Anslem’s Argument for the Proof of the Existence of God, the Disruption of Time, and the Categorization of Philosophical Behavior.

I seem to have found a significance for Anslem’s proof. It may be that it is not significance for whether God might exist, but, as I have said, significance for how I present ideas.

We will start with the rendition from Princeton’s site. I think they have a pretty good rendition there.

Without all the strict logical hoopla, I think the simple way to put Anslem’s idea is that God exists because we can think of It.

The significance of this notion appears to disrupt what we generally consider of time, it’s ‘natural and directional’ progress.

The Princeton site says that Anslem was addressing a particular issue that, actually, we still find totday in atheism. Basically, Anslem is confronting two ideas:

1.He understands the claim that God exists.
2.He does not believe that God exists.

Now, I have done only the most preliminary research into Anslem and his ideas. I am just taking the very popular simple version, and considering these two situations. There is no ‘hidden’; whatever Anslem’s results most probably are quite apparent, and the ones that are not – well, what point am I trying to make here? I have already said in my earlier post that there is no logical argument that sways me in any direction or causes me to believe something I didn’t before. So any extension of argument must be involving something else; perhaps I am attempting to get at what this something could be.

I think the main point Anslem makes is that, as Princeton puts it, this is an inherently unstable condition of being. What we might call the ‘founding essence’ can be understood to be responsible for this instability. Somewhat similar to a ‘thing-in-itself’, this founding essence would be a kind of gravity well, if you will, of mental activity. The instability arises because of the knowledge (the known-ness) of what something is able to be. The question arises: How can I know what something is if it doesn’t exist? The basic assumption in this question, what philosophers tend to lump into the category called ontology, is that existence is, that there is no need to discern what existence is because to argue for or against the being of existence does nothing to displace the argument except as much as it merely denies existence. The point of saying something exists thus should equate with what can be known, and so the instability of the situation is found in the human ability to choose on whether what exists is actually true. In this case, though, Anslem is dealing with the basis of all that exists as a category, namely, God; God, in this sense, as we cannot but apply our modern sense to consideration of it, is merely the name of the category that contains all that can exist as an active element, the element by which all else can be said to be. The extension in time to Heidegger’s ‘Being and Time’ can be understood as a factual description of this situation, and thus, rather than an opening up unto Being, ironically as a closing of Being unto itself and thus a factual description of what human beings do: The identification of the in-itself of human Being. More on that elsewhere.

The resolution that Anslem posits of this unstable situation occurs because of the foundational nature of the knowledge itself. In this Medieval Christian context (which I argue is still a modern context), the resolution (the clarity, the definition) that must be referred to must be understood in a context not so much of mind, but of the essential God-inundated mind that is able to uphold and entertain knowledge, which for our context might be the mind that exists. In short, the condition of knowledge is/was such that all things referred or otherwise are established in existence due to an absolute situation, a situation whereby all things gain their status in the universe, what we usually index by the idea of an absolute ethics, in a manner of speaking. In this condition it thus appears that a reflective mind will naturally be drawn into the the contradiction involved in making a choice as to the (true or false) existence of something that (already) exists (in essence), and will therefore correct (or become the correction) the instability by virtue of their own existence (in the absolute universe, or the universe that is indexed by absolution). The question of whether something actually, or physically, biologically exists, such as a race of human beings that live in the midieval antipodes, e2c1fd0e8fc468d9d55d018231578e47

unicorns, dragons, spirits, extraterrestrial aliens, etcetera, has no baring upon existence because of the absolute reference and access of mind to God (existence). What can be incorrect of knowledge as to what is true of existence finds its resolution in the posited (assumed) basis of existence. 

The Medieval as well as Modern mind is consistent in this ideal of progressive understanding of the universe. What is significant of this orientation upon progress is the mind’s innate access to what is true of the universe with reference to an assumed basis of that truth, what we can say is an assumption of stability unto which all knowledge will inevitably resolve; despite whether we posit that there is no actual resolution or that everything is flux, or whatever conditional conditions we define, the result of any positing is always toward ends, toward a resolution. Even if we say that the universe and the knowledge of that universe is completely and utterly contingent, this contingency must be absolute; hence we say that the effect of such terms within any scheme of knowledge or organization of definitions is what we can call a “founding term”. 

*

Oddly enough, we are able to find purchase into understanding what human beings do by looking at what philosophy does. Not, as Graham Harman might have it, that everything we might do automatically falls into a subjective appropriation of semantics that defies our attempt to locate such philosophical behavior. Rather, at some point we should be able to locate a mark by which we are able to be dismissed from this correlational philosophy that wants to avoid any critical gaze upon its method.

