their phones.

Seems like God does all the positive things, the devil does all the negative things, but there's only one God. Perhaps the devil is just the bad part of God.

Our purpose is to love and to be loved. We are here for two things: To learn and to have fun. (Both centered around love)

It's not that I think individuals use God for his/her own individual purpose. It's more like someone needs a ready-made group--and those who love and have faith in God are a ready-made group. For example, people will risk their lives for God, but not so much for a person who is simply using both God and them to attain power and wealth.