So an example would be marriage. Some days I’m a crummy husband. But everyday I get another chance. If I screw up enough I could lead to divorce sure but even then I still have another chance each day to do the best I can at being the best husband (or ex-husband) or father I can be.
Being a good ex-husband might just involve not bothering my ex-wife, but even then that’s right action in that case. Make the best of each day.

Have you seen the move live, die, repeat (edge of tommorow) with Tom Cruise? He does get a replay every time he dies. Together with a female warrior (the angel of Vurdun) he is able to try again and again thru learning from his mistakes in order to defeat the aliens.

I think this is a powerful symbolic movie influenced by my love of Platonism and stoicism. Each day is a new day. Yes, we inherit debt or responsibilities from our yesterday self but today we still are able to choose. We can learn from our mistakes. We have an angel or divine guidance to help us and each day is a new opportunity to do good. Even small good acts matter. Just one day is a wonderful gift and if used rightly is enough, as Seneca says.

This conversation has thrown me into quite of a bit of confusion. I’m actually often confused.

My drive into work gave me some rare clarity though

It’s perfectly fine and good to be confused. None of us have any certainty. What religions and philosophies do is act like a bizzare meteorologist convention trying to predict weather trends. Some give polished, climate science based presentations. Others rant and rave about denying those presentations and bring in politics and what their grandfather used to say. Others consult the weather in 1912 and try to compare it. Others discect birds or take drugs to gain powers of an oracle. But no one knows how much snow we’ll get this winter. No one. Doesn’t mean it won’t snow, just we can’t know with certainty that it will or how much or on what days.

Luckily, we aren’t meteorologists and life isn’t a theology exam. It’s okay to say I don’t know. If I’m asked do I believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, why can’t I say “that’s a good question. I wonder what God believes, I’ll ask when I see him”?
When I die God won’t punish me for wanting His opinion on the matter. He might punish me for the arrogance in thinking I don’t need His input and I joined some weird cult though. I suspect He’s pretty forgiving for all our follies though.
There’s still a good amount we can be pretty sure about though like not murdering and being respectful to your parents is a good idea. Donating food or time to the hungry seems pretty safe.

So yeah, I’m with God. I believe what he does.

Thanks for sharing.
So do you think it’s possibke to have a theory that explains why experiences like these are meaningful to us?

I’m still chewing on the idea that the Quran is unmystical. It’s my favorite scripture though rather repetitive.
It takes the sovereignty and primacy of God seriously. There’s no intermediaries or partners of God. It’s a streamlined monotheism that’s consistent with Monism.

Those are all things that institutionalized religious practice often looses once you add clergy and hadiths or Talmud or creeds.

I’ve thought perhaps a philosophical approach to God would work. But I find the most value in praxis side of things and I have trouble staying philosophicaly consistent.

So I’m okay with not being a mystic then.

You all have helped me think thru how a mystic (in a technical sense) doesn’t equal contemplative.
Does it real mean anything to say I’m a contemplative? I think that’s the term Merton uses to describe himself. Not that I’m on par with Merton who is a monk.
I’m not really an ascetic since I still have a house and car and all that.

I’m not at all ashamed to say I’m confused. My head is a jumble of scriptures and sages.

How can wise and holy and brilliant people be in contradictory traditions? How could you possibly choose between agreeing with St. Anthony, Maimonides, Rumi or Bahá’u’llá? (Just a tiny fraction of examples) I’ll never have the same insight as they do. How as a lessor mind am I able to choose which of these greater minds is most correct?

Hmm... I think you are right in how this quranic passage would be interpreted by Muslims. They would definitely say their hadiths and traditions were the straight path to God. Non-Muslim paths or heresy would be the errant paths.

You also give a compelling description of mysticism, thank you.

I’m still trying to balance competing approaches. That’s what I get from religion hopping.

So would Soto Zen be mystical? It denies study or institutions or ritualism or intermediaries but relies on direct enlightenment

Was that trying to egg me on? Read Plato’s Gorgias on this very subject.

You're really a pitiful philosopher - here Noble Dust and I are agreeing with you on almost everything and still you lose faith. — T Clark

What’s the difference between philosophy and rhetoric?
Philosophy’s goal is truth and justice
Rhetoric’s goal is flattery.

I’m not here to win arguments and you my friend I don’t think you are either

I really enjoyed your comments.
Yeah if I’m drawn to the Quran, perhaps I’m not really a mystic. It does have a very strong Monism, there is no God but God, no intermediaries, one revelation with many prophets.
Now the Sufis get more mystical, but I think your point is still valid. My love of the directness is not mystical. Also check out the Baha’i. They are pretty convinced I’m one of them.

