You asked a very good question in a former post, as to what constitutes false information in regard to God. This is a good question, one I doubt I can answer without stumbling....but will try anyway. Besides the obvious false information inflicted upon Jesus’ body in His scourging and death, He suffered grief, pain and a wide range of sorrows. In humanity, we suffer these things as the effects of false information, just as He did. But we have the added degeneration of false information in spirit, where falsity could not touch His Spirit. Thus, Peter’s comment that He bore our sins in His body (1Pet 2:24). Whereas it is mostly due to the false information in human spirit which causes our own grief, He endured this in body and emotion while remaining fully pure, true Information. Here is one distinction between God and man. (see, I’m not a raging pantheist….)
As I see it, the Genesis story of creation identifies Adam in both spiritual and physical states of perfect information. Adam’s perfection was obviously not the same as God’s. Distinction #2, sameness [as both God and Adam shared perfection] with not-sameness [sheer difference in power, actuality, ability, etc.] Using your definition in your last post of the metaphysical (if I understand you correctly), the dimension of this perfect relationship between God and man as Adam’s existence in God, makes sense to me in a panentheistic sense. But in the mystical (spiritual) union--which in Adam’s original state of true information was not separate from the metaphysical, but seems logically to have existed as a different aspect of the single relationship—is where, to my thinking, the dividing point between dissimilarity and sameness are blurred. I don’t sink into ‘single category’ monism or pure pantheism, but leave room for some sense of sameness here while maintaining God’s “sheerly other” status. To set limits is prudent, given Scripture’s warning to us of the pitfalls of false pride, but there’s no way we can know with any kind of certainty what those limits are without knowing what it’s like to be omniscient and omnipotent.
Another way of looking at this may be that, metaphysically and informationally, in the ‘excrement’ of created intellect [knowledge, reason and judgment] God is always “A” meaning to man, in relation to which we sense our otherness as separate intelligence and will. But to man’s actual information [distinct from the fluid, ever-changing information of knowledge], God is always THE meaning of and to one’s existence.
But in the spiritual or mystical realm, again in reference to your definition, God is always only THE Information (never AN information) to which all creation, including created intellect, necessarily stands referenced as always His meaning. In man’s apprehension of God (mystical experience), God is always “those” meanings: holiness, righteous anger, grieving parent (Mat 22:37, Eph 4:30), unfailing love, granter of unmerited grace, etc., even to those who refuse to confirm His presence in their lives—seen in the fact that all in history and society universally affirm the notion of commodities like justice, mercy and virtue as unchanging goods that ought to be sought or supported.
In my view of the fragmented spirit, the act of participation in mystical experience can only take place in the natural union of spirit’s true information with God’s. Thus, unless the spirit is regenerated, there can be no communion with God, as Paul succinctly states, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” {important to note that Paul was speaking to a particular relationship that exists among individuals in time and space [the church], while God unites with every man fragmentally according to his or her state of true spiritual information at any point in life…the separation of righteousness from unrighteousness is for God, thus, universal/spiritual/ethereal….we operate in the realm of matter, He in Spirit…this is the basis for a rationally esoteric interpretation of Scripture, which St. Thomas saw quite clearly}
Our relationship with God is of necessity obscure to the extent spirit yet exists in a state of false information. The regenerative process, the death of false information (evil) leading to new birth, is applied fractionally over time, resulting naturally in the building and increase in faith and relationship. This being born of God’s seed (1Jn 3:9) is not possible without an investiture or participation, and the nature of a participation is a unity or oneness:
“And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me. And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me” (Jn 17:19-23).
To be sanctified in the truth is, to me, to have one’s false information destroyed and replaced with true. The entire Old Testament speaks to this: God’s wrath is actually, esoterically, His love. This is a spiritual restoration from a fallen state to the eventual original perfection of Adam. Prescriptive truth sanctifies because it destroys false data, thus the expression ‘the truth hurts’, which pertains naturally to the prescriptive and not the descriptive. God’s true Information is fire to the kindling human spirit’s false information (Isa 5:22-24, etc.). I see this as the process of sanctification. The inimical relationship between true and false information produces tension and resistance. This is why we ‘see through a glass darkly’ and have very little relationship with God...we don’t want to die, and the act of regeneration is itself the death of our false information. This is why I make a distinction between the spiritual (which is necessarily of God) and the mystical (a participation in the unity of true information, ours with God’s, which is fractional at any given point in life).
Sorry so long-winded, Phil. Trying to provide enough foundational data for you to critique, hope I haven’t overdone it.
Posts: 32 | From: midwest US | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
re: the unity of truth with true knowledge seems to establish/define its own reasonable and legitimate standards, even in the minds of common folk.
Amen, my friend. Amen!
Your intuition re: information might be rewarded by a study of Charles Sanders Peirce's semiotic logic, often spelled, semeiotic logic. Give it a look some day, if you feel thus led.
Carry on, Bernie, in your explorations and may you be richly rewarded by them.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Much of this discussion seems to be about accounting for the essentialistic-existential chasm, which classically has been considered to result from original sin, which I like to consider as a combination of our finitude and of the effects of everyone else's personal sins on me and mine on them.
1) The classical account is to describe this chasm as an ontological rupture, located in the past.
2) Others, like Jack Haught, who employ a process approach might moreso describe it as a teleological rupture, located in the future.
3) I have also considered whether or not it is not both of those PLUS a) an epistemological rupture, existing in the present b) an axiological rupture c) a cosmological rupture
4) All of this is very aristotelian, thomistic even, whereby a) ontological relates to material causation and God as Primal Being b) teleological relates to final causation and God as Primal Destiny c) epistemological relates to formal causation and God as Primal Ground d) axiological relates to instrumental causation and God as Primal Order e) cosmological relates to efficient causation and God as Primal Origin (ex nihilo) and Support (continua)
Seems to me, Bernie, you are engaging the epistemological rupture in your musings re: information and God and closing that essentialistic-existential chasm thru sanctification processes, etc Of course, there must be a justification process, too, and there will also be a glorification process.
I don't offer this as a substantive comment to any of your musings. Rather, I offer it as a heuristic device to help you and maybe others contextualize your musings -- iow, a hatrack or coat closet or set of placeholders. If it helps, fine; it not, just ignore it.
Substantively, there is but one rupture and I have only suggested what its aspects and attributes might be, observing that you are grappling with one of them. Now, I'll leave y'all to the grappling ... and maybe these other aspects can shed light, too, maybe not. I don't view any of these as a least common denominator but all of them as different hermeneutical lenses.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
In an authentic pan-entheism, maintaining our metaphysical realism, which is moderate and critical but not extreme realism, when we speak of God's attributes in terms of, for instance, Primal ground, Being, Destiny, Origin, Support, etc and invoke analogies to causations: efficient, instrumental, formal, final and material ...
we mustn't forget that we are not trying to precisely locate and completely define that nexus that relates us in terms akin to the givens of proximate reality: forces, axioms and primitives (like space, time, mass, energy and some think, even consciousness). And, even though modern physics and biology and psychology and philosophy of mind have all, in various ways, hinted at a rehabilitation of sorts of formal causation, which could (should) take its place next to the forces, axioms and primitives, still --- whether formative (information-related), efficient (force related), material (matter related), final (semiotic & telos related) or instrumental (tacit dimension or axiom related) --- iow, whether epistemological, cosmological, ontological, teleological or axiological --- --- iow, whether Primal Ground, Primal Origin and Support, Primal Being, Primal Destiny/Goal or Primal Order---
we are saying that there is something relating us to God that is LIKE information, that is LIKE a FORCE, that is LIKE being, both esse and essence, that is LIKE downward causation and intrinsic telos, that is LIKE tacit dimensionality and landscapes that passively configure other realities ...
we are saying that Primal Ground is like a ground but more dislike it really, Primal being is like being but more dislike it really, etc
So, the univocity is only with respect to attributes of God, which we address metaphorically, and, because of the necessary equivocity, even those metaphors are weakened to the status of weak analogies.
