# The Aesthetical Jesus - Part IV **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2009, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898 "2009-06-16T01:16:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/241 "2009-07-24T02:22:04Z")
Ah. ---
**Author:** ![Xploder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/a183cd/32.png) [@Xploder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xploder)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/242 "2009-07-24T03:04:20Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Come to think of it, Xploder — what exactly have you contributed to the topic of this thread? You have, as of this writing, posted 10 times. And not once have you commented on the topic, and in fact have admitted that you don’t even know what the topic is. Why exactly are you posting? Ya know what? I typed out a long response to this before I realized that it was pointless. You’re gonna do whatever it is that you wanna do and **tomndeb** is gonna let you. Fine. Enjoy your blog. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/243 "2009-07-24T10:20:58Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I’m curious as to the motives of people other than **Liberal** posting in this thread. > > What benefit do you think you’ll get by a deep study of a self taught and rather peculiar philosophy? A better understanding of **Liberal** ’s philosophy? Plus I don’t find it at all peculiar, I have friends who have similar beliefs, if not as strongly Christian in conclusion. I’ve debated **Lib** in various other religion threads, but more data always helps to broaden understanding, IMO. I think if one approaches philosophical debates from a friendly perspective (which necessitates understanding, I think), one is more likely to have a decent debate, even if any actual resolution to debates is still rare (but then, we don’t really debate philosophical topics to _resolve_ them, do we? Well, at least, I don’t. Starting premises are usually too different from individual to individual. I debate for debate’s sake.) So essentially, I’m participating partly so that other religious debates will be more pleasant all round. Plus the concepts discussed so far have been interesting, since I take a partly aesthetic approach (in **Liberal** ’s sense of the term) to my atheism and I’m interested in how similar founding principles can lead to such variant outcomes. Call it an exercise in Chaos Theory if you will. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/244 "2009-07-24T14:17:38Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > That’s because you’re thinking like Kant! You’re thinking that existence is not a predicate. Perhaps… at least, I’m open to the suggestion. > [@](#): > > Anyway, the existence of Socrates, Miller maintains, differs from the existence of other-wise by virtue of how you two have existed — i.e., your life experiences. This is a gross simplification, but it will do for our discussion. It gets into Fregean navel gazing about nonexistence, but there is really no reason for us to go there. Your existence, in other words, differs from the existence of Socrates because the bound of your existence differs from the bound of his. It’s relatively easy for me to individuate humans; Socrates and I (and Jesus) occupy our own distinct time/space coordinates, hence, our physical existence and our experiences differ (and _must_ differ). Same story when it comes to individuating pats of butter; I can differentiate this pat from that pat by physical location, if nothing else. When it comes to humans and butter, their essence _manifests_ in physical attributes, or physically-mediated experience. IOW, the bounds of their existence have physical correlates which I use to establish identity. But I’m not understanding what meaning “bound” has when it comes to individuating Spirit. It’s obviously not life experience, because Spirit exists in all space at all times and hence would have all experience. I run into the same problem if I try to identify “bounds” by any physical attribute: Spirit has none. I’m Spirit and God is Spirit. God bounds His existence, and I bound mine. Those bounds are not identical. There must be some criteria that enables the identification of the bounds that differentiates Spirit as individual identities. What I’m trying to understand is what that criteria could be and who is identifying or assigning the bounds as such. > [@](#): > > (These are my very loose paraphrases of Miller’s book, so that we don’t take forever with this.) I will again offer to postpone discussion of this topic, take it offline, or whatever, in order to finish up and get on to the debate. I don’t mean to be sending mixed signals, it’s just that: A) Everyone seems to be chomping at the bit for the debate, but: B) You want us to understand your witness, and this is an important aspect I do not yet understand. Until and unless I can, I will feel as if I’m in that great Sidney Harris cartoon, stuck at step two. > [@](#): > > I know this all sounds like a complicated approach, but look at it another way. Now that you are one with God (let us say the one-ness happens), then you are omnipotent like Him. As such you are able to individuate yourself. (If you could not, then you would not be omnipotent.) I am, of course, compelled to accept this and I will do so if need be. But omnipotence is such a conversational buzz-kill…😛 ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/245 "2009-07-24T23:29:45Z")
What happens to generally good people that have a vague belief in God and Jesus and yet don’t attend church? Is attending a church even necessary? Isn’t profound communion with God possible solely on a personal level? Isn’t God “talking to you” just your subconscious? