I'll start a seperate thread tommorow. — MysticMonist

It doesn't necessarily need it's own thread; as mentioned, the question is fundamental to your question about suffering.

Javra,
Hello! Thanks for the welcome.
I'm using the title of Platonist myself but the forum has helped me realize I don't exactly fit in that category. I don't "neo"Platonism because Plotinus would have said he was a Platonist and I'm mainly studying Plato and Plotinus.

I agree completely on the erotic aspect to mysticism. I write Rumi style poems about God that aren't PG. I also think there's a place for sensuality in spiritual practice. Enjoying a cup of tea, fully enjoying it mindfully, can be a way of showing gratitude for the many gifts from God. Romantic love with a spouse too.

I'll flush out more of a thought experiment. As I said before you live off $10,000/year or less to include rent and utilities but perhaps not health insurance (it's very expensive). That's less than minimum wage full time earnings. Try to live a cheaply as possible and have no luxuries, use all excess income to donate to worthy charities sectetly and don't brag about your austerity. Would the happiness of knowing your helping others outweigh the loss of desired luxuries? If you had a starving child in front of you and choose between a DVD for yourself and a bowl of rice to give, it would be a no brainer and would be rewarding to give. Would your worry about finances or status or promotions disappear? Obviously monks already do this but they require on the charity of others to sustain them and also devote their time to prayer or charitable work and have other vows beyond poverty. What if you worked a normal career but knew a good portion of your salary went to others and not yourself? Again my wife would probably veto this idea, so it's just a thought experiment.

Obviously monks already do this but they require on the charity of others to sustain them and also devote their time to prayer or charitable work and have other vows beyond poverty. What if you worked a normal career but knew a good portion of your salary went to others and not yourself? Again my wife would probably veto this idea, so it's just a thought experiment. — MysticMonist

I’m on board with your general thought experiment; its good intending. As to your wife’s veto, I believe it may have something to do with a commonsensical approach to life and our relations to others. We have to be living in order to help out others we hold agape for. Like what they tell us about oxygen masks when we’re aboard airplanes, we have to take care of ourselves before we can successfully take care of others. Imo, finding the right balance between maintaining one’s self and giving to others is the trick, though, especially since contexts change all the time. And we can’t all be monks: even if it where what everyone wanted to be, there’s be no one left to sustain us with the occasional charity. For what it’s worth, if you don't mind me saying: sounds like you’ve got a wife with sound judgment, one that's also good intending.

Spinoza would disagree. — MysticMonist

So? Citing one exception merely proves the rule.

I'm not entirely consistent in what I mean by God. — MysticMonist

What you think is irrelevant. Your feelings aren't the standard by which words are defined.

For me, God is a range of possible realities. — MysticMonist

No, this will not do. Whatever it is you're talking about, it isn't God as traditionally and normatively understood. Make up another word to describe your idea or cease appropriating the word God. If you continue to appropriate it, you're just contributing to making it utterly meaningless.

Why not? — Thorongil

Maybe cause it's not obvious?

I'll grant that you can't talk about why does God allow suffering without addressing does God exist. So let's switch topics within this thread.

Why I have faith in God:
I'm sure you are familiar with Pascal's wager. As a mystic, I have a modified version of it.
Possible outcomes:
1. God exists and has given a "special" revelation (Aquanis) to one particular faith. For the sake of argument, we'll say the Mormons are right (South Park reference)
2. God exists but only reveals himself in "natural" revelation (Aquanis again) but doesn't have a favorite religion
3. God doesn't exist as a diety of any kind, but there some non-sentient source of goodness or virtue or universal conciousness or spiritual reality or objective purpose. In short, maybe not God but something.
4. No God, no somehting. Pure nihilism.

Any other possibilities?

I have not be convinced with certainty that any one of the above realities is true enough to remove all reasonable doubt. I have a lot of doubt actually.

So in lack of clear evidence, I make a existential choice or a leap of faith (which I frequently second guess and re-evaluate). Personally I use two criteria: what makes the most sense out of my experience and then look at what's at stake.

Experience: I have frequent religious experiences, perhaps I have an active temporal lobe. I fully admit that not all these experiences are genuine not easily interpreted. I definitely acknowledge the possibility of religious delusion both in theory and in my own life. But so accept nihilism, I would have to say I'm 100% delusional. That would be pretty difficult to do.

