George

Please read Philo's post - apparently he knows the numinous and can speak for it as well.

George,
I didn't mind in the least. I merely stated what I reasoned to be true. No need for apologies. I meant what I said literally, about comparative *specific* skill levels.

This doesn't mean, that I don't understand what you say nor necessarily agree.
BTW there are several others on this site I wouldn't presume to take on *in specific areas either*

Again thanks for the contributions .Lots of stimulating responses and further questions.
TBC –
I like your idea of the AFA working on a film.
And take a risk mate .. Bruce Almighty wasn’t written by someone with an hidden propaganda agenda (AFAIK), so there is little risk you will be tricked by some super spiritual mental gymnastics in the imagery. Thankfully you also have us ere “words used well wishers ”to help straighten you out, should you be persuaded unreasonably to a move away from the half empty view of the possibilities .
As for the unbelievable element being unbelievable – strange but true .What arrogance for a man to believe that a god, any god should care !.If this sort of god is man’s invention only , it’s a pretty long lasting one and if it creates a positive vibe without drugs, is it not worthy of more than conspiracy and hocus pocus dismissals ?
Any psychology majors in the audience ? .
TBC Surely, it won’t hurt you to explore the optimists territory for a change? After all, while young people are keen to buy records about heaven eg “heaven must be there “ , I think the question of whether bees go to heaven is not going to generate another thread – here or elsewhere . AFA will need more than a great rhythm to get the people to dance.
One problem I have with AFA’s overly rationalistic commitment to rhetoric is it seems to limit you to exploring the shadows and jumping at them (a fair bit of that going on here; irrational conspiracies about small groups and people )
Do any other readers know of , and like some Art ( picture film and music) on this big picture subject ?.
Back the important question of creed sometime too! Thanks Squeers – for clarifying concerns ; concerns that I think are widely shared concerns amongst us about the eternal danger of institutional violence – what happens to good ideas when groups take them over ? As for non-conformists-I'm with you on that!

Severin,
I'm glad my view is congenial to some.

George,
sorry to be taking you to task again so soon. I followed the links to other threads you put up on the topic--so wasn't cherry-picking. Some time, when you're in the mood, you'll have to elaborate your coin metaphor; that is show how the trope "Man created God and God created Man" is a demonstrable or symmetrical model of faith, rather than a purely rhetorical device.
Constructivism is very much at home in cultural theory, elaborated by, among others, Judith Butler and Stanley Fish. What else is using "a particular traditional religion to model the otherwise unapproachable Numinous called", other than "constructivism"? Especially since your rather clinical description of "modelling" the numinous etc., hardly tallies as a belief system based on faith. In fact, if you are consciously "modelling" the oceanic feeling along Christian lines, then surely you've already deconstructed your faith? Wherefore then your subscription to institutional religion, but convention? Yet if you say that the numinous is "unapproachable" other than via such cultural traditions, does that not put you rather closer to the extreme of "epistemological relativism" than myself?
My problem with Christianity, as with monarchy, is more their hegemonic function in society than their being obsolete.
And I stand by my partial definition of conservatism; if we wilfully persist in something when we know it to be pernicious, as conservatives do (capitalism, climate change, rampant inequity, institutionalised paedophilia, even faith as a culpable diversion from such realities), holding to traditions come what may, that is the epitome of selfishness for me.
For conservatism to be ethical, we'd have to live in an Earthly paradise.
Until we do, reform and change should be our watchwords.

Hanrahan... "Surely, it won’t hurt you to explore the optimists territory for a change?".

But just where is this territory, and who are the 'optimists' you refer to?

It seems to be 'not here' but 'over there, after death', which hardly sounds the least bit optimistic to me.

And the idea of this being an 'optimists' view strikes me as very odd.

I'd have thought a true optimist might be thinking that it was possible to create something modestly more positive in the 'here and now' rather than something quite fantastic in the totally unknown future, and that is not a reference to a world of Stalinist concrete any more than it is to a world of joyous capitalism.

One might as well crave for a pre-birth form of 'heaven' as a post life one.

As for the Bruce film...I took the plunge and got as far as a few reviews of it. Underwhelming, and American, and overly loud, and crass...were the stand-out lines, which was pretty well what I thought just from the title.

I've never watched a film with this actor, or any of the others named, so have no idea what his work is like, but the story line, even had it not been suggested I watch it, would not have inspired any interest at all.

I cannot bring myself to watch it, but not because I fear conversion, just puking-on-the-cork. Although you are probably right about the non-hidden agenda. These films are just made for money, and maybe to keep bad actors in work so others can feed off them a little longer.

I'll stick with Brian and leave Bruce to the Wiggles fan base thanks.

I've read Rhichard Dawkins "The God Delusion"and I think it explains all about religion and it's nasties.I believe that mans development over the millenia has been severely hamstrung
by religion and it's gobbeldygook.After all it's only another form of control over the masses
by those in power,particularly the right wing of politics and powerful and influential individuals.It's often used as an excuse to justify conflict and death by the fundamentalists of all faiths.To explain natural disasters as an act of god or godswill is totally irrational in all forms of thought.