So, how is God intelligible? Through His effects which we know only by their causes even as we understand not a whit about those causes -- whether formal-LIKE, efficient-LIKE, material-LIKE, gfinal-LIKE, instrumental-LIKE.
And, this leaves us immersed in paradox, which is ineluctable ... but it is something, in our metaphysical pursuits, that we just have to get over! Dualism is not wholly satisfying and cannot be from a scientific perspective, and neither is monism and neither is pluralism. From a metaphysical perspective, which accepts its constraints (occulted ultimate reality) before it begins its enterprise, these ontologies are pretty good hunches and we can, very reasonably, argue about which hypothesis is the best. And an acceptable criterion is the reductio ad absurdum we run against our intuitions about: what are the implications of this system, when logically extrapolated, for what we already know about life in relationship with others and the cosmos and about spiritual life, integrally conceived?
And I see y'all doing that to some extent. Good criterion. I just wanted to reinforce the analogical nature of our knowledge of ultimate reality. It is not so much that we might not one day stumble over these answers as much as there is no way to scientifically or formally figure out that we did! Thankfully, the Stumbling Block of the Incarnation, folly to some, has become our Stepping Stone.
Hope I made sense here. Again, this is just another suggested thomistic framework and not a comment on the substance of your musings.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
All in all, I do like the approach to explanation using "information." It's a type of language that connects with the people of this age, and it's not too difficult to tease out traditional ideas in thid direction. The "trick" is to preserve some of the essential distinctions made through long and difficult discernments, and that's not easy.
Bernie, I think my earlier question was in reference to the "origin" of false information -- i.e., how and why would such arise in the first place in a monistic context, or any other for that matter? I do understand how this works once f.i. arises -- how it gets passed down, wounds us, wounds Jesus, kills the spirit, and how/why we need regeneration and transformation in the truth of the Spirit. That part is all fine, imo. It's the foundational metaphysical explanation that I don't quite follow, imo, and I see JB has offered some good feedback about that.
quote:But in the mystical (spiritual) union--which in Adam’s original state of true information was not separate from the metaphysical, but seems logically to have existed as a different aspect of the single relationship—is where, to my thinking, the dividing point between dissimilarity and sameness are blurred. I don’t sink into ‘single category’ monism or pure pantheism, but leave room for some sense of sameness here while maintaining God’s “sheerly other” status. To set limits is prudent, given Scripture’s warning to us of the pitfalls of false pride, but there’s no way we can know with any kind of certainty what those limits are without knowing what it’s like to be omniscient and omnipotent.
I think the concept that would better fit with what you're calling "sense of sameness" is connatural knowledge, which, prior to the Fall, must have been splendid indeed!
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I suspect you’re actually the HAL supercomputer, salvaged from Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, set up in some farmhouse basement in rural Pennsylvania and programmed with every known philosophic and theologic concept. It’s not fair being only human and having to try to keep up with you.
You mention Pierce....is this Pierce the pragmatist?
While it’s true that most of the discussion in this thread to date has been along epistemological lines, I like to think that rational esotericism as an interpretive scheme is very teleological in nature, as it leads by logical and reasonable means to an unfolding of God’s plan and purpose for salvation and restoration. On the surface, this is certainly not a new idea. Most would probably agree that the Bible is a book whose primary subject is salvation. But the interpretive structure I contend for, being esoteric and metaphorical (and thus somewhat unorthodox in approach), leads to certain conclusions that have not been widely seen or held in much esteem by most of the religious community, conclusions which traditionally aren’t thought to be attained by reason, generally. Universal salvation is probably chief among these. The fact is, unlike most Christian universalists I’ve read or corresponded with, I don’t [and never did] start from the presupposition that salvation is universal and try to ‘prove’ it from Scripture. I was led, through a variety of inner intuitive metaphorical and allegorical conceptualizations of Scripture to see certain relations and parallels within a) my own life experiences and, b) established historical theological/philosophical principles. The result is RE.
As this methodology took shape over the last few years, I’ve found [not surprisingly] that when there is a shift in the arrangement of certain parameters within a system—as in applying the theological dualism of good/evil uniformly to the second dualism of spirit/body [rather than applied only to body, as mentioned in earlier posts]—this adjustment necessitates relational changes in the rest of the system. Further, filtering these through the lens of philosophical dualism to discern particular and universal aspects helps identify
One of these changes, in my own musings, is how RE relates to justification, though I see no modification to the orthodox view of glorification as restoration to the perfection of spirit and body in finality. To me, justification was performed outside time, as in David’s, “Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy holy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them” (Psa 139:16), and Jeremiah’s words: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jer 1:5). At the same time, it takes on somewhat different forms in general and specific senses.
For instance, in a particular sense, justification can be seen to be gradual, as the individual conforms to moral propriety. But in a universal sense, justification takes on a different complexion as it becomes not merely a thing granted or assigned an individual by grace as forward moral movement, but justification becomes the motive force, power or vitality that demands conformity of essence and substance to attain or fulfill an end. Thus, God’s sovereignty reigns in the spiritual and universal to effect the conformity of that complex of true and false information which forms circumstances, actions and reactions, motives and all those relationships that bring about any state of affairs, individually and/or corporately.
For an example of the a rationally esoteric view, Jesus claimed that “...I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (Jn 12:32). John also noted that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1jn 2:2). John also noted that Jesus was the true light illuminating every man (Jn 1:9), and the Spirit promised of the Christ through Isaiah that, “"A bruised reed He will not break, And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice” (Isa 42:3). In a strictly literal interpretation, these statements are modified by reference to God’s many decrees of penalty and destruction directed to evil. The literal makes little or no distinction between particular and universal as an interpretive tool. To orthodoxy, there is only—or at least primarily—particular, as in the blanket application of the duality of good and evil to the individual without consideration to his or her elemental components. Rational esotericsm, in agreement with Thomas, looks to the sense in which truth and meaning arise from the literal sense of Scripture, and formulates (I believe) the more rational, coherent system from its teachings using a combination of the two. The necessity of the unity of truth in meaning with Truth Himself demands this synthesis.
If Christ literally illuminates all individuals, and God’s promise is that Christ, illuminating all, will faithfully bring forth justice by not extinguishing a dimly burning wick, then if follows reasonably that Christ’s promise to draw all to Himself will result in the salvation of all [1Tim 4:10] because He died for the sins of all.
Paul’s theology supports this idea completely; here’s one example:
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. “But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (Rom 5:12-18).
I find it prudent to inform my fellow fundamentalist brethren that this is a literal translation of God’s word. God states in His word that, “So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it (Isa 55:11). If this is true, and God truly performs all that He speaks, and the Bible is truly the Spirit-inspired word of God, then the literal rendering of the above is trustworthy and inevitable. God Himself also seems to support this notion of grace to all by His declaration in Isaiah 45:23: "I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” Many claim that this refers merely to the final admittance by even the damned of their guilt, but, 1) to adjure or swear allegiance to God by the damned would be a form of coercion which many, including Aquinas, Calvin and many others, deny is possible, and, 2) it is radically against the nature of God to rub the sinner’s face in his or her transgression in the fashion an act like this suggests.
