You know what a premise is right? Here's one!
The theistic premise. I put it to you that:
1. God is infinite (this covers -potent, -present, -scient, all that omni- busines)
2. God is eternal (this covers prior-to-observable-reality existence)
3. God loves me.
This, I put it to you, is the theistic premise. It is in accord with Orthodox Christian theology, which includes of course all your Roman Rite, Byzantine Rite, Russian Orthodox and Thousand Island Orthodox (but not Ranch Orthodox).
It is in accord with mainstream Protestant Christianity sects and denominations, including the ones you may have heard of such as Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregational, Baptist, 7th Day Adventist, Methodist, Pentecostal and so on.
It is in accord with Mormonism and with the Witness of Jehovah - at least, according to the official representatives of these two religions, who have been sent around to tell me so.
It is in accord with Islam.
It is in accord with Judaism (in its organized major denominations as a religion, I mean).
I say it's the theistic premise, because I characterize it as the strongest formulation of God's attributes that would be accepted by all but the most fringe branches of theism. In fact, I don't think there's a single point of any major consequence, impact or importance that you can add to those 3.
There could be some quibbles, of course, even with those three - but mainstream theism sees them satisfactorily resolved. Point 3 might be a stumbling block for some. Some people distract themselves from the issue, with accusations of what hypothetical members of this or that specific religion might have to say about God loving me. Some people will say "Well, a person of Religion X, or Religion Y, or Religion Z would claim that God HATES you Joe! because blah blah blah."
But in practice, any actual person of Relgions X, Y, or Z that they can produce always affirms point 3 in principle, and declines to speak for God's proposed hatred of me, specifically.
Which is a wise move. Because not quite universal enough to make a point 4, yet very very strong and prevalent nonetheless, very widespread among all the (what word should I use) respectable branches of theism would be this point: God is the judge of my soul, and you are not.
A lot of people claim to have a problem with religion. In my experience, what they usually have a problem with are either the ways in which people use faith to bludgeon others with their own judgment, which is not in fact God's judgment, or the ways in which people use faith as a "wall of answers" between them and any need to examine self, reality, or where the two intersect. In short: the ways in which people use faith wrongly.
I have that problem with religion, too: a problem with its misuse. I also have a problem with people saying they have a problem with religion, and it turns out the only problem they have is that religion is not being followed. They object to the behavior of people - leaders and followers, but humans - who are acting against their own religion's core, stated, public tenets. That's like blaming the Geneva Convention for not being followed.
Whenever I have a conversation with a theist or an atheist about God, sometimes it is helpful and refreshing to break it down to the most basic level of: what precisely we are talking about. Are we talking about God? Are we talking about the aspects of God that pretty much all theists agree on?
Or are we talking about the bull shit that certain fragile, insecure, childish human beings spew at each other, and then say it's God's fault, God backs them up, God hates you too, God absolves me of this bull shit which I myself can neither defend nor understand?
Usually the answer is "B." But those "A" conversations can be pretty cool too.
The theistic premise. I put it to you that:
1. God is infinite (this covers -potent, -present, -scient, all that omni- busines)
2. God is eternal (this covers prior-to-observable-reality existence)
3. God loves me.
This, I put it to you, is the theistic premise. It is in accord with Orthodox Christian theology, which includes of course all your Roman Rite, Byzantine Rite, Russian Orthodox and Thousand Island Orthodox (but not Ranch Orthodox).
It is in accord with mainstream Protestant Christianity sects and denominations, including the ones you may have heard of such as Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregational, Baptist, 7th Day Adventist, Methodist, Pentecostal and so on.
It is in accord with Mormonism and with the Witness of Jehovah - at least, according to the official representatives of these two religions, who have been sent around to tell me so.
It is in accord with Islam.
It is in accord with Judaism (in its organized major denominations as a religion, I mean).
I say it's the theistic premise, because I characterize it as the strongest formulation of God's attributes that would be accepted by all but the most fringe branches of theism. In fact, I don't think there's a single point of any major consequence, impact or importance that you can add to those 3.
There could be some quibbles, of course, even with those three - but mainstream theism sees them satisfactorily resolved. Point 3 might be a stumbling block for some. Some people distract themselves from the issue, with accusations of what hypothetical members of this or that specific religion might have to say about God loving me. Some people will say "Well, a person of Religion X, or Religion Y, or Religion Z would claim that God HATES you Joe! because blah blah blah."
But in practice, any actual person of Relgions X, Y, or Z that they can produce always affirms point 3 in principle, and declines to speak for God's proposed hatred of me, specifically.
Which is a wise move. Because not quite universal enough to make a point 4, yet very very strong and prevalent nonetheless, very widespread among all the (what word should I use) respectable branches of theism would be this point: God is the judge of my soul, and you are not.
A lot of people claim to have a problem with religion. In my experience, what they usually have a problem with are either the ways in which people use faith to bludgeon others with their own judgment, which is not in fact God's judgment, or the ways in which people use faith as a "wall of answers" between them and any need to examine self, reality, or where the two intersect. In short: the ways in which people use faith wrongly.
I have that problem with religion, too: a problem with its misuse. I also have a problem with people saying they have a problem with religion, and it turns out the only problem they have is that religion is not being followed. They object to the behavior of people - leaders and followers, but humans - who are acting against their own religion's core, stated, public tenets. That's like blaming the Geneva Convention for not being followed.