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/246 "2009-07-25T01:30:14Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > Perhaps… at least, I’m open to the suggestion. That’s good, because it would explain quite much. It was actually Kant’s work that led eventually to the heinous philosophy unleashed upon the world by Sartre: existentialism. You’re thinking that existence is itself not a property and that existence preceeds essence, which leads to this kind of thinking: > [@](#): > > It’s relatively easy for me to individuate humans; Socrates and I (and Jesus) occupy our own distinct time/space coordinates, hence, our physical existence and our experiences differ (and _must_ differ). Same story when it comes to individuating pats of butter; I can differentiate this pat from that pat by physical location, if nothing else. […existence is not a property] When it comes to humans and butter, their essence _manifests_ in physical attributes, or physically-mediated experience. IOW, the bounds of their existence have physical correlates which I use to establish identity. […existence preceeds essence] Bracketed text added by me. Now, I’ll address all that, plus this: > [@](#): > > But I’m not understanding what meaning “bound” has when it comes to individuating Spirit. It’s obviously not life experience, because Spirit exists in all space at all times and hence would have all experience. I run into the same problem if I try to identify “bounds” by any physical attribute: Spirit has none. > > I’m Spirit and God is Spirit. God bounds His existence, and I bound mine. Those bounds are not identical. There must be some criteria that enables the identification of the bounds that differentiates Spirit as individual identities. What I’m trying to understand is what that criteria could be and who is identifying or assigning the bounds as such. The criterion is essence, which manifests as aesthetical attributes — just as you said that the essence of butter manifests as physical attributes. God’s aesthetic is perfect; yours is not. Therefore, you are individuated from Him. Spritually. The goal of every believer is to become one with God, so that there will be no individuation between them. To put it another way, the goal is to become God. To lose oneself. This is what we have seen taught in John. We must give up our lives in order to take them up again. We cannot become one with God until our sins are purged. For many of us, that purge will nearly wipe us out. But as I said before, if even a speck of goodness remains, it is as powerful as the whole of God. And we join with Him. Our identities merge with His identity. In fact, it MUST be the case that our identities have “always” been merged with His identity. In other words, the God that is in me is the same as the God that is in you. It’s just a different “amount” of God. We are individuated from one another by how much we value goodness. Jesus even individuated Himself from His Father, defering to Him in many respects and on many occasions, even saying at one point, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but the Father.” He said that because He was fully man _at the time_. That “at the time” is important, because individuation is temporal in nature. And so, while identity is a property of spirit, individuation is not. That is how we all are one, even though we have our own identities. I will be able to identify you by your aesthetic; that is, by the degree to which you value goodness. Same same for you identifying me. Think of yourself as a pie chart. Some percentage of it values goodness above all else, while some percentage of it does not. Let’s say the blue part is the good part, and the red part is the evil part. You can identify me because my pie chart is unique to me. My blue and red areas are not like yours. This is because we each have our own moral journeys that are different. It is in that journey that we formulate our pie chart. What God does, basically, is take into Himself the part of the pie chart that values goodness, and He discards the rest. (The rest merely destroys itself by its very nature: it tears down, rather than builds up.) Or using our analogy, God absorbs the blue part and discards the red part. But all that is required to be one with God is a teensy-tiny little sliver of blue. I hope that an analogy like that helps you to understand more than a discussion about Kant, Frege, Quine, and all the other navel gazers