Once we find this mark (which I do not go into here), we can extend this situation (of existence and deferment) to apply to everything that might exist: Within this situation, a person can understand and then decide upon it. There is no thing that escapes this formula, and Anslem is making an accusation about it: It is unstable, and it will eventually resolve itself to the conclusion that the thing in question exists, in his Medieval case, God, and in our Modern case, perhaps, the object of empirical physics.

The point he relies upon is the idea that God is the greatest being or thing that can exist, for, so long as we can conceive of something greater, then that is not God. Similarly, we can use this conversely and say that because we can conceive of ‘that which nothing is greater’, this greatest thing exists as a foundational ontological ground of Modern effort as well: The ‘greatest’ thing is the most substantial. 

*

What interests me is that this simple notice occurred late in the 11th century. Here, already, is a situation made notice that no one noticed until very recently, like 10-20 years ago with the philosophers such as Alain Badou, Francois Laruelle, an then for the younger folks (of the time), of the Speculative Realist Conference. In particular, the idea is that there may be something that exists outside of our knowledge (not necessarily our ability to know), and as for in this situation, that which is greater than the greatest thing we can know. This category has brought modern philosophy (again) to consider things like voidnothingnesschaos and such things, and the corresponding ideal that whatever works to create identity is all good. But if we are honest, we might be able to glimpse the same ruminations of Scholasticism (St. Anslem is said to be one of the founders of the Medieval Scholasticism), occurring in our Modern philosophies, but under different terms. Indeed; I argue (along with Jean-Francois Lyotard apparently) elsewhere that Postmodern scholarship is really a religious apology for Modernity.

In this post I confront the veracity of some of our current philosophical modes and arguments by asking what seems to me to be a most obvious and significant question, a similar question that Graham Harman asks of Heidegger’s “tools“: Why did no-one  notice what Anslem had opened up until now, some 1000 years later? We are able to understand Anslem’s argument to this day; no one proposes that the thinkers 1000 years ago were any less astute than our thinkers today. Why is it only now that we are addressing the possibility of what might be ‘beyond’ or ‘at root but not part of’ (Badou’s consideration of set theory) knowledge? And then we might even ask more confounding question if we find that philosophers during the interim of the thousand years also considered the same question over and over. 

I submit for consideration that we have gotten not very far in philosophy. We might begin to understand the vastness of time and how slowly and incrementally human beings, as a group, accomplish knowledge, and how it is much more like a science than philosophers are capable of arguing. Indeed, if we think into this situation, we can then find often the situation that we have already come across elsewhere; namely, that on one hand philosophy is the way we situate the conditions of our times, how we work out logistical problems of being in a semantic world, and on the other, merely reflections of people (the authors) in-themselves. But if this is all philosophy does and is doing, then we also might see that we are actually merely re-contextualizing not what what has already been contextualized (as thus a re-contextualization), but in actually what we’ve already done, making the same arguments over and over but under different terms. We are reminded of Shakespeare’s “a rose by any other word…“.

Upon this conclusion, we are careful to not move too fast as we might then jump to the conclusion that such an idea should negate the ontological status of what I am calling conventional philosophy, as though such a proposal should then move beyond what we have and what we get through philosophical method. This is not the case. It seems near ridiculousness to figure that we can commandeer reality by a stroke of the pen (or a keystroke) except that we might be involved in such philosophical endorsement; we should then ask how is it that am I to get beyond it merely saying something in a particular manner? No. We cannot ‘turn’ the truth of the matter; we have but to see the power that is invested in the leviathan of religious interests, of maintaining a particular formation and method to know that, as the philosophers have argued, I cannot escape it unless I wish to perform some magic, perhaps some discursive slight of hand. We should ask if we can be done with all this trickery of the ontological police. Then, all we have to do is speak of facts instead of the essential Being of things, to speak teleologically instead of ontologically. We can argue the conditional nature of real essence for the rest of eternity and never get anywhere further than circling back and forth away from and back into Medieval type scholarship. And thats fine, and thats the point: This is the factual nature of reality, the impossible aspect of what we have to deal with in reality. Of course there will be those who will argue that what the philosophers are doing now days is not Scholasticism and who will produce all sorts of argumentative and ultimately circumstantial evidence to support their claim. Great! Perfect! Does this sway me to believe something that I don’t already know?  The proper response, in this case then, is that this is not a proposal toward any popular or social change, and in fact it has little to do with how political ideology might be at any moment; we can of course use it for such purposes (identifying our moment from the past conditional moments of history, for example, etcetera…), thats what Badiou and Zizek tell us…