I think I’m a God alone kinda of guy. So maybe a acestic contemplative?

And so the reason to strive for this awareness is because it's the "real" reality? It's a pursuit after truth? — Noble Dust

Yes! You have be aware of it yourself, you can’t trust anyone else. Or at least you need to verify it for yourself.
That’s why I feel so inept at saying what Truth is. I’m not certain myself and it’s not shareable.

I think you and I are agreeing with each other. Someone, I think it was MysticMonist, said some nasty things about new agers in a recent post. He said they steal the shiny surface from whatever comes floating down the river and ignore the insight that requires a bit of digging. That's my paraphrase. The new agey guys have stolen the idea of consciousness without its substance. — T Clark

Yeah that was me. I really don’t feel sorry either.

That’s a really good question.
Because we are already in a state of union, so yes the goal is awareness.



Though I’m starting to feel my whole intellectual house of cards shaking.

Why was Socrates wise? Because he knew he didn’t know.
I know religion doesn’t have a monopoly on God. But I don’t know if I can really tell you that much about God if he would be freed. I definitely don’t know once God is open access why anyone would ask me about Her.

Maybe I am drifting into Hinduism

a spiritual belief stating that a connection can be obtained with God or the spirits through thought and meditation. — T Clark

Comments revised...

So this would be the closest to the direct, independent experience I’m talking about.
But as I’ve learned in my research on psychedelics and many people pointed out in brain science, awareness of this really real isn’t spiritual or religious at all. Mysticism in a western sense is a special or hyper-spiritual, hyper-religious thing. Becoming one with God.

But really if I’m a true monist, everything already is united with God. So much so that something as mundane as a stroke to the correct part of the brain, taking LSD, or staring at a wall long enough will reveal this to pretty much anyone.

Are you familiar with Pascal’s wager?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

The above my modified version of it. Explaining 3 possible outcomes.

So you would say there is a source of meaning, right? Then your worldview would fall into the 2 category.

As a mystical theist and not a traditional theists, I have much looser and flexible understanding of “God” and I also seek truth for its own sake while acknowledging this search never ends. There is no certainty. So the object of the mystics quest is truth whatever it may be, even if that’s not God (if He doesn’t exist). That’s why I advocate freedom so much, we need to be free to find it.

Just one minor flaw. If we apply the same argument to our contemporary life which admittedly is not perfect and is sometimes hell - how will that work our. Does God suffer with us? Actually maybe God does enjoy the diversity of our joys and sorrows in our pursuit of the divine or happiness? — AlexGreat

So yes, God probably does enjoy watching us finding our way back to Him (Kabbalah and Gnosticism are big on these themes).
But human misery during life is temporary. So God knows it’s temporary and takes an eternal perspective. He knows one day we won’t still suffer.
I see this being the only way to explain a good God that creates or allows childhood cancer for instance or allows starvation.
This works for me as a theoretical ascetic in that I try to renounce worldly desires and ambitions. I say theoretical because I don’t know how well I put this into practice. Though if the goal is actually to be poor and destitute that in and of itself takes the stress out of paying bills!

I think when I said numerology and Platonism are both BS people understood my iconclastic meaning. I’m well known on here to be a Platonist.
I’ve spent too much time with Zen teachers who make a point of being shocking and uncouth intentionally. Socrates is also very unkind to his critics views. I agree with you another, as long as the statement is made in good faith of not insulting persons we don’t have to too self censoring.

I didn’t take T Clark’s remarks about charity literally but in an intellectualy charitable sense of perhaps I should be open intellectualy to their point of view. It’s a key aspect in our worldviews we share of respecting and valuing diverse views. As he often says one should be able to hold opposing views simultaneously in your mind without loosing it.

Also I think there’s a difference after you’ve talked for a while for a person and get to know them better. Clark and I have talked a lot about a lot of issues so there’s a general understanding there. I think Another we’ve gotten to that point as well and less likely to accidentally offend and can speak more openly.

What would not be cool is this:
Hypothetical New member: I think numerology is so cool and I believe it’s key to understanding the universe. I saw 3:33 and it change my life.
Me: that’s BS and you are an idiot.

That would be beyond decency.

I would think those on this thread so far have been more or less decent. Right?