The punishment of evil by God’s wrath does not violate the above literal interpretation. It’s reasonable to suppose that the nature of wrath—supervised by the nature of God’s love—is deflected from particular to universal, from the individual to his or her constituent parts, to evil itself, which exists as a universal essence within the individuality of the person. Essentially, it’s reasonable to suppose that God’s love and power deflect wrath and punishment from man as a whole to man as a multiplicity. This, too, is not a new idea. God’s nature as a Father and parent is to be corrective. He says Jacob’s iniquity will be forgiven, and the price of the pardoning of his sin will be seen “...when he makes all the altar stones like pulverized chalk stones” (Isa 27:9). God also promised to His chosen that He would bring them into the wilderness, bring them into the bond of the covenant, and, “...I shall purge from you the rebels and those who transgress against Me.” (Ezek 20:38). His promise again in Mal 3:2-4 is to come and stand as “a refiner’s fire and like a fuller’s soap” and purify the sons of Levi, refine them like gold and silver...with the promise that, “then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord...”
I think of evil as a secondary [and thus mutable] property of human spirit, distinct, for example, from the property of eternality which is inherent and primary. Sin springs from and is the manifestation and expression of evil, which I see God declaring His wrath against, not the individual in whom evil is found. The removal of evil, the destruction of false information in spirit’s composition, and its replacement with new, is certainly experienced by the individual, but the duration of eternality is deflected by Christ’s outstretched, bloodied arms, feet and body from the particular object (the person) to universal attribute. It’s evil itself which will ultimately bear the decree of ‘eternal destruction’ in that this stain or property itself, not the individual in whom false information is found, will be eternally banished.
God pronounces this mystery in esoteric Old Testament language over and over, as in the Holy Spirit’s message through Ezekiel: “And the word of the Lord came to me saying, Son of man, set your face toward Jerusalem, and speak against the sanctuaries, and prophesy against the land of Israel; and say to the land of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord, "Behold, I am against you; and I shall draw My sword out of its sheath and cut off from you the righteous and the wicked. “Because I shall cut off from you the righteous and the wicked, therefore My sword shall go forth from its sheath against all flesh from south to north. Thus all flesh will know that I, the LORD, have drawn My sword out of its sheath. It will not return to its sheath again’” (Ezek 21:1-5). This promise is literally to all flesh, and esoterically to the fragmented spirit of every individual universally, in the cutting off and separating from each individual’s elemental informational components, the righteous [true information] from the wicked [false]. This corresponds coherently to the parable of wheat and tares, sheep and goats, branches on the vine (Jn 15), and a host of other allusions to the same principle.
The point is that if in a universal sense salvation is declared to all, then in spiritual reality [universally and cosmically], all must be justified, and justification becomes the vehicle by which wrath is enacted (by our own sin) to perform its righteous task of the destruction of false data. The various erring ‘components’ within national Israel in the wilderness is a clear type expressing this very concept. Nothing is able to prevent God’s decree, and the power of His word/truth is an unavoidable conclusion. He works it all without contradiction according to the methodology laid down by St. Thomas 700 years ago. Once we figure out in what sense, particular or universal, the Scriptures are true—which can’t be accomplished adequately by literalist means—the blending of esoteric and literal as thing and attribute fall into place.
Having butted heads almost exclusively with unyielding literalists (and finding myself all too often being the unyielding Rational Esotericist in the fray) the last several years, you can’t imagine how refreshing it is to see your caveat that we need remind ourselves of the anagogical/analogical nature of these investigations. I enjoy your input, johnboy, you’re providing a number of new wrinkles for me.
Phil,
Sorry about the mixup. I should learn to quit trusting my memory, which is increasingly failing me these days. I haven’t tread the paths of evil’s metaphysical source much. Seems by the Genesis account that false information existed prior to this reality/creation, as it was introduced for consideration to Adam from an external source. This of course begs your question: from whence comes it in metaphysical reality at all? As this isn’t a direction my own studies have led me, to accept evil’s a priori existence before Adam. What light would you shed on this question? What’s your view? I accept the orthodox view that evil is an unfortunate but necessary effect of the granting of free will to a created intellect.
Posts: 32 | From: midwest US | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bernie, I'm happy to see you and Johnboy interacting as you are.
As for the origins of false information, I'd be inclined to see it originating prior to the Fall, as you noted. Tradition speaks of the fall of angels, and I can go along with that. Of course, just what constituted the "false information" to which they succombed, and how it arose in the first place is another matter altogether, but I think we can at least say that it didn't originate in God. Also, it would be helpful to clarify degrees of false information, as temptation is one thing (a consideration of such), but then consenting and being formed by false information another. The latter would be a good way to speak of sin, but temptation is not yet sin. So how to conceive of a situation wherein angelic creatures living in union with God should have formed temptations in ther minds is a tough one. Tradition speaks of some kind of "test," and maybe the sense of God was diminished during that time? Hard to say. There is also the notion of pride leading to the fall, but pride is already a kind of false information, right? I think in the end we are dealing with an impenetrable mystery, here, especially if we are to be uncompromising in our affirmation of a God who is all good.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
In rereading a few posts back, you made this point: "All in all, I do like the approach to explanation using "information." It's a type of language that connects with the people of this age, and it's not too difficult to tease out traditional ideas in thid direction. The "trick" is to preserve some of the essential distinctions made through long and difficult discernments, and that's not easy."
What essential distinctions do you see the concept of "reality as information" unable to maintain?
YOU: "just what constituted the "false information" to which they succombed, and how it arose in the first place is another matter altogether, but I think we can at least say that it didn't originate in God."
Agreed.
YOU: "Also, it would be helpful to clarify degrees of false information, as temptation is one thing (a consideration of such), but then consenting and being formed by false information another. The latter would be a good way to speak of sin, but temptation is not yet sin."
I haven't spent a lot of time on this subject of degrees of falsity, but in my thinking complex arrangements of an admixture of true and false information, both material and incorporeal, form the vast variety of effects we know as the reality of self. A computer program at its base level is just a series of "1"s and "0"s, and I think this structure holds up in my view pretty well, unless I've overlooked something. Modern Christianity seems to have largely lost sight of the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive reality. The notion of reality as information, descriptive applying of course to matter and the prescriptive to our numinous components, works for me in models of reality in which this amalgam of data is applied. Sin springs forth from a primarily internal agreement of spirit's (and causatively, intellect's) false information with the variety of external data which supports it.
For example, all the causes involved in a given combination of true and false information in a single prescriptive judgment have to be staggering. False information from the unregenerate spirit, aggravating the emotions from neutrality to disfavor, is just one (but one very important) component of the operation leading to a judgment of how we wish to treat someone who has hurt us in the past. The inherent vitality of the regenerate portions of the spirit would tend to "wrestle" with the interceding 'dark power' of false data, creating tension, inciting the intellect toward reason in the seconds it takes to form such judgments and decisions. I concur with you in your assesment from GS&E, that, "The false self is thus a system of programming that reinforces itself at every turn, functioning more or less automatically in response to almost every situation that confronts it." This is an excellent description of the effect of the false information of human spirit upon the cognitive process, to my thinking. I guess our differences is in viewing the circumstances as internal or external.