We are not so much learning anything new as much as we are justifying our limited manner of Being in the world, and this is an end in itself that should be heeded but not as a call for change, as though we can somehow transcend what we are — we can only transcend was we identify with as political and ideological subjects. Rather, we should see this situation as a mark of what is true of being human, as a mark of significance, which is to say, a mark of fact. So another of my indictments of philosophy: Despite all the great discursive gymnastics and the twistings of subtle argumentative semantic juxtapositions, philosophy works to avoid having to look at itself as a human behavior. Conventional philosophy refuses to allow itself to be seen as an indicator of behavior, perpetually argues itself as an exceptional incarnation of divine intuition and inspiration, a blank spot of Being, and then uses this fact as a means to absorb all activity under its purview back into the real political and ideological limit — to say that this is all there is. I see the constant and basically automatic referral of all things ‘thought’ back into this kind of philosophical pond is self defeating to the effort of progress, even as progress itself is routed back into this (touted) ‘speculative’, or ‘realist’, or  ‘post-post-modern’ maxim. It is no wonder outside of capitalism is so difficult to think!

As Amoreinblog has argued somewhere, perhaps anthropology is the way out of this philosophical conundrum; despite all the philosophical misappropriations of ideas involved with the AIME (An Investigation into Modes of Existence) project of Bruno Latour (even by Latour himself, lol), his book can be read as an argument for the need to open up a space (perhaps, in his terms, create a pass) whereby we can avoid this modern philosophical whirlpool that we have been involved with for at least 1000 years. It seems that only now, with Postmodernism, but as of late Post-postmodnerism (must we find a Post-Post-Postmodernism also?) do we really get an idea, but also an actual way to understand and realize what human beings are doing.

*

Time itself may be the issue that is involved with Modernity invading as it usurps all discourse into its machinery. The issue that opens up after Postmodernism (but is not itself Postmodern scholarship) is the break from Enlightenment Ontology. So it may not be so much that we have to philosophically get out of this temporal mode — that kind of move would be philosophy attempting to avoid itself through arguing itself out of itself, redundantly, establishing as it maintains reality for everyone. It may be as simple as admitting that there is no escaping the philosophical limit, and realizing a kind of anti-Husserlian manner: Of finding the independent object in the bare fact that we know that there is an independent object, and perhaps that we need not speculate about how it can be so in order for it to be so. Of course we can discuss how it can be so…and indeed we will, but that does not mean that we cannot stay where we are at and let the pagan-Christian rollercoaster come around again and again.

Maybe we need to make a clean break.

64 thoughts on “Anslem’s Argument for the Proof of the Existence of God, the Disruption of Time, and the Categorization of Philosophical Behavior.

  1. I think we were meant to thrive with God. I think we were meant to thrive with each other and within God’s creation.

    In order to get an idea of what the relationship would be, I think it’s helpful to look at the beginning of the story. Genesis 1:28 describes what God did after creating people:

    “And God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'”

    I think we are meant to thrive within God’s creation; as leaders, cultivators, innovators, stewards.

    Actually, I don’t know if God’s creation, fully restored, will rule out arguments between people. I think it’s likely that people will engage in arguments lovingly, hopefully, patiently, and fruitfully.

    I assume that there will be endless exploration, discovery, and creative endeavor when God restores creation. It looks to me like this is what he made us for, and it will be a delight to God.

    1. I’m not sure that sounds any different than what we have now.

      I mean, when our relationship with God is restored. I’m not sure how we could innovate without challenges. It kinda sounds to me that we would have to become ignorant, because challenges would necessarily be narrowed to fall within the ‘restored relationship’.

      Like: would that mean, say, we wouldn’t have disagreements? Or would it mean that disagreements would be worked out within a more limited scope ? Like disagreements would not get so out of hand that we would first fight ? Or is fist fighting allowed as long as it’s still in good fun, as long as we do t get angry? Or is anger allowed but again under a new kind of conditions? How could we argue if there was no possibility of things getting out of hand? Isn’t that where the productivity of argument comes in, that possibility that we will encounter something new?

      It seems to me that in order for me to conceptualize what this time when our relationship with God is restored, I would have to completely ignore any kind of concept I would have. So it would have to be something inconceivable.

      If it is inconceivable, then it would appear that we are not meant to use our minds to conceive of certain Godly things. Like we are prohibited to investigate God . Like this is all a test to see if we can ignore the ability of our minds that God gave us.

      It seems to me a little too strange. Like I really have no Reason to believe in Christ unless I dislike myself, my thinking and this world in general.

      ??

      1. You ask how we could argue if there is no possibility for things to get out of hand.

        Why would things like suspicion, resentment, and hatred be necessary to productive or fruitful argument?

      2. I don’t know. I’m just saying that if we know everything is going to turn out ok, that we are all getting along, we wouldn’t have much impetus to do much. Maybe.

      3. You sound like you think fear is our highest motivator. We need it as an impetus for action.

        In God’s restored creation, I think we will find love, gratitude, curiosity, and beauty to be powerful motivators.

