So what is a post secular understanding of god?

So what is a post secular understanding of god?

Other urls found in this thread:

ndpr.nd.edu/news/49829-deleuze-and-the-naming-of-god-postsecularism-and-the-future-of-immanence/
youtube.com/watch?v=ee2jtmhyO8Q
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>The Supreme God is total collective subconscious of man. Eternally with us, shaping our actions, but also something we can tap into

>Lesser Deities function as the Platonic forms representing idealized states. For instance Kali and Mary are both representations of the idealized mother

>Stories about Gods are how our subconscious mind relates to itself and the rest of the world.

What do you think of this? Its hard for me to understand this..

The Eternal Anglo.

ndpr.nd.edu/news/49829-deleuze-and-the-naming-of-god-postsecularism-and-the-future-of-immanence/

What the hell does this line mean?
"for the field of reference is itself decided by present conditions of possibility."

Go watch A Dangerous Method

There is no god except Allah

If one can prove directly that god exists then he does. Same as every other theory.

>post secular
lol, no such thing

Is post secularism really a thing? Have we actually reached that point?

An useful fairy-tale.

Outside of the New Atheist anti-theism movement I think there has always been an understanding that religion is useful even if it is not necessarily true.

There have been several attempts to revive God in a way more appropriate for our modern life: Spinoza, Jung, and hell even the neo-Pagans all took a shot at it.

Jung thought we were hardwired to accept a concept of God and if your conscious mind rejects your subconscious will just start projecting God onto other things, often with stupid results.

There's already a talk of the "comeback of faith" in the more advanced philophical circles, it hasn't yet filtered down to here. This isn't a return to the abrahamic religions but a reinterpretation of what it religion, God, and spirituality even mean.

> we were hardwired to accept a concept of God
We also hardwired to desire hard drugs. So that kind of argument isn't definitive here.

That's not going to work unless we stop using the word "God." I'm not even joking. It's poisoned by association.

>So what is a post secular understanding of god?

Ideology

>Jung

>in the more advanced philophical circles

And what would those be?

So what is this reinterpretation then? That is the OP's question..

Anti-deism and understanding of atheism being defined by two subtle predicates:

>God is not separate from the universe
>The creator is not God
>The creator isn't aware of itself

>lesser deity

never thought this picture would ever become relevant.

Also Gnon.

Essentially pantheism.

Religion needs to move past cosmology and on to mysticism if it wants to survive today.

So I should start reading the Kabalah?

There is a difference between those two desires though acvording tothose that propose the theory, as i get s it.
Hard drags only become desired if you experience them, as chemical substances create an artificial need.
Religious desire steams from integrial parts of daily life, and will arise with or without first contact like the desire for food or social contact.

Interesting notion

Jungian nonsense and the gods of the copybook headings

No, when you talk of god as some sort of happy illusion that is not what i mean. I mean a re-conception of god and the spiritual in a way that is authentic but not mystical in the traditional sense.
I have been trying to understand how Deleuze treats god and spirituality but I cant figure it out.

Remember boys:

>The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.
Psalm 14:1-2

Equating God with an ontologically real universal wave-function.

Omnipresent: (Via the definition of wave-functions)
Omnipotent (Via the Zeno effect)
Omniscient (via the holographic principle)
& Eternal (via the Wheeler-DeWitt equation)


youtube.com/watch?v=ee2jtmhyO8Q

This fucking shit again, It's you and the communist apologists, every time

A being whose only relevance is in creating an afterlife and affecting how much luck we receive.

The idea of God being something that requires obedience or adherence to a peculiar hierarchy will fade and become more of a cultural practice than anything serious.

Apathy will deal a blow to religion more deadly than any active aggression ever could have.

There will be more Christians yet smaller and older congregations in increasingly empty churches.

For a tiny academic minority the God of Aquinas will be rediscovered.

There is no "god" only gods, god is a term that backwards monotheistic idiots in the bible east came up with because multiple deities was too hard for their brains to keep track off. A god is any entity that possess supernatural powers over a concept or something and is worshipped by humans because of their affinity to it.

fuck. off. this thread is SPECIFICALLY not about existing concepts of god.

why can't you just fucking leave?

>Equating God with an ontologically real universal wave-function.
>Omnipresent: (Via the definition of wave-functions)
>Omnipotent (Via the Zeno effect)
>Omniscient (via the holographic principle)
>& Eternal (via the Wheeler-DeWitt equation)
I would say any being that fits this definition would be non-abrahamic.

God is the mother-goddess who manifests Herself into each and every one of us as the Divine Feminine.

As it is God(dess) that gives birth to Life, then Womyn are God(dess)'s agents on Earth that bring up the revival and the renewal of the human race.

Shed your earthly ways, and embrace femininity! Only through Love and Joy channelled by your Feminine heart can you achieve spiritual awakening!

:^)

Do I have to undergo a sex change operation?

No, but you should probably start pegging

By analyzing holy text as a metaphor and practicing moral relativism. Also questioning our definition of God itself