Add to the above the external example of judgment the influence of false information (temptation) and all the associated potential for its inclusion into the intellectual processed data [both true and false] from sense and related internal, material considerations [I can be an absolute bear when I have heartburn!] and I end up with an incredibly complex arrangement of true and false information from both corporeal and incorporeal reality present to judgment in even the most minor intellectual exercises. I think this arrangement of complex informational associations is resonably able to explain degrees of falsity and its effects in experience.
YOU: "So how to conceive of a situation wherein angelic creatures living in union with God should have formed temptations in ther minds is a tough one."
Made tougher by the very limited knowledge we have of the actual essence and nature of angels.
YOU: "There is also the notion of pride leading to the fall, but pride is already a kind of false information, right?
Good point. All the same, it would be very hard to say. From our perspective in reality already infected with false information, false pride is a given. In the perfection of creation as Adam knew it, if pride even played a role, couldn't it be explained by the false data inherent in Adam's contemplation of "becoming God" (or Godlike), apprehended from a purely external source (the serpent)? This is what I call the last truly free judgment made in humanity. Once false information got in spirit's door, everything else went to hell, in a manner of speaking.
Posts: 32 | From: midwest US | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bernie, good posts here and in the God, Self and Ego thread. I'm just swamped with other intellectual endeavors these days, which leave me drained if I try to do too much. I'll get back to you . . . maybe keeping the pace you've set for us.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an aside to MM re the anti-universalist fellow, where MM posted,
"This evangelical challenges the Universalist to prove it [universal salvation] from scripture. The burden on proof is on the universalist."
The problem with tackling guys like this is that they design a false arena into which one must adhere to a set of a priori rules....in this case, rigid literalism. Here, obviously, the fundamentalist (in the negative sense, i.e. strict literalist) cannot lose because he/she is able to dictate the rules by which all debate is declared legitimate.
Interestingly, this is the same tactic most rabid atheists use. In their case, only a materialistic/physicalistic reality is allowed legitimacy, and obviously incorporeal entities and objects are not "real" under this definition. Thus, the atheist has designed an intellectually dishonest arena into which he invites theists to participate. Unfortunately, the same thing exists in most fundie circles.
The problem as I see it is, there is almost no concept among Christians--at least, among those Christians I run into on theology boards, which since I haven't been in an actual church for some six or seven years, is about all the contact I have with other religionists today--of proper parameters for establishing truth claims. When someone says, "Show me this from Scripture!", they are 98% of the time saying, "I have no interest in hearing your view because I'm comfortable in my own little theological world." So the "burden of proof" is a sham...those who use such tactics have no interest in truth, only in "winning" the argument. If one is truly interested in truth, one looks more deeply for a means of honest examination of truth claims.
I don't condemn; I tend to do the same thing. We all do. But am hoping there are a few left in this world who struggle to rise above this natural pathology [false information of evil in human spirit] to strive for some measure of objectivity in their intellectual/theological pursuits. I'd be happy to submit my own arrangement, Rational Esotericism, to genuine, honest scrutiny, but quickly lose patience with those who predefine truth parameters constrictively and dishonestly. The scientific method of testing a theory by its ability to sustain truthful propositions is valid in prescriptive matters, too, though in the final analysis, reason alone can't establish or supercede faith. One's system should be subject to repudiation--by intellectually honest examination, which pretty much excludes most of the "show me from Scripture" people.
I've tried to jump through all the hoops Phil (and to the extent I was able, johnboy) placed in front of me in this thread, but have not really scratched the surface of explaining my position for universal salvation, other than laying out groundwork, for presenting rational esotericism as an interpretive method. I can assure you that my arguments do not much take the usual Christian universalist's approach. They basically try to marry their universalistic tendencies to Arminianism or Calvinisim, which is a self-defeating mistake. The correct approach is defined in Rational Esotericism, which does not seek to incorporate the notion of universal salvation into current theology, but lays a groundwork in which the salvation of all is a natural, rational derivative.
Am happy to have my theology tested, but think for now I'm going to pass on the type of challenges presented by rigid fundies.
As the world's only esoteric fundamentalist and rational esotericist, I have elected myself CEO and chief spokesman for the organization, and feel honored to have been elected to this post to represent Rational Esotericism as the only interpretive scheme able to end the 400 year old battle between the warring sisters Arminianism and Calvinism.
Any takers?
Posts: 32 | From: midwest US | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
It seems to me the burden of proof is on the specific claims of the type of salvation or even simply salvation vs. reincarnation vs. nothingness vs. whatever. Universal salvation and "some are saved, some are damned" salvation seem to be two competing types. I’m not sure how to give either of them the burden of proof. Interesting idea, though. But that gets one to thinking. What, exactly, is to be considered the default position? What is the control? Some, as you said, sort of try to make atheism the default by setting the rules or definitions up in a certain way. That’s a debating tactic and perhaps not a true baseline default position. But I don’t see how any position can be given the clear advantage other than the logical, at least to my mind, Shakespearean : There exists more between heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in one single philiosophy. – Hamlet, Act I, Sc. 5.
Perhaps the burden starts in the attempts to prove.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
I have nothing against the burden of proof being placed upon the one who challenges orthodox thinking. This is reasonable. My point is that those among strict fundamentalists who use this phrase typically use a set of restrictive and dishonest assumptions to which one is expected to adhere. The phrase, "the burden of proof is on you" in such challenges infers a mutual participation in intellectually honest exchange.
The problem is, the fundie only accepts as legitimate his or her version of a literal interpretation of Scripture.
Simple, you might say. Start the debate further back down the line. I'll just tell my opponent that I first need to establish justification for my interpretive scheme. Same set of problems....now the fundie's mind clamps shut and dismisses my arguments out of hand as irrelevant, and this without ever giving it any sort of honest, fair hearing. Turns out "esoteric" interpretation isn't allowed in the fundie's set of rules. He knows damn good and well that esotericism is evil, so "....all you wanna do is twist the Bible to say what you want it to say!"
Doesn't matter that my approach is rational, that I use lots of Scripture and logic to support my claim. It ain't God's literal meaning, so it don't count for nothin' nohow.
The "control" as you note, is necessary, Brad, but control as in abiding in an agreed upon set of reasonable rules for establishing truth claims just isn't conducive to theology bulletin boards. We live in a '20 second sound bite' age. No one wants long posts, most want their theology in little biddy chunks. Probem is, one can't properly treat an involved topic like salvation in 20 second sound bites. Boards typically cater to this condition, but then so does the evening news, radio talk shows, etc., etc.
Posts: 32 | From: midwest US | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
"No one wants long posts . . . . "
Careful, Bernie. Saying that around here can bring the house down on your head!
I'd be interested in an exchange with you, but since you've apparently explored this at length before, you could probably get away with a lot cutting and pasting.
Intuitively, I've never been comfortable with the orthodox notion of hell-heaven, predestination, etc . . . But these notions may not be as ad hominem as you suspect, at least when reading the new Catholic catechism. The notion of universal salvation isn't embraced, but the idea of Christ appearing at the heart of those seeking truth is a feature of the new Christology, unless I'm mistaken. Phil and JB are best to elucidate these.