      4. To some degree. But, I think God’s intention was for all of humanity to thrive with Him and with each other in this way.

      5. Are you saying something like that eternal life is where the ‘lower’ emotional and irrational reactions no longer have power?

      6. I’m not sure how well that says it.

        I think our orientation to God and to each other will be so different that love will quite thoroughly transform our whole range of emotions.

      7. I think our conversation has bounced back and forth between threads a little.

        On one hand, you say that you think we understand each other pretty well. On the other hand, you sounded frustrated that you keep reaching points at which conversations could, or should, “turn.”

        I’m wondering about the death and resurrection of Jesus. You have said that it doesn’t matter to you whether Jesus died and rose again or not. I think the actual occurrence of those events is crucial to every human being.

        In what way do you wish our conversation about this could “turn.”

      8. No no. It appears to me that at certain junctures that there is only one way to continue. But then that doesn’t happen. So it is more about me than about you, in a manner of speaking.

        I am asking, what you think might be the ‘content’ of our difference? What accounts for the discrepancy?

        You seem to have a grasp on what I’m saying. How is the difference possible?

      9. You seem to want acknowledgement of a sort of gnosis you experience that you see as being compatible with another route of belief that others take; a more object oriented route.

        When it comes to Jesus as an object of faith, I think you tend to portray Him as more of a servant or carrier of gnosis than He is. I believe that His acts of death and resurrection are essential to the restoration of humanity’s relationship with God. They are not merely demonstrative, indicative, or symbolic.

      10. What does it mean to me that we have those two views? I’m not sure what you’re asking.

        It means that I take some time and discuss with you the things that we’ve been discussing online. It means that, as we looked at John 11, I would point out places where eisegesis, mistakes, or ineffective listening led to poor interpretation of passages. And, I think it matters because I would like for you to know Jesus as the one who raised Lazarus from the dead just like The Bible says He did. And, I would like for you to know Him as the one who was crucified and raised from the dead just like The Bible says He was. And, I would like for you to tell other people Jesus’ story faithfully.

      11. When you take the most faithful telling of our story — the story of humanity and our God — and substantially change it (For example, saying that Lazarus was not really physically dead, saying that it does not matter if Jesus physically died and rose from the dead, or preferring an unwarranted inference over Martha’s actual response to Jesus), I don’t know what would be good about that.

      12. What is good about the faithful telling?

        What I am asking about what the situation between us means, has to do with the fact that neither of us are being able to convince the other.

        Look at what’s occurring :

        I say I agree with your saying that BIble is the most cogent telling.

        You say you disagree with me.

        You say due to your faith in the faithful telling, you feel obligated to tell others about the truth of it.

        I say that the understanding I have of it ( the most cogency) does not require others believe it.

        You seems to understand The cogent telling as telling The one and only cogent telling.

        I understanding it as one possible telling.

        You take alternate meanings as an indication against your telling, that God-humanity story is either this way or that way. It not both: the story must be This way Because it is true, and not that way.

        I see alternate telling as an indication of what human beings do: they tell stories and makes sense. The sense human beings make cannot be argued out of; ones faith cannot be chosen out of without creating a inherent contradiction in the persons thought-activity.

        You are presenting discussion to show the truth of the mater, to hopefully change others minds.

        I am discussing so people might change my mind.

        I am asking you if I goto hell because I don’t believe. And asking you if that is so then why don’t i care. The I am asking you if you are ok with that.

      13. Alternate tellings, alternate meanings. Is there anywhere on the “alternate” spectrum where the meaning in The Bible will have been lost, disregarded, or denied?

        It looks to me like you have disregarded the meaning in Martha’s response to Jesus in John 11. It looks to me like you have denied that Lazarus physically died and rose from the dead. It looks to me like you have denied that it matters whether or not Jesus physically died and rose from the dead. I think these things represent more than “alternate meanings.” I think they represent something more like “correct” or “incorrect.”

        Every once in a while, you ask me if you are going to hell. But, you also tell me that you don’t care. I don’t really know what to do with that. Feel free to ask me again if you ever start to care.

        You said, “I say I agree with your saying that BIble is the most cogent telling.” But, in the past, you have also felt like it was important to point out to me that other people say that their story is the most cogent telling. I don’t think that you do agree with me when I say that The Bible has the most consistent, coherent, comprehensive, and cogent telling of our story. I think you see The Bible as being as valid as any other story.

      14. It is difficult and unnatural feeling to allow two or more truths to sit without wanting them to answer to a singular truth, yes

        More Ina bit.

      15. “…gs. Is there anywhere on the “alternate” spectrum where the meaning in The Bible will have been lost, ?”

        I’ll answer one at a time.

        I’ll answer this one with a story.