who have argued over the nature of existence. But I’m going to leave you with something that will either clear things up significantly, or else leave you hopelessly confused. I hope it is the former. Existence is insignificant. It is an illusion. All this argument among philosophers about whether God exists and all that completely misses the point. Essence preceeds existence. With that in mind, all that matters is essence. At some point, all of existence will cease, (including God’s, if he does) and all that will remain is essence. That will happen once God has grown into infinite goodness in the manner we discussed before: infinitely many free moral agents valuing goodness above all else. Existence will be superfluous. Nothing will exist because there will be no need for it to. Infinite growth will leave only the essence of God. > [@](#): > > I will again offer to postpone discussion of this topic, take it offline, or whatever, in order to finish up and get on to the debate. I don’t mean to be sending mixed signals, it’s just that: A) Everyone seems to be chomping at the bit for the debate, but: B) You want us to understand your witness, and this is an important aspect I do not yet understand. Until and unless I can, I will feel as if I’m in that great Sidney Harris cartoon, stuck at step two. I’ve complimented many of the contributors to this thread by saying that they are the most this or that. But you, **other-wise** , are the most important. To me. Because from day one, you have done nothing but try to understand. And that is what I have asked of everyone; that they try to understand. We’re not going anywhere until you understand. If you understand now, then fine. We’ll move forward. If you do not, then fine as well. Ask more questions. Make more comments. This is not a blog; it is a discussion about my witness. And we will discuss it for as long as you please. > [@](#): > > I am, of course, compelled to accept this and I will do so if need be. But omnipotence is such a conversational buzz-kill…😛 Well, but it’s true. Keep in mind that omnipotence can be dangerous. It is not necessarily a good thing. One could destroy oneself with one’s omnipotence. Which is exactly what would happen if one used his powers to individuate himself from God. It would result in the eqivalent of the mainstream Christian Satan. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/247 "2009-07-25T02:00:31Z")
Good questions, **FoieGrasIsEvil**! (And it truly is!) > [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > What happens to generally good people that have a vague belief in God and Jesus and yet don’t attend church? God absorbs into Himself that part of them that is aesthetically valuable — the part of them that values goodness above all else. It is the same thing that happens to generally good people that have a vague belief in God and Jesus yet don’t attend church, and it happens with atheists who don’t even believe in God. Goodness is goodness, and God is not bound by any church, religion, or ideology of any kind. > [@](#): > > Is attending a church even necessary? No. It isn’t. It can even be harmful, especially if the preacher or minister or pastor or whatever is a religion politician who is using his church as a means to enrich himself. > [@](#): > > Isn’t profound communion with God possible solely on a personal level? Absolutely. In fact, that is the only level on which it is possible. > [@](#): > > Isn’t God “talking to you” just your subconscious? No one knows. But scientific testing seems to indicate that there is a notable correlation between limbic system activity and spiritual enlightenment. I often quote Ramachandran, but there are other sources as well. For example, “Most of the neurological phenomena associated with religious experience involve some form [of] over-activation of the limbic system, and correspondingly intensified experiences.” M. Spinella and O. Wain, “Skeptical Inquirer”, 2006 ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/248 "2009-07-25T14:50:13Z")
What do you want to debate once you have some people who understand your philosophy, **Liberal**? Just so people know whether it’s worth it to “catch up”. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/249 "2009-07-25T14:50:35Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > The goal of every believer is to become one with God, so that there will be no individuation between them. To put it another way, the goal is to become God. :dubious: Do you mean that, according to your interpretation of the writings of an unknown author, this _should be_ the goal? Because I’m pretty sure that it is not the goal of every believer. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/250 "2009-07-25T15:19:22Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Good questions, **FoieGrasIsEvil**! (And it truly is!) > > God absorbs into Himself that part of them that is aesthetically valuable — the part of them that values goodness above all else. It is the same thing that happens to generally good people that have a vague belief in God and Jesus yet don’t attend church, and it happens with atheists who don’t even believe in God. Goodness is goodness, and God is not bound by any church, religion, or ideology of any kind. > > No. It isn’t. It can even be harmful, especially if the preacher or minister or pastor or whatever is a religion politician who is using his church as a means to enrich himself. > > Absolutely. In fact, that is the only level on which it is possible. > > No one knows. But scientific testing seems to indicate that there is a notable correlation between limbic system activity and spiritual enlightenment. I often quote Ramachandran, but there are other sources as well. For example, “Most of the neurological phenomena associated with religious experience involve some form [of] over-activation of the limbic system, and correspondingly intensified experiences.” M. Spinella and O. Wain, “Skeptical Inquirer”, 2006 Thanks. I’m interested to learn more about the “neurological phenomena associated with religious experience”. Do you have a link to some insightful reading on that topic? I am interested to see if this same “neurological phenomena” being observed/measured in brain activity can be exactly replicated with some other form of cognition or activity outside of a religious experience. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/251 "2009-07-25T18:27:49Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > What do you want to debate once you have some people who understand your philosophy, **Liberal**? Just so people know whether it’s worth it to “catch up”. I’ve stated it several times before, but I don’t mind stating it again. My thesis is that the message Jesus brought is aesthetical in nature, rather than moral in nature. In other words, I intend to prove that His message is that we should value goodness above all else (i.e., edify one another), rather than follow a new set of rules that augment or replace the Ten Commandments and other Old Testament laws. If you don’t mind my anticipating a possible response, the answer is yes: I did believe that establishing a common understanding of terms and interpretations would be helfpul in having a productive debate. And yes, I did believe that it would be helpful to sub-divide the subject matter into the major component parts of philosophy: aesthetics; morality and ethics; metaphysics and ontology; and finally, epistemology. It was my opinion that the approach I took would be better organized and more focused. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/252 "2009-07-25T18:30:14Z")
> [@Duhkecco](#): > > Do you mean that, according to your interpretation of the writings of an unknown author, this _should be_ the goal? Because I’m pretty sure that it is not the goal of every believer. Yes. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify that. I do think, however, that by now, at least long-time participants understand that pretty much everything I post in this particular thread is my personal interpretation and belief. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/253 "2009-07-25T18:40:29Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > \I’m interested to learn more about the “neurological phenomena associated with religious experience”. Do you have a link to some insightful reading on that topic? I might be able to help with this. Besides books by the aforementioned Ramachandran (who _rocks_), “[The Mystical Mind](http://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Theology-Sciences-Eugene-DAquili/dp/0800631633/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248542454&sr=8-1)” examines religious experience from a biology/neuroscience standpoint. It’s a far chewier read than “ **Why God Won’t Go Away** ”, the watered-down, fluffier, E-Z version of “The Mystical Mind” that one of its authors published a few years later. “[Rational Mysticism](http://www.amazon.com/Rational-Mysticism-Spirituality-Science-Enlightenment/dp/061844663X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248543168&sr=8-1)” is a breezy, chatty, fascinating overview of some the tentative efforts made to bridge (or at least, open diplomatic relations between) science and spirituality, and contains interviews with many prominent figures from both spheres. A third book, “[The Mind and the Brain](http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brain-Neuroplasticity-Power-Mental/dp/0060988479/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248543893&sr=1-1)” is focused primarily on neuroscience (except for one regrettable chapter on quantum physics), and while it does not address religious experience directly, it does argue for a non-physical mind. You might also want to check out “[Neither Brain nor Ghost](http://www.amazon.com/Neither-Brain-nor-Ghost-Alternative/dp/0262182475/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248543958&sr=1-2)”, where the author basically tries to disembowel the most widely held ideas of mind and brain. One caveat: None of these authors are unbiased. They are decidedly not neutral in their presentation, opinions, or conclusions, despite occasional claims to the contrary. > [@](#): > > I