I think what's left, for truly Vatican II respecting Catholics, is the idea that some souls will refuse God even to the very end, and that perhaps this was St. Julian of Norwich's lament, where Christ told her all would be made well, that the Logos would be preserved in all things. What this means nobody knows, and I think it is appropriate it be left a mystery, or only something lending itself to mystical knowledge. But theologians have speculated it means that God will eradicate, turn to nothingness, the suffering souls who will not accept Him because such love is too terrifying for them, such as the fallen angels and those souls who contract to such an extreme.
posted
I have nothing against the burden of proof being placed upon the one who challenges orthodox thinking. This is reasonable.
Bernie, I think it reasonable to ask such questions as: When did the burden of proof pass from orthodox thinking? What makes orthodox thinking orthodox thinking? A majority opinion? A minority opinion enforced until it became a majority opinion? Habit? Custom? Via the natural workings and inclinations of god?
My point is that those among strict fundamentalists who use this phrase typically use a set of restrictive and dishonest assumptions to which one is expected to adhere.
I'm quite aware of the wisdom and subtlety of opinion amongst the Christians here at Shalom Place. I am mightily aware of such things. But show me a fundamentalist and I'll show you somebody who holds a minority opinion. That is to say, it's not inconceivable to my mind that you could switch doctrinal beliefs between some Christian fundamentalists and the establishment and simply because one is outside of "orthodox" and is in the minority they will appear to be fundamentalists. That's not, of course, to say that fundamentalist don't have a certain pushy technique in order to get their views across….but those in the minority will often do so. Those in the major already have the hammer of orthodoxy and majority opinion. They need only remove the cover from the box containing the hammer to make their point. They don't have to wave that hammer around, let alone actually hit anyone over the head with it to institute their beliefs.
The problem is, the fundie only accepts as legitimate his or her version of a literal interpretation of Scripture.
Well, it sure seems to me that even the orthodox have literal interpretations of scripture. In this case it's not a difference of opinion with fundamentalists on whether to be literal (Christ died for our sins, for example…it's not just a metaphor) but when and where to be literal.
And I can't help thinking, Bernie, that you're involving yourself in an argument that is taking place in such a way, and about such subject matter, that to further the argument is to realize that even if you win you will have won absolutely nothing. I think the more relevant stuff is flying underneath the radar of this fundie vs. orthodox debate. That's a struggle over power and control and who gets to say just what is orthodox and therefore just who is right and who is wrong and who gets to wield the hammer.
Seems to me that this falls outside the spirit and the gist of the teachings of Christ. Instead, take your opponents and say "I disagree with you but cultivating love is more important than winning an argument, so therefore let us be at peace and ask what it is we have in common." Or something like that. Use your own spirit and imagination. That's were the real stuff of Christianity is happening. That's where the rubber meets the road.
[ May 28, 2005, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Brad Nelson ]
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
YOU: "I think what's left, for truly Vatican II respecting Catholics, is the idea that some souls will refuse God even to the very end"
I have no doubt that this is true, if by "end" you mean the end of their physical life in the temporal. But as to the very Arminian notion of man holding God at arm's length and refusing His offer even into eternity, I have to side with my sovereign grace brethren that this idea, while pleasing to human pride, just isn't so. To me, one of the strongest set of OT verses that portrays salvation is Isa 28:14-19, in which there is no room for man's resistance to God's will. Of course, God's will is always for the benefit of the individual (but not necessarily goof for one's constituent components, which is the key to understanding salvation from a Rational Esotericist viewpoint). The OT pretty well backs up the notion of God's sovereignty, too. If Jesus cried out to the Father from the cross to forgive those who murdered Him, then His words, that with God anything is possible, must be true. I believe the Father honored the Son in this request.
I think it can be shown that man has reign (not truly free reign, but a workable volition) in time and space, while God's sovereign will is always accomplished in eternity, in the cosmic. Two different yet interconnected realms--I am a devout dualist.
YOU: "Christ told her all would be made well, that the Logos would be preserved in all things. What this means nobody knows, and I think it is appropriate it be left a mystery, or only something lending itself to mystical knowledge."
You remind me that I'm on a predominantly Catholic board here. Though I was born and raised Catholic, I've spent the last 30+ years in moderate-to-conservative Protestantism, and have forgotten a great deal of my RC upbringing. Much of my frustration at trying to break the fundie barrier is that 97% of my efforts are spent among my protestant brethren.
I agree that our Lord spoke a mystery to St. Julian, and will humbly suggest that an answer is in fact mystical or esoteric. I think RE also suggests this answer, that the mystery lies in Christ's death on the cross deflecting the Father's wrath from the individual (particular) to one's spiritual components (universal).
God's love will always win in the end, while at the same time His decrees for blessing and wrath are always fulfilled with equal certainty. Most literal interpretations are too literal. When specific and general senses are applied to the theological principles of good/evil and spirit/body, two things happen in interpretation of Scripture: 1) the esoteric sense becomes rational and epistemically coherent (which mystic/esoteric belief is typically accused of lacking), and, 2) in this rationally esoteric structure, literal and spiritual (or esoteric) senses are seen to compliment one another as part of the same system, in the same sense that thing and attribute are necessary parts of the entire whole.
We're being saved from our false information, or evil, I think. I see evil as a mutable property of human spirit, and salvation is the removal of false information from spirit's essential structure and its replacement with true. This is regeneration, which RE sees as progressive and fractional, contrary to popular thinking.
I'd be pleased to be challenged in these beliefs, if you'd like, w.c. What doesn't sound right to you?
Hi Brad,
Stupid question: How does one insert italics into sentences as you did in your last post?
YOU: "When did the burden of proof pass from orthodox thinking?"
Good question. I didn't mean to suggest that orthodoxy (meaning in the general sense, not specific as in Greek Orth.) is above reproach in matters of truth. Hardly! But it's a reasonable starting point. Gotta start somewhere.
YOU: "What makes orthodox thinking orthodox thinking? A majority opinion?"
I think a consensus is a reasonable expression of orthodoxy. Of course, consensus is a somewhat fluid thing; RC orthodoxy is different, in particulars if not in kind, than Greek or Protestant consensus. All the same, there is a reasonable amount of accord among Christians generally, and this serves for orthodoxy in the sense we're talking about here, I think. For instance, the type of literal interpretation I'm talking about--compared to RE as a competing interpretive method--is found with somewhat equal force in all brands of Christianity. Literalism in this standard sense is what I mean when I say "orthodox thinking".
YOU: "show me a fundamentalist and I'll show you somebody who holds a minority opinion."
In whose eyes? As I stated to w.c., most of my exchange is with conservative Protestants. So a majority of those with whom I most regularly dialog are either moderately or dogmatically literalist. As mentioned above, even RC is literal in this same sense. For example, RC and Protestant alike generally interpret the Bible as its principles being directed primarily to individuals. I do not. More accurately, I do also, but see that in its rationally esoteric sense (as compared to the illogical mysticism I see in most liberal interpretation), Scripture speaks with equal or greater coherent force to the fragmented elements WITHIN each individual as it does to the individual him/herself.
YOU: "you could switch doctrinal beliefs between some Christian fundamentalists and the establishment"
This isn't clear to me, Brad...how do you define "establishment"?
YOU: "Those in the major already have the hammer of orthodoxy and majority opinion. They need only remove the cover from the box containing the hammer to make their point. They don't have to wave that hammer around, let alone actually hit anyone over the head with it to institute their beliefs."
If I understand you correctly, you're saying roughly what I stated above about the fluidity of orthodoxy according to viewpoint...or am I misreading you?