The concept of heaven and hell has always been such an illogical concept. Heaven sounds great, but how great could something possibly be for all eternity? — Moises

Do you mean possibly happy for all eternity?
In our current state/psychology it would not be possible I agree.

It’s an excellent point that I reject hell but don’t really have a theory of heaven. I think I really need one. In order to be a universalist I shouldn’t just take a stance of anti-hell.

Thanks for pointing this out, I’ll have to think about it...

I was thinking, how different is numerology from Platonism? It's at least the same impulse, if not the same results. — T Clark

The impulse being seeking or expressing truth? I suppose then you’re right. But they both BS at least in the sense that they don’t tell us the whole story, just a distorted piece at best or meaningless jumble at worst. There are a lot of people, the majority I think, to whom Plato is a meaningless jumble.

Now maybe you're being too charitable. T — T Clark

Hmm.. so how do we allow truth to be truth, to speak for itself? I love being overdramitic and say to free God but it’s poetic language. Truth isn’t necessarily God.
If we are too heavy handed then we are just another religion and making more idols.
If we are too lenient, any fanciful idea becomes “your truth”. The individual becomes infallible and real truth is ignored.
I don’t know if there is a perfect middle.
I’ve said this before, but I’d rather be to lenient so that I’m responsible for my own delusions rather than be forced someone else’s.

Oh the conversations with evangelicals isn’t going so well so far. I think the best route maybe to just not care what they think.

I think you're being a bit uncharitable here — T Clark

Maybe you’re right. One man’s life changing ephainy is another nonsensical fantasy. I went camping this weekend and it was a delightful dose of perspective.
I had deeply profound moments doing and experiencing nothing more than walking across and field or listening to rain during a storm. These are everyday things, just like numbers reoccurring or deja vu. Yet for me they were deeply meaningful. The point of my “philosophy” (if can call it that) is to get away from letting others dictate what forms of experiences is meaningful.

What I think I did is I forgot this freedom needs to go both ways A person need to be affirm or deny meaning, for themselves, but can’t do so for other people. It’s not that there isn’t objective meaning, we just can’t know with certainty much about it. So we search and discern for myself. If you think 3:33 means something to you, then great but I don’t. That’s okay. I think rain means something to me, but you don’t have to.

I enjoy the gnostics, especially the Gospel of Thomas, which is my favorite of the gospels. I wrote a “devotional” of the book that’s a bit harsh parady of the Church. It’s a week with the heretical gospel. I’ll PM it to you since you like the gnostics.
I’d like to get more into the gnostic texts (other than Thomas) but being esoteric texts it will take some focused time.

I’m going camping for the weekend with my son and his Cub Scout den. It will be good to unplug. When I get back I’m going to post my philosophy up since I think it’s coming together now in a short and coherent form. I’d be really curious to see what the forum names or labels it as. You’re right I’m not a Perennialist.

Always a good idea to shave with Ockham's Razor. — Bitter Crank

I didn’t know there are other kinds of vu’s that’s funny, thanks.

So yeah I’m on the verge of falling into complete absurdity. You’ll often find this type of stuff online. People who make a big deal out of seeing 3s on their call list, on the clock (every 10 mins too!!) and make it into being spiritually significant. Any numbers of likely coincidences or self induced feelings become deeply significant. That’s the realm of self absorbed spiritual immaturity or worse delusion and maybe even schizophrenia.

So clearly not every instance of deja vu is telling us something. Another seemed to think it was significant though. Perhaps there’s a reason.

Take an example. St Augustine was famously sitting in a room and was having a spiritual crisis of faith. He heard a child outside singing a common song at the time “Tolle Legge” or take and read. He felt moved to pick up the Bible and was transformed by the experience. Ockham’s Razor would say this wasn’t God but a child being bored waiting on their parents.

That’s a very theistic example. What about pangs of conscious or just a “sense” of something you should do? Maybe a Christian God doesn’t exist but Augustine was sensing/tapping into a world consciousness, a zietgiest, or collective conciousness that called towards a life of theology rather than unchaste living. Maybe there was nothing outside of him was there at all, but his own human spirit (in a non-literal sense) came to a point that he realized devoting his life to seeking Truth (as he conceived of it) was better than seeking to get laid.

Assuming we aren’t total nihilists, we think there is meaning or we can create meaning. Most of the time we don’t perceive or make this meaning thru sitting still and thinking really hard deductively about it. That’s why we can’t prove or disprove God, it’s not a deductive thing. We discover this meaning thru intution possibly even sparked by a singing child or by deja vu. Why not?

