Crabsy wrote: “”Exist” and “insist” derived from the classical Latin “sistere” = to cause to stand, to place, to establish, etc. The addition of “ex-“gives the notion of externality and hence accessibility to public perception, and so we use “exist” to mean “to be” in an empirically verifiable sense. The prefix “in-“implies interiority. “Insist”, while keeping its usual contemporary meaning of “maintain positively” or “emphasise”, can logically also bear the locative notion of intrapersonal or subjective being.” I use it in both senses in my article.”

Never have I seen a finer example of sophisticated theology’s intent to baffle.

“Expressive theology is rightly an object of suspicion. People who go in for it sound like atheists in dog collars. It sounds as though they have discovered a nice cheat. You need only defend religious sayings as a kind of fiction, which is not too hard, for who can object to fictions? But then you can go ahead and use the sayings with all the force of conviction and belief. You have relieved yourself of epistemic obligations but kept the old fire and fury.” (http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/01/08/sophisticated-theology-vs-religious-reality.htm)

Severin:
I understand your distaste for hierarchical authority; I often feel the same. But I don’t think of God as a “supreme deity” in that sense. Consider the image of Jesus as Immanuel (God with us) sleeping in a stable manger, washing our feet, serving at our table and joining in the fun of parties with the rest of us.

And I certainly don’t think of God as male (or female for that matter): gender and sexuality here are irrelevant.

I can empathise with your talking to the plants. I do the same, and our children were all taught to talk to the trees (and hug them) when they were young. Not sure that it’s had any long-term impression on them though.

I don’t think Christianity is the only way towards God (i.e. towards being truly human). But it’s the way that seems right for me.

Yes, I agree that articles comparing the world’s religions would be very interesting, but I don’t have the knowledge or intellect to write them.

AJPhillips:
I have never intended to baffle: Pericles took issue with my choice of words and I tried to explain why I chose “insist”. The experiences and perceptions I described in the article did not occur primarily through language. So to try to convey them entirely through language, as it must be on OLO, calls for unusual linguistic devices. In discussions like this semantics are central to communication.

If you can’t understand me, I admit inadequacy. And if you don’t like semantic subtleties there’s nothing I can do about it.

John J:
Are you still around?

I’m still waiting to hear your reply to Leo Lane’s question: “As a matter of interest Jon J, to clarify the background to your assertions, what is your view on the concept of the unconscious mind?”

This matter is essential to what I have tried to communicate in my article.

Why bother to put the name god to such an experience, even if you evacuate the term of most of the meaning usually associated with it? This is an example of having an experience which can be described as being within human experience, but for some reason the person experiencing it doesn't do so. It's also an example of the dominance of the sky-god paradigm. I've recently become a pagan, after many years of being an athiest, and I discover that paganism doesn't need any god - it's quite content to take the world as a given, and spend it's time trying to work out how it works. Much more rewarding than trying to appease a god whom even He says one cannot understand!

At least I am giving your sophistry muscles a good workout, Mr Crabbe.

>>Inasmuch as idiosyncracy and perversion involve challenge to cultural norms and authority, I take your comment as a compliment.<<

You may take it as a compliment if you wish, but I should remind you that in many walks of life, idiosyncracy is not prized, and perversion is positively shunned. You could certainly describe (sorry to use such a clichéd example) the acts of paedophile priests as idiosyncratic and perverted.

But I doubt you would find much to compliment.

>>“Exist” and “insist” derived from the classical Latin “sistere”... The prefix “in-“implies interiority<<

Even your approach to etymology is self-serving.

As you well know, the Latin preposition "in" has many meanings, depending on the case that follows. Even my first-form Latin told me that 'in + ablative' implies in/at/on in terms of space e.g. "in domo esse", while 'in + accusative' implies motion towards e.g. "in urbem ire".

To state grandly that "'in' implies interiority", is to cut more than a few corners, is it not.

And just a little glib.

"Insistere", is in any case already a complete Latin verb, most often translated as "to set foot upon, to stand, tread, or press upon", as in "insistere alternis pedibus".

Face it, your use of "insist" is at the very least highly personal. And completely lacks explanation in the text, which is just a little impolite.

>>as for your charge of heresy, I would say that heretics have taught us many valuable things<<

This is simply a reprise of the earlier "perversion is good" argument, and is equally dubious. And to claim by association that your own heresy teaches "many valuable things" is just a touch precious.

>>It can never be “just about being nice to each other”.<<

But you wrote:

"God being the tie that binds us as fellow human beings which can manifest simply as a desire to see beyond the needs of the individual".

So, rephrased and "simply" stated, God is merely a metaphor for being unselfish.

Fair?

Crabsy

>>> "I don’t think Christianity is the only way towards God (i.e. towards being truly human). But it’s the way that seems right for me. <<<

I would also question the need to elevate human beings in such esoteric terms, whether one uses Christianity or other doctrine.

I had a German Shepherd dog who on two occasions protected me from assault - one could claim "pack instinct" in operation. How then to explain a cat which would always run to me growling when strangers approached my door and one time when an 'intruder' who turned out to be a muso friend who climbed through the window of my living room in the early hours one morning, the same cat jumped on the bed and woke me.

Are we so arrogant as to presume that such sentient creatures do not have a sense of wonder? Just because they cannot express it in abstract terms? They certainly feel love and even demonstrate humour.

Camo

I understand your position - the universe is what it is; being both fair and dark. Neither of my animal companions needed a god to do good for another creature. But they acted selflessly to my benefit.

Pericles:

<At least I am giving your sophistry muscles a good workout, Mr Crabbe.>
I wondered how long it would take you to grab your favourite “s”-word!

<To state grandly that "'in' implies interiority", is to cut more than a few corners, is it not.>
I don’t see any grandeur in it, Pericles, but if you do that’s fine. In + ablative locates; ex + ablative dislocates, or places outside. In + accusative indicates motion into (not towards, which would require ad + accusative). In this respect I think “in-” and “ex-“can be seen as opposites. I chose to introduce a new usage of “insist” that would convey the idea of “a way of being within”, as opposed to “an objective way of being” which I think “exists” commonly covers. If you gag over new usage, that’s your right.

I wrote: < As for your charge of heresy, I would say that heretics have taught us many valuable things >
To which you replied: <This is simply a reprise of the earlier "perversion is good" argument, and is equally dubious.>
You regard heretics as perverts? Who’s idiosyncratic now?

You called my language perverted and then wrote: < …I should remind you that in many walks of life, idiosyncracy is not prized, and perversion is positively shunned. You could certainly describe (sorry to use such a clichéd example) the acts of paedophile priests as idiosyncratic and perverted >
Straight from the gutter! Don’t misrepresent my statements as approbation of paedophilia.

<And to claim by association that your own heresy teaches "many valuable things" is just a touch precious.> No one in my church accuses me of heresy, but I don’t mind if you do.

<But you wrote: "God being the tie that binds us as fellow human beings which can manifest simply as a desire to see beyond the needs of the individual". >
Careful Pericles! I did not write that; Pelican did.

< So, rephrased and "simply" stated, God is merely a metaphor for being unselfish. Fair? > No. It’s much more, but I have no time to elaborate.