YOU: "Well, it sure seems to me that even the orthodox have literal interpretations of scripture. In this case it's not a difference of opinion with fundamentalists on whether to be literal (Christ died for our sins, for example…it's not just a metaphor) but when and where to be literal."
I agree wholeheartedly here, especially with your last sentence, Brad. But am seeing a sadly different spirit in my fundie brethren. For example, I rarely come at people from a universalist stance. This board is actually an exception. Universal salvation is a wonderful deduction from the logic of RE, but I see lots of folks today trying to marry universalism to personal established theological models, and this isn't working any better in terms of coming to a satisfying (rational) conclusion than the doctrines of the established "big two", Calvinism and Arminianism.
Rational Esotericism is very different than the theology of popular universalists as it first establishes the proper methodology for interpretation, which requires the establishment of valid rational basis for esoteric or mystical interpretation. I can't get my fundie brethren to even breach the topic of establishing esoteric belief as legitimate. Mention "esoteric" and they immediately hiss and hold out crosses and garlic..."there's one a' them evil mystical-type fellers here amongst us," they yell with glee. "Let's crucify the worm!" Esoteric = "bad" here, and the sooner fundies drive off the evil mystic, the better off they'll all be. Sheesh.
This is figurative, of course, but a reasonably accurate portrayal.
YOU: "I think the more relevant stuff is flying underneath the radar of this fundie vs. orthodox debate. That's a struggle over power and control and who gets to say just what is orthodox and therefore just who is right and who is wrong and who gets to wield the hammer."
Good point; I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The author of Job sums is up properly thus: "For the ear tests words, As the palate tastes food. Let us choose for ourselves what is right; Let us know among ourselves what is good" (Job 34:3-4) We're more interested in our own theological fortresses being proper and right and having all the answers than we are in the truth.
The 'fundie vs orthodox' thing is really not about fundamentalist literalism or who's able to lay claim to the standards by which all others should be judged. To me, this is a spiritual problem. All life is permeated with the effects of false information in the spirit; this is just one of the more [for me] frustrating examples.
Posts: 32 | From: midwest US | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bernie, I've re-read the latest exchanges here, and think the crux of the matter lies in your statement: We're being saved from our false information, or evil, I think. I see evil as a mutable property of human spirit, and salvation is the removal of false information from spirit's essential structure and its replacement with true. This is regeneration, which RE sees as progressive and fractional, contrary to popular thinking.
I'm wondering what you consider the "human spirit" to be? In my understanding, it's comprised not only of intelligence, but volition as well. False-information would seem to influence intelligence and, consequently, the will -- which would reinforce the ancient dictum to the effect that the only real evil is ignorance. I have no quarrel with this (up to a point), but I also think the will can remain stubbornly unrelational even with good information. IOW, you need both a good will and a properly formed intelligence to progress spirituality. For salvation, however, you need mostly a will open to God's saving power.
So the "fundie vs. orthodox" thing is not simply a matter of who's got the right information, but a lack of openness on the part of fundamentalists to considering another POV. This is a matter of will, not information. Unless your notion of information includes the dynamics of the will, I think it's not going to achieve satisfactory explanation.
[ May 31, 2005, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
How does one insert italics into sentences as you did in your last post?
The way I do it, Bernie, is to precede the text to be italicized with a leftbracket "[" plus the letter "i" + a right bracket "]". Put them together with no spaces in between and no quotation marks. Then at the end of the section of text you want italicized do the same thing except instead of just an "i" in between the brackets, make it a "/i". There are also more automated ways to do that in the full reply box, I believe.
Bernie, I think I’ll just make a general statement of my belief and philosophy and not debate all the details. I think, perhaps, that I would not win the debate with you so this is my easy way out. I believe matters of faith to be highly personal…between one’s creator and oneself. We get between that relationship, however a person can comprehend it, only with the very very greatest of care and humility.
In matters of faith I believe institutions and orthodoxy are all given to steamrolling over the needs of the individual because of an inevitable and inherent bias towards the needs of an organization, orthodoxy, priesthood or whatever. Structures that are by nature more intangible than a human being are inherently less apt to worry about the human being and are more apt to worry about preserving themselves. And I view this whole debate of orthodoxy vs. literalism vs. whatever as more evidence of this focus on whose structure wins out rather than the focus returning to the individual for his/her instruction. And then so we must rightly ask "Whose instructions and teachings do you mean? Whose do we pass on and whose do we ignore?"
And this is where I declare myself the kind of person who would have been burnt at the stake for heresy: I say let the heart and mind of the individual guide him or her towards love and compassion. In religion we are forever arguing details. In life there is only one detail: We exist and we are tied to things greater than us for that existence, and that when we turn to love we better understand that connection and we better fulfill our purpose in life. But as soon as we get into the "what you must do to be saved" stuff then the dysfunction of the organizations will simply replace or cover over whatever dysfunction the individual may have. That we all may now be sharing the same dysfunction is of no comfort to me.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the tip on creating italics. I don’t think I’ve ever used the full reply box, come to think of it, or might have found this feature.
In perusing other threads here a day or two ago, I noticed a statement somewhere that you were an agnostic. This surprises me. You have a gentle spirit and don’t seem to fit the stereotype most agnostics with whom I’ve corresponded have raised. I’m also a bit surprised at your statement about winning a debate, as I don’t view the discussion on this thread to have yet approached the debate stage, at least not in regard to the stuff in my book. My mention of the hardheadedness of my fundamentalist brethren was mostly just an expression of frustration. Didn’t mean for it to turn into a debate. Just find it odd that my Catholic brethren seem generally more open-minded about the theological stuff I find important than those whom I’ve worshipped and dialoged with for the last 30+ years. On the other hand, I’ve met some pretty hardcore Catholics online the last six years or so, too. Life’s a puzzle, for sure, sometimes.
I agree with you about the intrinsic venality of religious organizations in general. But Paul is an excellent example of one sent by God, who “....made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more” (1Cor 19). Included in this service is his participation in the popular theology and philosophy of the day. Rules and regulations...cumbersome? Yes. Necessary? I think so. We need a point of reference. Orthodoxy provides this in theological matters. Even tiresome, endless debate has eventual value, I think. I don’t know you that well, Brad, but suspect you might tend more towards the prevailing thinking in mystic/Gnostic circles, that personal experience outweighs theology. I can’t abide this, myself, for reasons well established in the Bible and Christian orthodoxy [there’s that concept again!], having to do with our fallen nature. In this light, your statement, “....when we turn to love we better understand that connection and we better fulfill our purpose in life.”, which I believe to be sound theoretically, becomes just another form of escape/control in the minds and hands of inherently fallen human beings. Whose brand of love is sufficient to win the day? Not human love, I think. In the end, it’s as Jesus taught, that there are really only two masters to serve. Everything goes back to dualism.
“That we all may now be sharing the same dysfunction is of no comfort to me.”
I understand. Me either. But ultimately, the rational intellect [which is relational to true information] tends to choose what is true as more valuable and appropriate than the emotional, which seeks what makes one feel better. The former finds its rest in eternity; the latter tends to mutability and temporization. I hope you’ll stick around and shoot the bull a bit more; I enjoy your perspectives. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Phil, thanks for your observations.
“I'm wondering what you consider the "human spirit" to be? In my understanding, it's comprised not only of intelligence, but volition as well.”