am interested to see if this same “neurological phenomena” being observed/measured in brain activity can be exactly replicated with some other form of cognition or activity outside of a religious experience. Most of the above mentioned books address this to varying degrees. For an indirect reference, you might want to read the Wired article called “[Buddha on the Brain](http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.02/dalai.html)” and snoop around Davidson’s [website](http://psyphz.psych.wisc.edu/web/personnel/director.html). This link to a Wikipedia article on “[The Good Friday Experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment)” will give you an overview on the experiment and the controversy that it caused (which is still going strong). If you can find it, [this book](http://www.amazon.com/Hallucinogens-Reader-New-Consciousness/dp/1585421669/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248545842&sr=8-1)contains an interesting, updated chapter on the experiment. Hope that helps. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/254 "2009-07-25T18:44:08Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Thanks. > > I’m interested to learn more about the “neurological phenomena associated with religious experience”. Do you have a link to some insightful reading on that topic? > I am interested to see if this same “neurological phenomena” being observed/measured in brain activity can be exactly replicated with some other form of cognition or activity outside of a religious experience. I can recommend to you a book that an atheist whom I greatly respect recommended to me, which I bought and read. It’s called [Phantoms in the Brain](http://www.amazon.com/Phantoms-Brain-Probing-Mysteries-Human/dp/0688172172), by VS Ramachandran, MD, PhD, who is a world renowned neurological surgeon and researcher (as well as a damn good writer). He is particular known for the simplicity of his experiments, most of which are replicatable by ordinary people with ordinary items that they likely have at hand or have easy access to. The whole book is interesting, including experiments conducted with people who have sensations in phantom limbs. (For example, their foot itches, but they have no feet.) But the chapter of concern to this particular topic is titled, “God and the Limbic System”. His experiments, easily repeated, do show that there is some correlation between limbic activity and spiritual awareness or experience. He experimented mostly on epileptics, since they already have heightened activity in their temporal lobes. Here is an exerpt: I hasten to add that as far as the patient is concerned, whatever changes have occurred are authentic – sometimes even desirable – and the physician has no right, really, to attribute a value label to such esoteric embellishments of personality. On what basis does one decide whether a mystical experience is normal or abnormal? […snip…] Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent experiences in any way “inferior” to the more mundane truths that we scientists dabble in? Indeed, if you are tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly the same evidence – the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion – to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God. […snip…] My goal as a scientist, in other words, is to discover how and why religious sentiments originate in the brain, but this has no bearing one way or the other on whether God really exists or not. VS Ramachandran, Phantoms in the Brain, pp 184-185 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/255 "2009-07-25T18:47:33Z")
Oops. Sorry, **other-wise**. Didn’t mean to step on your toes, there. (By the way, what is your status? When you give the go, I will do as I said before: consolidate the remaning chapters of John into one post (assuming the board will accomodate the length of text), and then shortly thereafter, I will ask that this thread be closed, and I will begin composing my proof, which will likely take quite some time. Maybe even a week or more.) ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/256 "2009-07-25T19:30:08Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I do think, however, that by now, at least long-time participants understand that pretty much everything I post in this particular thread is my personal interpretation and belief. Why not say “It is my goal to become one with God”? That’s witnessing. The rest is just noise. Why the grandiloquent edicts? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/257 "2009-07-25T22:42:48Z")
