Lent

longtex,
These are all complex matters, and this is a limited way to discuss them. I recognise that fact. Your answers see to intimate that because things are connected, or in relationship, then they are the same.
I wouldn't say that at all. It does make sense to me that you say that all matter is connected and in relationships that are complex. It doens't make sense that that makes everything the same, or unified. In salad dressing Oil and Vinegar are in relationship and connected, but never 'One' or "Unified."
Also, as I read what you write, you are under the belief that God is part of the material world. In fact, it seems very basic to your belief system. In the Christians worldview, God is Creator, not creation, so God exists outside the time/space continuem, but acts and is in relationship to what happens in the continuem.
I remember a diagram in one of Brian Green's books, where he has all of time/space displayed as a loaf of bread. It made sense to me as a Christian if all that exists in the created world (included time) that God exists outside of that loaf of bread.... The Christian God is an eternal God, who is not material or created....
I understand that our worldviews are different, but I don't see in your worldview why God is necessarily in everything, or even part of creation.
 
texasflag.gif


AAH...the epiphany of LSD and Scientology.












cow_rose.gif
 
longtex,
This is the last post I want to make on this subject on this thread, becuase it wasn't the point of this thread to debate panentheism v. monotheism/Christianity.

First off, I do believe that while connected there is differentiation between 'beings' and that personality and experience shows that. I don't believe religious or scientific studies I have done that I believe all it 'one.' If so, there would be no such thing as murder or rape, because it is just all the interaction of 'one' rather than a violation of one person v. another person. Otherwise, murder or rape could be seen as just an interaction between molecules of the 'one' and not unlike the violence of white blood cells attacking an infection. Seems pretty illogical to me.

Also, you say I assume God is different based on things in this world. That is not entirely true. I believe God is separate because God has revealed Himself as such through His Word. I believe the Bible, in part, because Who God reveals Himself to be matches my experience. I also believe the Bible reveals God as entirely other, but also like us in the person of Jesus Christ, because God chose to put on flesh.
Anyway, that will be the last part of what I put on here about this, because my point was more about what we can do through Lent.
 
texasflag.gif


longtext...my statement about LSD and Scientology had nothing to do with you, as surprising as that might seem. It had everything to do with Tommy Hall.













cow_rose.gif
 
longtex,

No one is denying the rather obvious reality that connections can be found between everything that is. If you want to insist that there is a connectedness in the very aether that surrounds us and pervades our physical bodies, then I don't have a problem with that. I think I probably even agree.

But what you have so far avoided is the problem of insisting, or at least seeming to believe, that connectedness equals sameness. As THEU pointed out, the murderer and the one who is murdered are not the same, either in a physical, moral, or existential way. If adopted by society, your philosophy would lead to moral chaos because there would be no way to justify prosecuting murderers, or rapists, or genocidal dictators. They would claim that we are merely one, and that therefore their crime is ours too. Even more, they could claim to share in the victimhood that resulted from their own crimes.

You can't avoid these practical problems.

If you could address this issue, rather than simply pretending it doesn't exist, we might have an easier time understanding your devotion to this philosophy.
 
Ok so can we prosecute murderers and rapists under your philosophy? If so, what justification do we use when they claim that we are all part of "The One" and that there is no other?

Or do you deny, like the rapist and the murderer, the notion of individual rights?

Does your philosophy allow for the idea that we are personally responsible for our actions?
 
Sure, let's just pretend that practical problems don't really exist.

You want to act like your philosophy is about connectedness and unity and all that. But when questions about the social consequences of your philosophy come up, we suddenly get the attitude of "you do what you want while I tell more mystical stories of wise men knockin' at tha do."

Here's the truth: You want to justify yourself completely independent of anyone else being able to hold you to any standard whatsoever, either God's, or theirs, or even your own.

It's telling that you've singled out exactly one thing in the world that does not, apparently, belong to the great connectedness of "The One". And coincidentally, it's the very thing that might allow someone to expose your philosophy as being entirely insubstantial and contradictory: language.

All is one. There is no other...except for the language, of course, which allows us to process, refine, and communicate meaning, and which, according to Vygotsky, is fundamental to the human capability of acquiring knowledge, and which, if it were to be included in "The One", would undermine the illusion of knowledge that we have so far constructed.

You traded in Augustine and Aquinas for this fluff?

