Many thanks OM! In reply I'll start by clarifying that I find it "troubling" when my articulated thoughts/beliefs are observed to be consistent with the view of "many philosophers". For this reason I've been very much anticipating your response, and again state my appreciation for your time.
So, it appears that you do not find that humans can earn the ‘Kingdom’, for lack of a better word, by their own actions, especially using their belief in being ‘good’. The following clarification may be superfluous word-smithing, but in place of "belief in being good", my emphasis was on one's reliance that it's possible to live a life "good enough" to be worthy of being accepted into the 'eternal kingdom'. Here, stripping the paragraph of anthropomorphic deity implications, you are saying that humans can not impact salvation and/or attainment of the Kingdom let alone know how the process actually works. You add the suggestion that humans are in no way altruistic and in fact are being selfish (“…service to ourselves…”), even given the best scenario. And, that the determining aspect/force is beyond human knowledge and/or action. Since I think I already knew that we were not unified in our understanding of the anthropomorphic nature of God, this was one of the reasons why I was "troubled" when you indicated that you saw commonality in my view. Let me be clear that I don't find this to be an insignificant difference in the least (as it is essential to correctly understanding the very origin, nature, and purpose of man), nevertheless in the interest of furthering our dialog (and so that I don't appear unnecessarily contentious! :), I wont belabor this point. Having set aside the anthropomorphic nature of God, are you saying that 'many philosophers' would concur with the idea that a supernatural force can and does extend favor to some (all?) humans? In what way is this evidenced...through their enlightenment, perhaps? This would be referred to as 'grace' from this ethereal supernatural force? I’m agreeing with your basic belief set while not addressing religious notions attached to a specific theology. I’m also suggesting that seen in this focused light, many philosophers would agree too. Unstated in my post (yet I think inherently understood), is the idea that humans "need" salvation (hence their misguided motivation to pursue being "good enough"). Is this idea shared by 'many philosophers' as well? If so, salvation from what? Is there an eternal component to this philosophy or does it only apply to one's time on earth? On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 4:26 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected] > wrote: > “OM, while I'm not specifically seeking dissent, your statement is a > little > troubling to me...would you mind recapitulating what you think my > 'overall > view' is...? Thanks! “ – SM > > Not knowing what aspect(s) you find “troubling”, I’m left with a > fairly large task…certainly not a recapitulation! > > My best attempt at so doing in this context would be: I asked you if > salvation was attained through grace. You answered in essence, “yes”. > And, you added what you see “earning” as NOT being in this context… > continuing with a small unpacking thereof. > > In a less succinct and hopefully clearer review: > > You said: > > “…the concept of 'earning' as I've been using it, relates to the > notion of > merit based on achievement...specifically the idea that any of us > individually can merit God's saving grace as a consequence of being > "good > enough" to compel his favor…” – SM > > So, it appears that you do not find that humans can earn the > ‘Kingdom’, for lack of a better word, by their own actions, especially > using their belief in being ‘good’. > > You followed up with: > > “…God extends favor as it pleases Him, irrespective of our efforts > (because in > truth, apart from God's grace at work in us, even our best efforts > are > really in service to ourselves [even when we think we're serving > others]...the very desire to glorify God above ourselves is only > possible as > a function of God's grace within in us - which he extends upon his > own volition).” – SM > > Here, stripping the paragraph of anthropomorphic deity implications, > you are saying that humans can not impact salvation and/or attainment > of the Kingdom let alone know how the process actually works. You add > the suggestion that humans are in no way altruistic and in fact are > being selfish (“…service to ourselves…”), even given the best > scenario. And, that the determining aspect/force is beyond human > knowledge and/or action. > > I’m agreeing with your basic belief set while not addressing religious > notions attached to a specific theology. > > I’m also suggesting that seen in this focused light, many philosophers > would agree too. > > I fear overall that my adding more words and concepts to the issue > will only distort it more and hope you can see through to the core of > my original intention(s). > > > > On Aug 19, 11:42 am, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Many philosophers would agree with your overall view here..." > > > > OM, while I'm not specifically seeking dissent, your statement is a > little > > troubling to me...would you mind recapitulating what you think my > 'overall > > view' is...? Thanks! > > > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:35 PM, ornamentalmind < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > SM – Thanks! > > > > > Many philosophers would agree with your overall view here…just sans > > > theological trappings… although even here, there is no monolithic > > > subjective view…well other than the self(ishness) innate in any living > > > organism. > > > > > On Aug 19, 6:02 am, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > OM, the concept of 'earning' as I've been using it, relates to the > notion > > > of > > > > merit based on achievement...specifically the idea that any of us > > > > individually can merit God's saving grace as a consequence of being > "good > > > > enough" to compel his favor. > > > > > > God extends favor as it pleases Him, irrespective of our efforts > (because > > > in > > > > truth, apart from God's grace at work in us, even our best efforts > are > > > > really in service to ourselves [even when we think we're serving > > > > others]...the very desire to glorify God above ourselves is only > possible > > > as > > > > a function of God's grace within in us - which he extends upon his > own > > > > volition). > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:53 AM, ornamentalmind < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > SM, re: salvation and Bible…is it NOT something earned due to > divine > > > > > grace? …or what? > > > > > > > On Aug 18, 9:17 pm, atypican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > !! > > > > > > > > On Aug 18, 9:25 pm, atypican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't my intent to be 'critical' of Ghandi, only to make > the > > > > > point that > > > > > > > > man's "goodness", no matter how "good" he may appear to be, > is > > > still > > > > > > > > insufficient for reconciliation with his Creator (the > > > prerequisite > > > > > for > > > > > > > > eternal life). > > > > > > > > > Supposing that there is a loving almighty that cares for those > she > > > > > > > deems worth caring for. We need not concern ourselves. > > > > > > > If were broke she'll fix us if she cares about us. If were just > bad > > > > > > > and evil then tough titty. > > > > > > > > > Believing that sounds to me like a recipe for continued > skirting of > > > > > > > legitimate responsibility. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 18, 8:12 pm, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:28 PM, atypican < > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I am willing to consider critical comments about Gandhi, > and I > > > hope > > > > > > > > > you will offer some. > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't my intent to be 'critical' of Ghandi, only to make > the > > > > > point that > > > > > > > > man's "goodness", no matter how "good" he may appear to be, > is > > > still > > > > > > > > insufficient for reconciliation with his Creator (the > > > prerequisite > > > > > for > > > > > > > > eternal life). Therefore, the only relevant 'critique' I > might > > > make > > > > > of > > > > > > > > Ghandi is that he is not known to have reconciled with God > solely > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > > > > basis of the work of Christ, and consequently all the "good > > > works" he > > > > > > > > reportedly accomplished were of no benefit for him (eternally > > > > > speaking). >