I believe Catholics and most Calvinists today are dichotomists, and this is the view you’re operating from here, correct? I tend more to a tripartite view, but am not dogmatic about it. To me, spirit is the animating life force which melds with and invigorates matter to create intellect. I tend to think of spirit as not directly possessing cognitive functions, but more the vigor and force of life and intelligence. Of course, any discussion of spirit is largely semantics, one’s model of incorporeality which more or less fits the facts of experience.
“False-information would seem to influence intelligence and, consequently, the will -- which would reinforce the ancient dictum to the effect that the only real evil is ignorance.”
I don’t think ‘evil as ignorance’ follows from the notion of false information in the intellect, Phil. Like you, I accept that there is a basis for the illusory nature of sin, but false information is not strictly speaking, sin. In its technical sense, yes, I see that false information [what I think St. Thomas called a “stain”] very much influences intellectual operations and matter alike. False information is a way of looking at things. For instance, I use the example in my book of the true information of a house existing in respect to that perfection for which it was designed: to comfortably shelter human beings. As a house decays (entropy), it decays into a state of false information in regard to the perfection of safe, comfortable shelter for which it was intended. Intellect as the product of sense and spirit suffers no harm in the brain’s decay because moral aptitude and ability are not tied directly to spirit, but are a constantly mutating coefficient of the two. On the other hand, the tripartite difficulty is that the equation runs into problems after death; with no matter to animate, spirit is out there in eternity flapping like a sheet in the wind. But I digress.....
To me, the power of the esoteric in prescriptive matters is powerfully illustrated in Scripture in the fact that Jesus cried out to the Father from the cross to forgive those who in their lack of understanding, crucified Him. Even in possession of some measure of spiritual understanding—the religious hierarchy of Jesus’ day understood full well that He was criticizing them on a moral level—there existed in their actions an ignorance, something hidden. The principle that covers this, sinning in ignorance, is found in Numbers 15:22-29, which Jesus confirmed in Luke 12:47-48. Seems God uses our defect of false information to our benefit, which is consistent with His love.
“I also think the will can remain stubbornly unrelational even with good information. IOW, you need both a good will and a properly formed intelligence to progress spirituality. For salvation, however, you need mostly a will open to God's saving power.”
I agree with your statements, Phil, but suspect that there may be important differences between us in what these statements mean. For example, I suspect that when you say one “needs” a good will and properly formed intelligence, and “needs” a will open to God’s saving power, you mean that the responsibility for such things lies either wholly or primarily with man and not God. I am much more Calvinistic in my thinking; I agree that we need these things, but see fallen human nature as incapable to achieve these needs. I yield to God’s sovereignty in such matters. As Paul says, God “....gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist” (Rom 4:17). This is regeneration of human spirit from a state of false information to true, the creation of life. Without it we can choose nothing good, as logically one cannot serve two masters, and righteousness has no epistemic connection to unrighteousness. To me, God is the one who brings to lfe virtually all our moral actions.
In my understanding, the dividing line between God’s sovereignty and man’s will is exemplified in dualism—God’s sovereign will always rules the day in cosmic, eternal reality, while man’s will has reign (not truly free reign, but some measure of latitude in volition) in time and space. The ad infinitum debates on theology boards about whether God changes or not is put to rest here as I see it. God follows His own rules, the rules He inserted in reality when He created the universe. He changes His own mind IN TIME, but never in eternity.
For example, in response to man’s evil nature, God proclaimed through Jeremiah, “For thus says the LORD, "The whole land shall be a desolation, Yet I will not execute a complete destruction. For this the earth shall mourn, And the heavens above be dark, Because I have spoken, I have purposed, And I will not change My mind, nor will I turn from it" (Jer 4:27-28).
....and again, “For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed” (Mal 3:6).
Rational Esotericism asks the same question for all interpretation: through the filter of the theological dualisms of good/evil and body/spirit and philosophical dualism of specific and general, where and how does this verse (or verses) make sense? What’s meant by the “whole land”? In the literal, it referred to a geography and more accurately, a people. In the esoteric, might this not refer to the incorporeal structure of human spirit? If so, the rest of Scripture will logically comply with this notion. Let’s assume for the moment that it does [and it does]. Here is division of body [literal] and spirit [esoteric, spiritual]. The whole land—as spirit—will be a desolation, yet God will not execute a complete destruction...a common Bible theme. What is being saved in the midst of destruction? The particular [individuality] is retained in the midst of the destruction of the general [spiritual essence; false information destroyed and reborn as true]. Esoterically, the Jeremiah verse speaks to a spiritual function. This does not harm the literal, but is obviously more weighty than the literal truth, as it speaks to a work performed internally. The specific sense naturally and typically defines the literal, and the general relates to the cosmic and spiritual.
Same principles in Mal quote. God does not change in His eternal will, and it is His will that all for whom His Son died will be saved (1Jn 2:2). In this eternal decree, God is sovereign and unchangeable. In time and space, where this is all played out, He allows us to resist His will, which the fallen intellect naturally, in its quest for autonomy, translates into possession of power sufficient to determine one’s own fate. This is largely an illusion, as I see it. All illusion has some basis in truth; thus the admixture of true and false information in spirit transfers to intellect and on to act. Because God’s eternal will is not changeable, His love wins the day over the internal destruction, which not only is halted before the whole individual is destroyed, as pointed out by Jeremiah, but in the death of spirit’s falsity, the miracle of rebirth to true is performed necessary to effect intellect’s union with God’s essence [Truth].
Thus, every human being is brought slowly and painstakingly by Christ Jesus to an eventual restoration of essence.
This still does not adequately describe the necessity for the special salvation of the believer in Christ (1Tim 4:10), but this post is already overlong....can explain this next if anyone is interested.
Posts: 32 | From: midwest US | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Just reread last post, and in second paragraph of my response to Phil, I incorrectly stated, "Intellect as the product of sense and spirit suffers no harm in the brain’s decay because moral aptitude and ability are not tied directly to spirit, but are a constantly mutating coefficient of the two."
Don't know how I came up with this: I meant to say that moral aptitude does not suffer as the brain decays becauase it is tied directly to intellect as the product of both matter and spirit. Decay in the matter portion (body generally, brain specifically) of the moral equation of intelletual ability are not tied ONLY to spirit.
One can conceivably have low brain function and highly regenerate spiritual state and have a higher moral capacity (not in respect to other created intellects, but with respect to absolute moral standards) than one with a more perfect material component and less regenerate spirit.
posted
In perusing other threads here a day or two ago, I noticed a statement somewhere that you were an agnostic.
Let me give you the latest on where I stand, Bernie. Concerning Islam I am an atheist. Concerning Jesus I am agnostic leaning toward an unorthodox belief (which I’ll not get into here). Concerning god I am theistic.
You have a gentle spirit and don’t seem to fit the stereotype most agnostics with whom I’ve corresponded have raised.
Thank you. Perhaps you too have noticed that "edge" and cynicism that is characteristic of many agnostics and atheists.
I’m also a bit surprised at your statement about winning a debate
Well, I don’t consider "debate" to be a dirty word. We can certainly pretend to be having no more than a friendly discussion, but I see no problem in having a friendly, even a spirited debate.
Even tiresome, endless debate has eventual value, I think. I don’t know you that well, Brad, but suspect you might tend more towards the prevailing thinking in mystic/Gnostic circles, that personal experience outweighs theology.