As a member of the thoroughly Protestant Church of Christ, I have this advice for you: Run, as fast as you can, back to the Catholic Church.
 
At least the Catholics realize the connectedness of their ideas to human society.

Your philosophy is utterly disconnected from social reality.

And that, to me, is ironic.
 
So if someone points out the inconsistencies and complications of your philosophy, it must be because they're shrieking in such a way as to cause the spittle to spatter, in a way that is only properly communicated in text by using all caps. I see.

But we are One, aren't we? So really, my criticisms of your philosophy are merely your criticisms. Or, we could even think of it as "The One" engaging in a perverse sort of self-criticism. And therefore, it is we who shriek. It is our spittle that spatters.

Who's that knockin' on mah do? It is me, of course, which is you, of course, which is us, of course.

But why would you criticize your own philosophy? How can you expect any of us to believe it if you constantly criticize its shortcomings, or its inability to relate to social realities?
 
longtext - i believe you know. You didn't just quote Christ, but you boiled down to the key aspect of Christ's teaching. You quoted the one line that tells me you know. However, It may be a coincidence, and you don't know.
I would go on, but I'll start sounding like a hippie. I disagree with one thing you say. I do believe we could explain it in words. I believe it has been done. I just don't think people want to believe. I don't want to suggest we believe the same thing, but I feel it is very similar.

"I am nothing. You are everything. What can I do for you?" That's the best I can do. One word would be "love". Christ said "Turn the other cheek". I fall absolutely short most of the time. But... When I am there, it is the pinnacle. It is the "peak experience" (Maslow's theory).

"Peak experience is a term used to describe certain transpersonal and ecstatic states, particularly ones tinged with themes of euphoria, harmonization and interconnectedness. Participants characterize these experiences, and the revelations imparted therein, as possessing an ineffably mystical (or overtly religious) quality or essence."

Some of you think I'm nuts. That's ok. I can have the peak for weeks - it isn't an emotional induced high. It's a loss of self. I would go on about how great it is, but you wouldn't believe me.

Coel,

You are a very smart apologetic, philosopher and formal logistician, but you are interested in evangelism (to yourself as well as us – I don’t think you’ve ever hidden your motives). Using a CS Lewis inspired style of logic to support your faith is a means to an end. I’m not judging the “end” is right or wrong, but it is that.
 
Coel,

Lewis style is very Socratic (Question>Logical Inference>Conclusion). Your questions and conclusions are very similar to his. I suggest you read "Mere Christianity". I think you will love it. All things considered, it is the best book on Christian apologetics ever written. You, truly, do yourself a disservice by not reading one of the greatest Christian philosophers of our time. I'm not talking Joel Osteen here - this is real good stuff.
 
And Coel,

I've looked up your handle just now because "Coelacanth" is very interesting sounding. If my conclusion is correct about the religious implication, very clever, sir.

I assume you are a Christian. I do not want to give you the impression I am also a Christian. That is not the case, but please don't discredit Mr. Lewis because the suggestion comes from a non-Christian.
 
Puddle Cruiser,
A couple of things. Lent is NOT about giving up a vice. It is about giving up a good, and replacing that earthly good for spiritual benefit.
The point of giving up meat, for instance, is not about lowering weight or cholesterol, but rather, for every time you crave meat, to reflect on God instead.

Also, there are basically 2 major types of seasonal/yearly forms or marking time on earth. Solar and lunar calendars. In the West, we use a solar based calendar. We mark years by the times we rotate around the sun, and mark days by the earth's revolutions.
Marking time via the phases of the moon, and counting them out to mark the time we go around the sun, (Something that lunar calendars also do.), what is wrong with that?
Both are demarcations of time based on celestial bodies. I guess I never knew there were such 'solarists' in our midst that were so any 'lunar.' Oh well.
 
The very idea of Christ’s virgin birth is also pagan. The Jews had no such idea that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. They claim it is a poorly misinterpreted verse by the Romans that made them think Christ had to be a virgin. Something in Isaiah said the “Messiah would be born of a young woman”, but the Romans thought it said the “Messiah would be born of a virgin woman”. The Jews never had a concept for God having sex with human women. To the Romans, that was quite good theater and happened all the time.

It’s also funny that all the apostles and Jesus were Jews, yet the only/oldest surviving versions of Christ’s story are in Greek. I’ve always wondered about that. I figure there's a good explanation someone has dreamed up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top