What's at stake;
If 1 is true, the mormons are right and I didn't become Mormon. I've said before that there is a lack of clear evidence in order to make an informed choice. How would I know they are right other than to take their word for it, especially since there are competing revelations? There is the taste and see approach but I've done that with 7 religions and never heard God lay it out for me yet. Did I stop just a few religions short? I can't see being morally responsible for believing something without good evidence.
If 2 is true, this is what I most closely believe, is true I'm good. As a mystic I try to draw closer to God and develop virtue. Now believing alone gets me nowhere, it's all in the actual practice
If 3 is true, then hopefully my path of spirituality and virtue gets me closer to whatever reality there is or in accordance with whatever source of meaning or goodness exists.
If 4 is true, which I think is very unlikely, then it doesn't matter if I'm wrong. My subjective definition of meaning is as good as any other subjective meaning. I think that my path brings me peace and fulfillment so by that sense it's great.

My biggest problem is the haunting feeling that an exclusivist view of Christianity or Islam is right and I'll end up in hell for lack of intellectual belief. This is completely illogical and makes no philosophical or scriptural sense, yet large numbers of people have thus view and I have been told this many times by people worried about my salvation. It's unsettling.

Maybe cause it's not obvious? — MountainDwarf

Maybe. But then you'd need an argument to show that, which I don't see here.

Maybe. But then you'd need an argument to show that, which I don't see here. — Thorongil

Okay, assuming we're talking about the God of the Bible. God is invisible and God is immaterial. Therefore if he exists he exists incognito. No one can prove that there is or is not a Christian God.

cease appropriating the word God. If — Thorongil

What term should I use? I hate the overuse of the word too. How about Monad (that's one my favorite? I'll try that out on here and see how it goes.

It may be the exception that proves the rule, but Spinoza and Plato and Descartes and Tillich and Richard Rohr all mean this wider sense of God to jystva nane a few. But your point is still valid, I don't mean the God that the baptist church is taking about.

What term should I use? — MysticMonist

I don't know. It's not really my problem.

It may be the exception that proves the rule, but Spinoza and Plato and Descartes and Tillich and Richard Rohr all mean this wider sense of God to jystva nane a few. But I don't mean the God that the baptist church is taking about. — MysticMonist

Really? All of those figures use the particular word "God" to refer to "a range of possible realities?" I don't think you know what you're talking about.

assuming we're talking about the God of the Bible. God is invisible and God is immaterial. Therefore if he exists he exists incognito. No one can prove that there is or is not a Christian God. — MountainDwarf

A non-sequitur. God being invisible or immaterial doesn't entail that he cannot be proven to exist.

A non-sequitur. God being invisible or immaterial doesn't entail that he cannot be proven to exist. — Thorongil

Well then, if it is obvious, tell me what proof you have.

Fair enough, but there is a range of all of them what they mean. I fall somewhere in that range and I don't feel the need to spell out exactly where I fall because I'm not sure. I could make up a position.

Tillich says God is ground of all being, he rejects theism
Rohr is a via negativa mystic, who doesn't strictly define God. He talks about God as consciousness sometimes.
Descartes has a pretty philosophical view of God from first principles
Spinoza's God is more complex that one line to explain
And so on...

There is a big difference between this philosophy forum and various faith forums. I'm learning to be more exact with my wording. They are much less critical there. I welcome the corrections!

Well then, if it is obvious, tell me what proof you have. — MountainDwarf

Why do you assume that I have one? I'm not a theist at present, but I don't have to be to identify bad arguments against God's existence.

Why do you assume that I have one? I'm not a theist at present, but I don't have to be to identify bad arguments against God's existence. — Thorongil

How is what I said a non-sequitur? I had just started an argument.

I largely agree with you. Glad to see another proponent of the all or nothing approach to nihilism/meaning.

Yeah part of my argument is that if there some sort of meaning then it's unlikely that this meaning to be the biggest jerk you can be. Cultivating virtue and treating others well and seeking solace in prayer/study would suit one well regardless.

Tillich says God is ground of all being, he rejects theism — MysticMonist

No he doesn't. He rejects only a certain type of theism, in contradistinction to the one he advocates, which is remarkably akin to classical conceptions of God found in Aquinas and others.

Rohr is a via negativa mystic, who doesn't strictly define God. He talks about God as consciousness sometimes. — MysticMonist

Rohr is a New Age writer whose views on God have little to do with actual apophatic theology.

Descartes has a pretty philosophical view of God from first principles — MysticMonist

Descartes expresses standard theism.

Spinoza's God is more complex that one line to explain — MysticMonist

Spinoza disagrees: "By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite—that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality."