        I feel like you must’ve heard of the festival event that they have in the desert of Nevada called “burning man”.

        This past weekend my wife conveyed to me and event that happens there this year; they have it on Labour Day weekend every year I guess. don’t know these things because I’ve never been to it but I do know about it.

        Instead of me telling you the story about what happened this year , I’ll just give you the link: http://www.salon.com/2017/09/05/burning-man-death-2017/

        More in a minute….

      16. Ok. Part two. That event Spond a conversation between my wife and I. And we were talking about how we both remember when burning man started, which was about 25 years ago. Personally I remember hearing about burning man but it was just another party in the desert; people on the West Coast we’re realizing that they could go out into the middle of the desert and have these crazy parties and do whatever they want.

        My wife conveyed the story that she was sitting at a coffee place in San Francisco and it just so happened that she was overhearing a conversation between the man who started it and some San Francisco magazine reporter who is doing a story on this burning man thing. She sat there dropping in on the conversation that was next to her.

        The man was conveying a kind of mixed feelings about what burning man had become already in about 1992 or three; it was an “event”now out in the Nevada desert. The origin of the burning Man festival was really just a group of friends who would get together once a year on one of the beaches of San Francisco and they would hang out and the climax of which they would make a wicker figure in Burn it.

        Actually this is going to be long so I’m just going to make it into a post. 😛

      17. I haven’t disregarded Martha’s meaning, Im putting it in a real context, explaining it as two people are talking.

        suppose I say: Aliens are coming to take me to a perfect planet!

        How is that any different than if I say: You are the Christ (or whatever the exact words it has.

        What is the difference? Am I not expressing what I think about the situation? If I think it is true, who is to tell me it is not true? How could anyone prove to me either of those statements is not true if indeed I have faith that they are true?

        I am not desregarding her statement, I am putting in real, and tangible context of two people talking to each other.

        Again, does it matter if I say “Darth Vader, you are my father” ?

        What is the difference? Is there some deep emotional occurrence that makes one expression of truth any different that the other?

        I am saying that the truth cannot be chosen out of for any reasoning. And if there is a reasoning that can change my mind or any mind that knows “the truth”, then it is contradictory to what truth is, and the person will have a kind of ‘crisis moment’ due to the fact that what was true is suddenly not true.

        Take your self as the example. Is there anything that will convince you that you are incorrect?

        Give me an example of what would have to happen to change what you see as true. please. Think about it and give me a condition that would have to be met for your ‘faith’ (in the truth) to change.

      18. In John 20, John writes, “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

        In John 11, when Jesus tells Martha “I am the resurrection and the life” and asks her, “Do you believe this?” Martha answers, “Yes, Lord,” I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

        Even though John says that there are many things that could have been written about Jesus, He makes his purpose in writing what he has written clear — so that “you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

        It seems to me that, in reading this passage, you have disregarded John’s stated purpose — you have gone looking for something he didn’t intend to give you. You infer previous interactions between Martha and Jesus and you end up modifying her response to such a degree that it couldn’t even be called a paraphrase. If that is “putting in real, and tangible context of two people talking to each other,” okay. But, it seems to me that it doesn’t represent a very effective effort to listen to what the author wrote — especially when he so clearly describes the context in which he is writing what he has written: “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (which turns out to be a much closer paraphrase of what Martha actually said to Jesus).

        ***

        I believe in gravity. If people and other objects started hurtling off the planet into space, I would probably grab a building or something, demonstrating that I no longer believed in the power of gravity on this planet.

      19. Yes. Now take what you just wrote, forget that you wrote it, read it over and listen to it as if I wrote it to you ( with some minor adjustments) Then you will have the situation that I am talking about: I agree with you. I agree with every statement you just made.

        Here is exactly, truthfully, what I could reply back to you and mean every word of it:

        “seems to me that, in reading this passage, you have disregarded John’s stated purpose — you have gone looking for something he didn’t intend to give you. You infer previous interactions between Martha and Jesus and you end up modifying her response to such a degree that it couldn’t even be called a paraphrase.”

        “…, it seems to me that it doesn’t represent a very effective effort to listen to what the author wrote — especially when he so clearly describes the context in which he is writing what he has written: “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (which turns out to be a much closer paraphrase of what Martha actually said to Jesus).”

        But because I can see this, because I can honestly direct almost exactly the rebuttal you give to me back at you and mean it, I don’t put it back on you except as an example of what I’m talking about that I agree with you.

        I could very well counter ” seems to me that, in reading this passage, you have disregarded John’s stated purpose “. But where does that get us? Back into the discussion we’ve been having for 5years. Lol.

      20. The very thing you just said, I would say the same to you : that you are reading something into it that is not there.