> [@Duhkecco](#): > > Why not say “It is my goal to become one with God”? > > That’s witnessing. The rest is just noise. > > Why the grandiloquent edicts? The grandiloquence is just my style of writing. I’ve been told before that I write in the manner of Ayn Rand. (You can read the homepage listed in my profile, which links to a short story I wrote some time ago. Even back then, people were saying the same thing.) I do make the point, from time to time, that I am not a good writer. However, I would assure you that if I had intended to say, “It is my goal to become one with God,” I would have said it. But my witness is that all believers — keep in mind that we have formally defined belief — seek to become one with God. It follows from the definition of belief. And lest you say that I went off on a renegade definition, I took it directly from the Amplified Bible. Search “Amplified Bible” with my username in Great Debates for, oh, the past month or so and you’ll find it. Some people are acting like my definitions are outrageous. Like I’ve defined belief as chopping cabbage on a rooftop or something. But that is not the case. In fact, many of my definitions have been derived by consensus. (See MrDibble’s post, just a few back from yours, where he — an atheist, mind you — views aesthetics in much the same way I do.) I realize that some people have just entered the discussion without bothering to read what has already transpired. But many of the questions, concerns, and complaints have already been addressed. And so, if one relies on God, trusts Him unconditionally, and clings to Him, then it is only natural that he seeks to become one with Him. As to my writing style, this is it. If you want to read my posts, you’re stuck with it. I’m too old to learn a new style. But I do regret that it displeases you. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/258 "2009-07-26T00:05:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > As to my writing style, this is it. If you want to read my posts, you’re stuck with it. I’m too old to learn a new style. But I do regret that it displeases you. Actually, it’s not your _style_ of writing that I don’t like – actually, I enjoy your style – it’s some of the content. > [@](#): > > keep in mind that we have formally defined belief Sorry, I missed the definition. Would you please direct me to the relevant post? Thanks. BTW, I have read most of your four threads but it is difficult to keep track of all of the ideas that you’ve introduced. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/259 "2009-07-26T14:40:45Z")
**Lib** , sorry for the delayed response. I cranked out my hasty reply to **FoieGrasIsEvil** over lunch, then left again and didn’t return until after midnight. I’m not yet comfortable with my level of understanding of the interplay of identity and individuation within your worldview. Your last post cleared things up considerably (and was quite gracious… thank you), but it also gave me much more to contemplate. However, reading I’ve done in the course of working on a reply to your post leads me to suspect that part of my problem may be that terms like “identity” and “individuation” are like the terms “information”, or “representation”; while everyone has a strong intuitive and functional understanding of these words, attempts to define them precisely for philosophical or scientific purposes produce wildly different results, inter-disciplinary confusion and the occasional fist fight. IOW, my lack of understanding may have nothing to do with your exposition, and is instead the result of me trying to grasp linguistic nuances that nobody really has a firm handle on, and in any case are ultimately of no real importance to the substance of your witness. So let’s move on. Consolidate the remainder of John and close the thread. I’ll continue to noodle on all this, and if I get totally stuck or think I see a demonstrable flaw in your interpretations, I’ll post something, or if you’re open to it, send you a PM. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2009, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898/260 "2009-07-26T17:50:58Z")
> [@Duhkecco](#): > > Actually, it’s not your _style_ of writing that I don’t like – actually, I enjoy your style – it’s some of the content. Oh. Then, feel free to debate that content. That’s what this thread is for: to iron out a consensus on what is meant by the passages quoted. (Although, henceforth there will be no quoted passages, as previously stated. Only commentary about all the remaining chapters of John in a single post.) > [@](#): > > Sorry, I missed the definition [of belief]. Would you please direct me to the relevant post? Thanks. I’ll do better than that. I’ll just repeat it to you here. That will save both of us a search. (This board’s search engine sucks, as you know.) The definition of belief is taken straight from the Amplified Bible, as in the famous [John 3:16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16;&version=45;): To believe (in God) is to trust Him, to rely on Him, and to cling to Him. > [@](#): > > BTW, I have read most of your four threads but it is difficult to keep track of all of the ideas that you’ve introduced. An excellent comment. I know that there are lots of new and possibly renegade Christian interpretations and definitions. But for the sake of convenience, they will all be spelled out in the Part V Opening Post before any premises are even stated. That will give you a convenient place to see them all. (The OP will likely span multiple posts. We’ll see.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-iv/499898.md?page=14)