The trick is discernment. But I’d rather be free to follow my own intuitions (and risk being delusional) than relying on someone else like a priest or a rabbi tell me about their intuitions or what some guy thousands of years ago had a intution about.

Something I've wondered - Is Baha'i related to Judaism? I've only met a few, and they've all been ethnically Jewish. — T Clark

No. They grew out of Shi’a Islam in Persia/Iran in 1800s with the teachings of their prophets the Bab and Bahá’u’llá. They are a really small religion and are persecuted by Muslims as heretics. They are very friendly and multicultural following.
Key beliefs are that most religions are true and their their prophets are “divine manifestations” which doesn’t mean incarnations of God but “perfect mirrors” of God. They think humanity should be united in one world government. They are very influenced by the Sufi mystics. Cool folks.

If I think I understand you, this is sort of what some of us were discussing in the psychedelic thread. Sometimes there are “glitches in the matrix” that give us a glimpse into something else.
Spinoza and Mahayana Buddhism both talk about how intution can give use understanding into God (Spinoza) or Universal Mind (Buddhism). Both of these ideas of God of Spinoza and Mahayana are totally different from western religious God.
Do you ever get a sense of something that you just know you know, but you’re not sure how? What about feelings of conscious or sudden insight or “calling”? I think religious and non-religious people get these experiences. For me, that’s where it’s at.

So back to deja vu. Is that God/Universal Mind/your soul directly communicating with you? Maybe. Even if it’s not it’s your mind creating meaning out of the experience. Even that’s intuition, like a Jackson Polluck painting can be moving even though it’s just dribbled paint. Basically if it’s meaningful to you, then it’s meaningful. Of course we need discernment so we don’t think God is calling us to murder people. Like he does in the Torah... uh oh. But that’s a different can of worms.

You’re right I’m an apostate. But only to christanity.
Judiasm, Islam*, Bahai, Buddhism, Hinduism are all cool with me and vice versa. That suggests that maybe it’s not my beliefs that are the problem :)

*my relationship with Islam is complicated. I converted to Islam by accident. I love the Quran. Apparently to be Muslim all you have to say is the statement of faith “there is no God but God, and Muhammad is His messenger”. I was asked if I believed that I did and I said it and they said you’re Muslim now. Wait a min?! But I ran with it for a like a week, wasn’t really my thing. So am I still Muslim? I think so, I’m not sure. I almost became Baha’i though and the Muslims hate the Baha’i. They call me a friend of the faith. So there’s that. It’s complicated.

I’ve had simmilar thoughts that all of religions are just mankind’s attempts to describe God that are initiated by intelligent, wise and pious men rather than handed down by God(s) or Angels. I also think along the same lines with my modified Pascal’s wager. If God doesn’t exist, then there is still value in a spiritual search to find or create meaning.

I reached out to a conservative Christian forum, we’ll see how that goes. Wish me luck. But the church I’d like to see is devoted to the search for truth but respects and acknowledges the divine wisdom held by others. Actually, in theory, the Catholic Church does this. They say in several of their statements that Divine wisdom is found in other faiths and even by principled atheists. They do say the Catholic Church is the best and surest way to salvation. Of course you think your path is the best or you wouldn’t be in that tradition, but I would like the church to embrace Universalism. I don’t think they are worried about what one heretic thinks. But who knows.

Sincerely sorry. — Another

No harm done.

Okay, that’s probably true about not being mean spirited.
I forgot who said it, maybe Huxley, but so many ex-churched mystics treat Christanity like an ex at a cocktail party. We will say all nice things about Buddhism, Hinduism, even Islam but we have an axe to grind against Christanity. It’s completly natural, but it’s still unfair to Christians. That’s why I’m wanting to write a letter/essay to bury the hatchet. Of course I’ll post it here too. My main audience is going to be some Christian forums. I don’t know if I really am looking for an apology or a clarification on their views or what. We’ll see how it goes. If I get any interesting responses I’ll share them too.

I love that explaining communion story. I think that’s the biggest reaction I get from Christians is those blank stares. Since I’ll start from a Christian point and then jump in and out of other faiths and philosophies. It requires not being locked into one world view, most people aren’t that mentally flexible.