      21. It doesn’t matter what proof you have of your details, because I will always respond with, what I see, is a more originary and comprehensive reason. Likewise, you will draw upon the ‘total’ reasoning of your truth of it.

        I can say: I am not discounting anything of John, but when I describe or explain, you simply are unable to see how I am not.

        Likewise. When you describe to me your reasons, I can honestly say “yes” that’s true.

        But like I keep saying , somehow you are plain unable to understand what I’m saying. No matter what explanatory devices and example or reasoning, you are unable to understand.

        What else am I to say?

        That’s why I am asking you to give me something that changes my mind. Because everything you say makes sense, but the sense I am making of it does not correspond with the sense you think you are conveying to me.

      22. Go ahead and be more originary and comprehensive. As I have mentioned before, I think this originariness and comprehensiveness points to The Big Story — one that is more originary and comprehensive than the one I am telling. I would be interested in hearing it.

      23. For example: if I ask ‘why’ you route me back into the Bible. And then I ask ‘what’ and you route me back into the bible.

        Is there no ground from which the meaning of the Bible gains its veracity?

        If so, what is it? I want to know.

      24. If The Bible is something that God gave us to reveal Himself to us, then God would be the ground for the veracity of The Bible. I think God is the ground for the veracity of The Bible.

      25. Ok. God is the ground. I agree . Then I would say, ( to answer your other comment here so to try not to get lost in the threads). That you are hearing it. But not one that is More comprehensive; rather, it is Just as comprehensive.

        You are hearing in my telling the cogency and coherency that the Bible is in its complete telling. But you are not agreeing with it.

        You say you would like to hear it – well, you are. But you do t agree with it.

        You are unable to bring yourself to hear me when I say I agree.

        If I say God indeed is the ground for the truth of the Bible, you do not believe me when I tell you, even as I am giving what you ask for. I’m not sure if you think I am lying or just dumb. 😄

        And, I am not afraid of going to hell; I am asking you if you are ok with my going to hell.

      26. To say that Lazarus didn’t die physically, and rise from the dead, is a coherent statement within a faithful telling of The Big Story?

        To say that it doesn’t matter if Jesus died physically, and rose again, is a coherent statement within a faithful telling of The Big Story?

        If you are in agreement with me, your question isn’t a difficult one to answer, is it? Would I be ok with you going to hell?

      27. Good. Yes. I do not believe those things. I understand a different meaning of ‘belief’. I am unable to choose what I believe of the Bible because of the meaning that the Bible conveys in its coherency. I do not believe in God; I do not have a power to choose whether God exists or not. Gods existence is beyond my decision making ability. It does not matter what I believe about God. I know this. It cannot be changed.

        The Bible conveys two meanings. These meanings are counter partial and inherently involved with one another. They cannot exist without the other. Yet they do not resolve into either : they do not resolve into ‘meaning’ that one is more true than the other.

        One relies upon God being a first cause sort of creator that inspires while remaining strangely also distant from the person.

        The other is entirely unknowable and is yet intimate and not separated.

        One does not negate the other.

        This is a difficulty idea.

        I think that God is so totally unknowable (in himself ) and powerful that he is beyond our ability to conceive of beyond a name. Very Judaic in that idea.

        I ask you a very moral and simple question: is it ok with you that someone who does not express that same theological ideal goes to an eternity of hell and ferment ?

      28. Hey, The other A question came to my mind about the Big Story.

        Why is the Bible consist of all these ancient stories and telling about politics and people moving around and all these events of all these people doing everything and then Jesus calms and then he dies and then his apostles go and do stuff and then Paul writes a couple letters and then it skips to the end of time.

        Why doesn’t have a continuing story about all the various motions of people in various political situations for the last 1800 years?

        Why is the Bible so good at conveying a coherent story but yet is missing 1800 years of time and probably more since we aren’t sure really when the book of revelations is supposed to happen?

        It’s got is inspiring me and my life or maybe not me but at least you, why doesn’t the Bible include you and people like you within the story of what we call the Bible?

      29. (3). I’m going back to my previous question:

        What is the ground of the Bible?

        If you say god, what does that mean?

        What is God what do you mean when you say God?

      30. I don’t really want to return to the “what is table” “what is chair” conversations that we had a few years ago.

        Maybe you could point to some things in The Bible that you suspect I mishandle, or just have difficulty with, that limit my understanding of who/what God is.

      31. I don’t think you ‘mishandle’ the Bible; I think you ate viewing in a certain way. and BTW, I am not advocating multiple interpretation of the Bible; I am saying that there are exactly Two routes to meaning. One route argues interpretation; one route sees the Bible as an example of what occurs.

        I think the issue of whether I am reading things into Bible passages hinges on what I think God is.