How is what I said a non-sequitur? — MountainDwarf

Because you're missing a premise (or more than one) that links God's immateriality with an inability on our part to prove his existence.

We are using theism in different senses. Tillich blatantly rejects "theism". Yes in a sense is still s theist but that's not exactly fair.
I'm sorry you don't like Rohr, but you can't discount him out of hand. He hasn't been kicked out of the Catholic Church yet.
I'll admit I'm not an expert on Descartes nor spinoza.
I forgot what we are originally arguing. The meaning of God and theism right? You win, I'll try not to use those terms.

Tillich blatantly rejects "theism". — MysticMonist

No. He distinguishes between two different kinds of theism, rejecting one and arguing for the other. Have you read him yet?

I'm sorry you don't like Rohr, but you can't discount him out of hand. He hasn't been kicked out of the Catholic Church yet. — MysticMonist

So you do know what I mean! ;)

I forgot what we are originally arguing. The meaning of God and theism right? You win, I'll try not to use those terms. — MysticMonist

I appreciate it.

No. He distinguishes between two different kinds of theism, rejecting one and arguing for the other. Have you read him yet? — Thorongil

Okay, you might be right on Tillich too. I've read several of his books and sermons. Honestly I don't know why he's still Christian. Especially with a sermon like Shaking the Foundation. He sets up a wonderful view of God seperate from the church (this isnt exactly the right way to put it, forgive me) but then tacks on Jesus as God almost artificialy. I get equally frustrated with Maimonides who is brilliant and I don't understand why he then accepts Rabbinical Judaism and all 613 mitzvot wholesale. I'll fully admit I have an anti-church bais when reading them.

He's a figure in liberal Christianity, which is a relatively new development in the history of Christianity that really only exists in the mainline Protestant churches. In my view, it tries to retain all the language and rituals of historic Christianity, while stripping them of any real content. Everything becomes mere metaphor.

Everything becomes mere metaphor. — Thorongil

I'm not a liberal Christian, though my priests are at my family's espicopal church. So I'm well acquainted. Bishop John Spong used to a be rector there long ago.
I would agree, liberal Christianity everything becomes a metaphore, not sure of what exactly maybe God's love.
I'm totally on board with the mere metaphor. For me it's metaphor of the one Absolute, the Monad.

How does dying encourage growth?

What then is God, if not the thing that produced us, the cause to our own effect. Humans inherently seek to understand this, none more greatly wanted to appropriate the relationship of cause and effect than Hume.

For B to have occurred you needed an A.
And our whole lives we associate things like this, food-mom and so on.
I could go a little further here on Hume to illustrate that we have an already understood notion that humans create cities. They do. It's not too far a creative leap then to suppose that a human-like something created the world, and wow you have God in the biblical fashion.
'Causes' act with reason (obviously not always the case, or even unintended reason is possible) so when we ponder a cause, so too do we think of the reason for why it did so.
Spending our whole lives causing things, we eventually wonder what caused us.
And this is the the way in which God is

traditionally and normatively understood — Thorongil

Tell me how the hill was not the cause for the ball's effect
Or like I said, how the random set of natural phenomena that Caused us isn't God.
Please. And chill man, we all want more knowledge

I don't think you know what you're talking about. — Thorongil

this isn't necessary. Lots of people don't know what they talk about. That's why they keep talking. Or is Socratic dialogue too simple of an idea for you to have fully digested it.

SO two responses:
1. Fatalism, as in the OP.
2. Making suffering itself a good.

Neither are convincing.

isn't necessary. Lots of people don't know what they talk about. — Frank Barroso

Since this comment was towards me, I'd like to say I took no offense. I was factually wrong and Thorongil corrected me. We could all try to be more civil, of course but it's fine.
I'm going to cut down on the cross faith references outside of scripture, the more name dropping I do the more messy it makes my argument. I'll also try to put in the extra time and use more direct quotations. It will teach me to be more careful in my references and I may learn more by looking up all my sources.

Basically the goodness of whatever final metamorphic state is put into question when we reflect on the evil that came before. It's hard to see how something really could be good if it necessitates this much evil. Doing so requires us to seriously become numb to this evil to the point of forgetting it even is evil.

If God exists and He is all good and all powerful why does He allow evil? If there is no satisfactory answer to this question does it disprove God? — MysticMonist

Do we have a perfect understanding of good and evil, such that we are justified in saying that the existence of evil is incompatible with perfect goodness? In other words is it not a problem due to our imperfect understanding of perfection; our projections of human conceptions of value onto the absolute?