How can personal experience ever not outweigh theology? That’s the point, I think, and I thank you for expertly condensing all my thoughts down to that. For if our personal experience does not outweigh theology then what we are implicitly saying is that someone else’s opinion regarding theology is more important. That is to say, basically, "Forget what you are thinking and feeling towards creation. You must think this and feel this." That’s a road I don’t want to go down. And even if people have come up with some important insights that perhaps others could not have come up with on their own, it would still be wrong to force these things on people. Granted in this day and age, at least in the west, religion is a choice freely made. But in the context of what we pass onto our children, I think we should make darn sure we are freeing their mind and not simply encumbering it with someone else’s passions and obsessions. And surely adults might be given this consideration as well. Because of our adult powers we, perhaps even more than children, are vulnerable to losing ourselves in religion rather than gaining an appreciation and respect for creation and our place in it. That, I think, is why this whole orthodoxy and literalism thing rubs me the wrong way, for wherever you end up you’re going to end up at some theoretical consensus point (which we now reach more by agreement than by the point of a sword). And that point is going to be for the good of the religion and not necessarily for the good of the individual because I see that relationship between creator and man as highly personal and religion as inherently intrusive, although potentially quite helpful if a quite humble attitude toward the individual is maintained.
So I’ll work the outside, Bernie. You work the inside. I think both methods are helpful. At least I hope so.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And one of the problems I surely have with concepts such as orthodoxy is that they require submitting to. Maybe not totally. Maybe there isn’t much of a price to pay if one doesn’t, but implicit in orthodoxy is submission to it and I wonder how many of us are so smart that we really do know what is best for the other to submit to? I’ve submitted to some very ugly things in my life that I wished I wouldn’t have. I lost myself, so I know at least a little about that which I speak. At the same time, I do think is necessary that we all do make some important submissions in our lives. But although I will submit to god and to legitimate democratic laws, I will not submit to other people just because. And to submit to what other people say god wants or demands is such a tricky thing. Frankly, I’d rather go straight to the source and I think that’s a saner and safer philosophy all around, particularly if one looks at the history of religion, any religion, and there are parallels here with forms of government as well. I will no longer submit to a king, a priest, a mullah or a chieftain, nor do I think it inherently healthy that we do so. I think those days have passed. I think we’re ready for less top-heavy religion and more people-centric religion. That’s my philosophical orthodoxy and one that I may try to persuade people of but would never encode it so that it was a must.
I’d like to see the teachings of Christ carried forward into the next century and the one after that. But the trend seems to be away from healthy religion, especially if one sees Europe as a trend setter where their utopic desires and relative wealth have made such supposedly low-brow things as religion passé. But there is another sense where I think religion simply needs to keep up with a changing world. In that world I think you’ll find discussions of orthodoxy not taken as seriously by a great many people who long for truth but have little tolerance or need for coercion or brain-washing and who can, with a mere glance around in this global world, see the inherent problem of a myriad religions all competing for dominance and influence. That is not to say that we need some generic global religion (they already have that…it’s called socialism or Marxism). But if Christianity is to take the next step then I think that step needs to be toward the individual for the individual’s sake and to heck with what suits any church hierarchy or structure. Teach Jesus and let’s not quibble about the rest. I just think that if one truly gets Jesus then there really isn’t a whole lot to quibble about. Any quibble that remains is over earthly power and influence. I think we all need to lower ourselves a notch or two in this regard…certainly not that I have, by any means. Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if Christianity is to take the next step then I think that step needs to be toward the individual for the individual’s sake and to heck with what suits any church hierarchy or structure. Teach Jesus and let’s not quibble about the rest. I just think that if one truly gets Jesus then there really isn’t a whole lot to quibble about. Any quibble that remains is over earthly power and influence.
Brad, I wonder what you think "teaching Jesus" would mean, and why you think that wouldn't necessarily move toward some kind of standards of orthodoxy? "Teaching Jesus" is precisely what the Churches set out to do, and what most would say they are faithful to. It's not simply a matter of presenting his moral teaching, as he himself said a great deal more. Then no sooner than you begin a teaching that is "mere Christianity," someone will come along and say he didn't really rise from the dead, or that part isn't important, or he couldn't have really had a divine and human nature since human nature is fleshly and evil, etc. Those are, in fact, the kinds of things that actually happened in the early Church and still go on. The responses to them set the kinds of standards we call "orthodox Christianity" (as opposed to the "Orthodox Church").
You've heard the old story, I'm sure, about how deviating merely one tenth of one degree in your journey will have you miles away from your goal after a thousand miles or so. That's how I understand the spiritual relevance of orthodoxy; it tries to point out the straight path, or the trustworthy one. This isn't simply a matter of the clergy dictating things to the rest of the Church for their own benefit, but the discerned expression of the community of faith. Consenting to orthodox teaching, then, is very much in the interest of following Christ as the Church believes he intended us to follow him. So in the end, orthodox teaching is a gift to the believer, not a bitter pill to be swallowed at the expense of reason.
All that said, one must follow his/her questions and see where they lead. It's good, however, that the orthodox responses can be considered in the process of answering them.
(Bernie, I'm sorry I'm so far behind in these exchanges with you, but I've been strapped for time and find many of your posts requiring considerable time for thought, reflection and response. If there's any question or issue you'd especially like to dialogue about, please let me know that; otherwise, it'll be awhile before I can get back to you on this thread).
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brad, I wonder what you think "teaching Jesus" would mean, and why you think that wouldn't necessarily move toward some kind of standards of orthodoxy? "Teaching Jesus" is precisely what the Churches set out to do, and what most would say they are faithful to. It's not simply a matter of presenting his moral teaching, as he himself said a great deal more. Then no sooner than you begin a teaching that is "mere Christianity," someone will come along and say he didn't really rise from the dead, or that part isn't important, or he couldn't have really had a divine and human nature since human nature is fleshly and evil, etc. Those are, in fact, the kinds of things that actually happened in the early Church and still go on. The responses to them set the kinds of standards we call "orthodox Christianity" (as opposed to the "Orthodox Church").
Yes, I can certainly appreciate all that. Right now all this has to fit into a logical framework, logical to me, that is. In our personal lives we will sometimes sacrifice our lives, or part of our lives, for others…and it's not always such a voluntary thing. There are people who quite literally feed on us at our expense and to their benefit (of sorts). It's not impossible for me to imagine a person metaphorically dying for all of us in some metaphysical way. But I must confess that, even regarding people like Paul, who did some nice things and wrote some great thoughts, I'm hesitant to weave him, and a whole bunch of other stuff, too deeply into the tapestry of Christianity, into orthodoxy. I won't say "less is more" but…ooops, I just did.
This isn't simply a matter of the clergy dictating things to the rest of the Church for their own benefit, but the discerned expression of the community of faith. Consenting to orthodox teaching, then, is very much in the interest of following Christ as the Church believes he intended us to follow him.
Again, I can fully appreciate that point of view. One might definitely suppose that Providence has a hand in what finally results as the discerned expression of the community of faith. But the problem I see is that whatever is discerned is weighted too heavily by institutional needs and not Christ needs. That's my beef. I can imagine Christ returning and overturning quite a few tables. I think there would be no shortage of them. But I could not see him overturning Shalom Place which seems and honest and vibrant attempt to meet any issue head on as you have so skillfully done and I thank you for that.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the compliment, Brad, and I won't deny the institutional nonsense that goes on. There are parallels here with what we see in government -- e.g., great Constitution and Bill of Rights, but lots of nonsense encrusted around it. Human beings seem to do this sort of thing. Nevertheless, I would contend that Christian orthodoxy is more akin to the Constitution and BoR here than to the encrustations.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