In my experience, Christians get really nervous (in person rather than online) about talking to me about salvation and hell. But that’s because I’m well versed in theology and scriptures at least enough to be dangerous. As you’ve pointed out before, I’ve given a lot of thought about it. I usually find I’ve thought out the questions of salvation way more than an evangelist. So I really don’t have people saying to me “you are going to hell” but rather “you’re searching, you’ll find it”. This gives the implied assumption that other non-believers aren’t genuinely searching. That’s just wrong.

we be wise without a supernatural God? — tim wood

Thanks for this thread, I’ll definitely read and catch up on the rest of it.

I don’t think such questions are helpful as deductive proofs or disproofs of God.
I like to ask since wisdom comes from God, then what does that mean for XYZ?
I know this drives atheists crazy. It makes religious people crazy too because if all wisdom comes from God it makes their books secondary and no longer authorative.

Basically this is my whole philosophy summed up. “God is the source of all wisdom, let’s listen together.”

Im glad you raised this, it’s timely. I’ve been considering writing an open letter to evangelical Christians. You’re right that most believers wouldn’t tell us to our faces we’re going to hell. Nor would they believe that we would, just that we might and wouldn’t want to dwell on it further. It’s more an abstract notion than applied in particular to real persons. I would say this is because hell is against common intuition. God reveals himself thru intuition therefore no hell. It’s not the strongest argument but in conjunction with the others makes a strong case.

The real problem I have with Christian and Islamic hell is the chilling effect has within and without the faith. That will be the real focus of my letter, the monopolizing of God

I’ve been thinking back to philosophy 101 where I first heard about Plato, his Forms and his cave. It’s required knowledge for any of western philosophy really.
But it’s not till studying him again, for fun, I really appreciated him. Platonism is more than just a theory for how we know a chair is a chair. It’s a whole principled way of life that is very fulfilling. Same of stoicism and epicurean. It’s modern philosophy that’s become overly technical. I wish I had that explained in my 101 class. Perhaps you have better teachers though.

It’s okay. Thanks for your support Clark.

I’m not a religious theist. I’d really like to develop some sort of middle way between atheism and theism. 99% of atheists are not nihilistic, unchecked hedonistists. I would also say of us theists that actually we don’t know what God is and have all kinds of wrong ideas about Him/Her/They/it. That what happens when a finite mind attempts to grasp an infinite reality. I’m still trying to wrestle with how to do this. My latest attempt is that “God” is an objective truth and source of meaning that is subjectively experienced.
God is even experienced by atheists and they perceive aspects of God correctly, they aren’t wrong.

The atheists may think this is silly. They may be offended that I’m puttimg words or beliefs in their mouths that they don’t say or believe. I’m sensitive to that and it’s what I’m still working on.

But it comes down to this: there will always be theists, you can’t wish us away. There will always be atheists, we can’t and shouldn’t wish you away. So would the atheists rather have a world where the people of faith acknowledge everyone’s personal dignity and validity of their subjective experience of God
Or do they want a world where people of faith think atheists are going to hell and try to convert them because any means possible (if they are compassionate) or disregard their value as human beings all together (if they are not compassionate)?

In my mind, my philosophic enemy isn’t the atheist, who I’d like to ally with, but our common enemy the exclusivist religious who think they have a monopoly on God and would condemn us both to hell if they had the chance. Maybe I just want to free God :)

Are you studying the Republic for a class?

I’m pretty much a Platonist and I’ve posted on several things about him here.

Welcome Alaina! I’m so happy to see someone else interested in the Republic!!
Okay, Socrates gets him to say justice when well applied should punish or cruel to only the guilty, those who deserve it. This is common Greek thought, be good to your friends and be evil to your enemies. Then Socrates goes into we cannot know the true character of a person so we ought to be just to everyone all time.

The absence of god does not entail nihilism. — charleton

No, thankfully it doesn’t.
So either:
1) There is a god and therefore God is the source of meaning.
2) there is no god but some other source of meaning or even a sourceless meaning. Then philosophy is the science of finding or creating this meaning. Mystics participate in philosophy
3) no god, no meaning. They even a quixotic quest for meaning is better than dispair.

Philosophy doesn't give u a definitive answer so you think that justifies believing in a dream and something that seldom offers continuity. — Another

My theology doesn’t give me a definite answer either. Such is the nature of God. God doesn’t fit in neatly defined, deductive boxes. I can’t prove him or define him or rationally explain him. This means I also can’t convert others by reason or by argument.

So if you want spell out the contradicton, please do. The only response I’d be able to offer is why for me it’s not a contradiction. I suspect the problem is a faulty understanding of God (either yours or mine) and I will need to clarify the definition of God (who can’t be truly defined).