        If I think God is just a thing/word/essense that I cannot or not allowed to investigate as to its Being, as to what it is in itself, then Im not sure we get anywhere but assertion of theological dogma: People talking at and past each other. If God is just a name that I cannot look into, then I can claim an interpretation of the Bible that is incontrovertible because I can simply refer back to this God that we do not question.

        In not questioning what this God is, I can thereby project it into everyone and everything and say that there is this God that is working in you but you just don’t see it, you don’t understand it yet. Then I can know if God is working in the person because they will use the same words, talk in the same circles… I can also use this circular talk to exclude people; this exclusion also works to confirm to me that the ‘whole truth’ that exists within the circular reasoning of the closed text is true. I can then point people to the book and spin verses around each other that only have meaning in as much as I “don’t look behind that curtain” that is God.

        Can you tell me what God is? Or at least, can you tell me how God works in your life? What is the evidence to you that God is in your life? can you explain to me how you know God is in your life? Can you explain to me how you know when God is not working in someone else’s life?

        I think the Bible may be understood as describing God in a persons life exactly. it gives actual and definite examples. It tells exactly what happens when God is inseparable from one’s life.

        But also, I think the Bible can be understood as more like a text book of how to view God, what a person should and should not do in order to be ‘Godly’.

        I think these two manners of reading the bible cannot be explained into one another: One cannot understand the Bible as an instruction book of how to view God and or how to behave, and also have it also be the example of what happens to you when God is inseparable to your life. These two manners of understanding the Bible cannot be conflated, they naturally exclude each other in reasoning. And so much as one lives by the Enlightened logic of excluding contradiction, then only one manner is capable of being correct for that person.

        I do not exclude the content of the contradiction, in a manner of speaking, but let both excluding manners lay content in themselves. God, again in a manner of speaking, does not exist by my limited ability to reason. God “surpasses all understanding”.

      32. You tell me that I’m reading things into The Bible that aren’t there, then you tell me that I’m not mishandling The Bible.

        You tell me you want me to tell you what/who God is without appealing to The Bible when I tell you that I understand The Bible to be the fullest context within which to understand God. And, you don’t offer me any fuller context to work within.

        You give me this rule: “One cannot understand the Bible as an instruction book of how to view God and or how to behave, and also have it also be the example of what happens to you when God is inseparable to your life.” But again, I have no idea where that rule came from. You offer me know bigger context/story within which to understand The Bible and God.

        If you read The Bible and tell me that Jesus did not physically die and rise from the dead — reading it in a more “originary and comprehensive” way, then I think this suggests a fuller context within which you are reading it, a bigger story.

      33. I didn’t tell you you Are reading things into it; I said “I could” say the same thing that you said to me back to you,but I don’t, because though I might use the word interpretation, im not talking about ‘interpretations’ as if everyone gets to have their own I interpretation.

        I didn’t give you a rule; I am describing what is occurring. Like if I drop a rock from my third story window it will fall straight to the ground. That is an observation. I’m not saying that it has to fall to the ground ; but I am saying that every time we do that, it falls to the ground..

        I’m saying that those two descriptions that we are evidencing by your view in my view — and I mean “view” in the sense of actually viewing, not in the sense of interpretation or perception or opinion; when I save ‘view’ I am indicating what you see in a general sense, like if you’re standing on the top of the bluff looking over the valley you have a view of it; you are not having an opinion of the view of the valley, though you could have an opinion about your view. — these two views are:

        – God is inherently separate from us and even the relationship that we may have with God is still based in a kind of separation. This separation calls for belief and faith.

        And btw: I’m not sure if I know that something is true why I would need any faith to believe that it’s true.

        So that comes to the second view :

        No faith is required for God to be true or to follow his commandments or to know that Christ exists.

        I think I’ve really been saying to you, and I’ve said this to you more than a few times over the years, is that you know what is true. Why do you have to double hedge what you know is true by asserting that somehow you need to choose upon whether you believe that this is true is true?

        And because it seems that you have difficulty with understanding what I’m saying right there, that those two views that you and I are evidence saying in our discussion appeared to me to not be able to be reconciled.

        It appears to me by the simple fact that you do not agree with what I’m saying that we can’t reconcile are two positions.

        It seems like, and I’m saying appears seems like in all these kind of qualifiers because actually I’m telling you that it merely appears to me in this way and it seems to me that this is the case – i’m not telling you that this is my opinion on the matter. Necessarily

        But it appears to me that you are not able to understand what I’m saying to you. And because it seems to me that you are not able to understand what I’m saying to you that there is some sort of job, some sort of situation where by those two views cannot be reconciled.

      34. I’m not sure what your double hedging question is about. I think faith is required in my relationship with God — because it’s a personal relationship. I don’t know how much you want to talk about faith as it has to do with believing that God exists (not very much, if I understand you). But, faith and faithfulness are important features in our relationship with God.