Whenever I have a conversation with a theist or an atheist about God, sometimes it is helpful and refreshing to break it down to the most basic level of: what precisely we are talking about. Are we talking about God? Are we talking about the aspects of God that pretty much all theists agree on?
Or are we talking about the bull shit that certain fragile, insecure, childish human beings spew at each other, and then say it's God's fault, God backs them up, God hates you too, God absolves me of this bull shit which I myself can neither defend nor understand?
Usually the answer is "B." But those "A" conversations can be pretty cool too.
Comments
This one had me thinking a lot. I like the sound of it. I like the way it emphasizes the idea of "just because they say they are Christians and doing Christian things doesn't mean they are Christian and doing Christian things." (@adtothebone)
It provides a nice break, allows you to draw attention to the teachings of Christ rather than traditions, yada yada yada.
But something about it was also bugging me. It seemed a little too pat, too dismissive of real problems. Then I realized what was bugging me: it reminded me of this post:
http://asurfaceofinfiniteshallowness.blogspot.com/2009/10/perfection-theory-and-its-imperfect.html
and seemed like exactly the kind of argument somebody subscribing to a Perfection Theory would make. "Oh, you don't have a problem with communism, you have a problem with communism done poorly!" When the problem is that human nature makes it impossible for communism to be done right.
So I like the idea, and it warrants more thought, but I would be reluctant to use an argument strategy that I would call BS on if it was used on me.
Really, this post is just an excuse to say what I've been meaning to for a while, that I greatly enjoy your blog, your playing with different perspectives, your combination of intellectual honesty with intellectual frivolity. I've been reading for years, and I have lots of my favorite posts and quotes saved for future referral and often find myself coming back to ideas and perspectives you've put forth here.
You do good thinking with the brainstuff.
- it actually took me two tries to post it! I just posted the hindmost one, I assume they were all identical, they all looked good!
Thanks for taking the time to point out that possible interaction, there. Man, I forgot all about Perfection Theories.
"Really, this post is just an excuse to say what I've been meaning to for a while, that I greatly enjoy your blog, your playing with different perspectives, your combination of intellectual honesty with intellectual frivolity. I've been reading for years, and I have lots of my favorite posts and quotes saved for future referral and often find myself coming back to ideas and perspectives you've put forth here.
You do good thinking with the brainstuff."
- I totally want to use this in my next installment of Rave Reviews. Can I can I huh can I snortingmarmots?? :-D
Bear in mind, calling something a Perfection Theory is an attack and voiding of the principle in question. It does not defend the principle. It says: a given "pure and good in theory" theory is fundamentally unsound and worthless, when attempts to realize it can not succeed. To whatever degree a principle can't be realized, that is the degree to which it cannot be good for us to credit it. When people persist as if an unrealizable theory is a good thing to go by or to push for, it becomes harmful.
What I've just called "corruption theory" on the other hand (To Those In Any Power) is a defense of principle. But these are far different kinds of principle than "in theory, if everyone..." pie-sky bullshit of a Perfection Theory. These are principles that ARE realized: in fact. Daily. Usually they are commonly realized, easily realized. Many are very much minimum-acceptable-behavior standards. How about, "don't embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars?" "Don't use your official capacity to murder people." "Don't fuck children." Each of these is a principle that most of us realize very easily, every day, and to quite literally an absolute, perfect degree.
BUT: each can be violated as well.
Corruption Theory simply notes that the person who stands publicly as "Pro" yet operates clandestinely as "Con" is the enemy of their supposed principle and organization. They are not "part of" it. They are an active agent against it, acting secretly from within, to subvert its openly-stated goals.
They are corrupt. And their corruption is a problem to be dealt with, but it is no indictment of the principle that they're working to undermine, pervert, circumvent and destroy!
Given the specific case, their corruption may most certainly be an indictment against their organization's due diligence!
In several instances of "corruption" (as described above), death to the culprit is one of the prescribed statutory remedies. Imprisonment in others. I'm kind of on board with responsible prosecution pushing to the limit of the law in all egregious cases - but of course, the job of a judge and especially, a jury, is to suss the gray area - human action, human testimony - that lies between such clear, bright lines.
Hey, do we still do ya for treason with death around here?
I'd be willing to endorse that. I'd strongly provisionally endorse the death penalty in such cases where it is found applicable. But only in cases where the state is absolutely competent to perfectly identify the culprit, and establish culpability of course!
Har! Har! That last part's a joke - a "call back" on the ol' Perfection Theory.
I am, obviously, referring to theism in practice, not theism in politics, which follows an 'Insist it's essential for everyone and give me some money while you're at it' model.
You're welcome to quote me if you like - I quote you all the time.
I don't understand it. I don't understand it.
I don't understand it. I may tomorrow?
Examples?
(if I don't post back tomorrow understanding it)
I feel sure there's something here but I can't relate it to my experience of theists, which I admit, is limited.
HAHAH "limited"! Yeas. Of course it is. What an understated and infinite disclaimer.
I'm tempted to try to puzzle out what you say here, but I'll make myself an ass on some literal-minded point-missing expedition so for once, patience.
So glad you're back, snortingmarmots! Whatever happened to Lore?
All it took was to stumble on it later and read through fresh. Yes! I agree, it does.
What about that didn't I get? It's perfectly straightforward.