A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.
"Brian says: September 19, 2010 at 7:53 PM This either proves that God supports whatever authority happens to have been in power first, or held power longest, or whatever one happens to currently be in power, or it proves that there is no way to know the truth. Now go ask your authority of preference if I’m right."
Brian's conclusion is that spiritual authority is also schizophrenic.
There is no consensus among religious traditions, or even among the sects of those traditions....therefore, we'd better not try to unify under that kind of umbrella, but under the kind our Founders found to be the more productive and protective of unity, which protects various understandings of religion or God.
. I paid attention to several of the "Monica" tapes. . Interesting to say the least. . They point up the problem that emerges when people go to the extremes of any direction. . I'm having a problem with a particular branch of my extended family since I've "come out of the closet" as being a non-fundamentalist. They think I'm the one causing the problem. But, they just aren't talking to me anymore.
It is impossible to get along with folk who come to be in possession of the Absolute Truth unless you succumb to their authority. . Angie is correct. . Christianity could use a Spinoza. .
. Spinoza was a messianic figure in that he set an example that has since emancipated millions on millions of people from bondage to this or that religion. Of course,Jesus was before Spinoza; but, most Christianity teaching today rejects his teaching and puts followers in bondage to this or that set of denominational doctrines. That's what the "Monica" tapes were all about--emancipation. But, I think Angie puts it right when she expresses the idea that Monica is just one more authority all ready to put her followers in bondage to her teachings. . Aquinas? Was he an emancipator? . Rowe's post points up the problem. .
Spinoza's view is just another way of understanding reality as a "collective force". What is or has happened is to be accepted all according to "God" (Providence?" to the "believer")...isn't this view much like Pan-entheism, if one wants to subscribe to theism. But, also such a view is like "collective consciousness" if one wants to accept leadership and their vision of scientific reality based on scientific presuppositions...and understand human reality as such. Collectivity is the "name of the game" today...
Martial Guéroult suggested the term "Panentheism", rather than "Pantheism" to describe Spinoza’s view of the relation between God and the world. The world is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, "in" God. Not only do finite things have God as their cause; they cannot be conceived without God.[25] In other words, the world is a subset of God." according to Wiki...
I meant that the experience of believers would be "Providence", as they would interpret the determinism as "God", innate nature of potentiality.
I don't believe anything happens apart from humans "making it happen", so determinism is really about leadership's vision, or plan...isn't it?
From what I recall, Jurgen Moltmann used the term to describe "everything that is" is part of God. Didn't Arthur Peacocke also believe something similar?
Pantheism believes that nature IS God (atheistic), whereas, panentheism believes that God contains nature, expresses himself in and through nature...It all becomes semantics, really, when one talks about God...etc.
Man seeks to understand his environment, scientists understand through their scientific investigations, whereas, theology seeks to explain what is with a metaphysical explaination...
. Then there's string theory and m theory and a whole lot of others. . I like the one about different dimensions existing in the same space and time; but, totally separate. .
11 comments:
I like what Brian says:
"Brian says:
September 19, 2010 at 7:53 PM
This either proves that God supports whatever authority happens to have been in power first, or held power longest, or whatever one happens to currently be in power, or it proves that there is no way to know the truth. Now go ask your authority of preference if I’m right."
Brian's conclusion is that spiritual authority is also
schizophrenic.
There is no consensus among religious traditions, or even among the sects of those traditions....therefore, we'd better not try to unify under that kind of umbrella, but under the kind our Founders found to be the more productive and protective of unity, which protects various understandings of religion or God.
.
I paid attention to several of the "Monica" tapes.
.
Interesting to say the least.
.
They point up the problem that emerges when people go to the extremes of any direction.
.
I'm having a problem with a particular branch of my extended family since I've "come out of the closet" as being a non-fundamentalist. They think I'm the one causing the problem. But, they just aren't talking to me anymore.
It is impossible to get along with folk who come to be in possession of the Absolute Truth unless you succumb to their authority.
.
Angie is correct.
.
Christianity could use a Spinoza.
.
Aquinas. ;-)
.
Spinoza was a messianic figure in that he set an example that has since emancipated millions on millions of people from bondage to this or that religion. Of course,Jesus was before Spinoza; but, most Christianity teaching today rejects his teaching and puts followers in bondage to this or that set of denominational doctrines. That's what the "Monica" tapes were all about--emancipation. But, I think Angie puts it right when she expresses the idea that Monica is just one more authority all ready to put her followers in bondage to her teachings.
.
Aquinas? Was he an emancipator?
.
Rowe's post points up the problem.
.
Spinoza's view is just another way of understanding reality as a "collective force". What is or has happened is to be accepted all according to "God" (Providence?" to the "believer")...isn't this view much like Pan-entheism, if one wants to subscribe to theism. But, also such a view is like "collective consciousness" if one wants to accept leadership and their vision of scientific reality based on scientific presuppositions...and understand human reality as such. Collectivity is the "name of the game" today...
,
I tend to think the majority of serious thinkers would reject your opinion of Spinoza, Angie.
.
Pinky,
"
Martial Guéroult suggested the term "Panentheism", rather than "Pantheism" to describe Spinoza’s view of the relation between God and the world. The world is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, "in" God. Not only do finite things have God as their cause; they cannot be conceived without God.[25] In other words, the world is a subset of God." according to Wiki...
I meant that the experience of believers would be "Providence", as they would interpret the determinism as "God", innate nature of potentiality.
I don't believe anything happens apart from humans "making it happen", so determinism is really about leadership's vision, or plan...isn't it?
Am I missing it? What did you mean, then?
.
Maybe I misunderstood you, Angie.
.
I have not heard of panentheism that I can recall.
.
What does it mean in simple straight forward terms?
.
From what I recall, Jurgen Moltmann used the term to describe "everything that is" is part of God. Didn't Arthur Peacocke also believe something similar?
Pantheism believes that nature IS God (atheistic), whereas, panentheism believes that God contains nature, expresses himself in and through nature...It all becomes semantics, really, when one talks about God...etc.
Man seeks to understand his environment, scientists understand through their scientific investigations, whereas, theology seeks to explain what is with a metaphysical explaination...
I should have said that god expresses through natural processes...altho one could comfort the conservative with a more personal metaphor...
.
Then there's string theory and m theory and a whole lot of others.
.
I like the one about different dimensions existing in the same space and time; but, totally separate.
.
Post a Comment