      35. I guess it goes along with the question of whether or not a rock is true. Is there not a truth of the rock? If I’m walking my dog and then he suddenly lunges to where I fall forward and hit my face on the cement walkway,, does it matter whether or not I believed that I would break my nose? Is not there some truth to the cement that has nothing to do with what I believe?

        I talking about that kind of God. It doesn’t need me to have any sort of faith or any believe in it in order for it to exist or for me to have a relationship with it.

        So I’m asking you that if God is true in that way then why what I have to turn around and say that I believe in God? I don’t believe in God.

        And in a probably factual way of speaking, God probably believes in me. Supports me in every occasion despite whether or not I seek him or not.

        I’m saying that the Bible is talking about the factually of God in that sense.

      36. Is there something you would like me to consider about how The Bible treats the “factuality of God”?

      37. What would you like me to consider? I don’t think of much in The Bible as argument for God’s existence, in a philosophical sense.

        The psalms say, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.”

        And, the book of Hebrews says, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”

        That’s about all that comes to mind right now.

      38. yeah. Well. I think how we formulate God existence relates to how each of us hear the Word in the Bible.

        Sure, ok God. Now what. Cogency.
        The point I am trying to make is that is appears that I can’t convince you of what Im saying that it is a human interaction. It appears that you see magic occurring in the Bible. I don’t. I see it the Bible as telling of human exchanges that are explainable without outside magic.

        So I just accept that about us. that I can’t convince you; you can’t convince me.

        I know what that is for me; it means that God is working in you as well as me and that it is not for me to judge you as to how God is working in your life.

        so I ask you what that means to you?

        Perhaps you don’t accept it. But then I would say what does that nonacceptance mean to you? what does it mean that you can’t accept that God is communicating to me intimately through an actual and truthful relationship whereby I don’t acknowledge Christ in the manner that you see as faithful or even constant with what the Bible says?

      39. Acknowledging Christ in a manner that is consistent with The Bible would be a good thing. So, I thought I would take a shot at encouraging you to acknowledge Christ in a manner that is consistent with The Bible.

      40. You could even take Job in a reverse kind of sense and instead of putting it on the incredible Ness or the greatness of Job’s faith, you could put it instead on the factuality of God sitting there doing things despite what Job is going through. Then Jobs faith seems not so incredible if you understand it in the sense of that he had knowledge of God over his assertion of ability to believe or choose to believe.

        Both God and Job were involved in the truth of the matter.

      41. I think it is difficult for you to conceive how I agree with you on the Bible account, but then your ‘the Story’ doesn’t coincide with my telling of it.

        The question is how can you Dave have a big story that is all complete and it’s telling most comprehensive most cogent as you say,

        And I have the same going on with me.

        Yet when we talk about it somehow it’s different.

        I suppose I’m asking you to account for that.

        I have attempting to account for it but it apparently doesn’t seem to be making any sense , so I’m asking how do you account for that situation?

      42. also.

        I have told you, or at least indicated to you, that I am content in my life, I am happy. My life is fulfilled. I am at peace. I try to help others if they need or want help. I try to create a world where people, who may not have access to the physical accouterments and luxuries that our country and system afford, might one day be able to. I attempt to avoid violence and try to diffuse it where I find it. I try to model for others the person and world I would want for myself.

        It appears to me that this good relationship with God that you advocate, but also the ‘eternal life’ of christ, is quite similar to the life I already have.

        So I ask you what more is there? What should I expect from believing ?

    1. lol Yeah it took me a little to write it, and then I didn’t feel like structuring the sentence. So I get to create my own past; aint that kinda cool! 🙂

      1. When I think of eternal life, I think of both quantity and quality. It looks like God’s intention is for us to have everlasting life and to have our relationship with Him fully restored.

      2. What is it about your relationship with God that is not fully restored? What is it that indicate to you that it is not restored? What is the quality of the relationship when it is restored?

      3. I think about relationships in the sense of say me and my wife. We have our disagreements and actually they say ina healthy relationship people get in arguments from time to time.

        And actually that’s how we grow into personally but also in ourselves. That’s how we grow as a human being.

        We don’t grow by everything being great and perfect.

        Set makes me wonder what the fifth filament of a relationship would with God would be.

        And I think about like the visions that Like different profits had maybe it’s in John’s revelation, where there are like hundreds and thousands of angels standing around God just repeating his name over and over again. I mean that doesn’t sound very fun and it honestly it doesn’t really sound very for filling.

        And I’m sorry if I sound like a smart ass but if that’s what film it means when it doesn’t seem very appealing to me and it’s not really a good sellfor Christianity

        So I’m wondering if there’s anything in the Bible that says what this relationship would be, and then I’m kind of wondering what your version is

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s