The human person

Discussion in 'Theology' started by Thomas, Jan 23, 2009.

  1. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    OK ... it still would have been simpler to say:


    "Buddhist doctrine differentiates between 'a human being' and 'a hungry ghost' as referenced here ...

    Thomas
     
  2. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    I also think, in the posts you have made, you do not account for the Christianity differentiation between God-in-Itself (Absolute) and God-in-cosmology (Relative).

    We speak of what is generally called "The Ontological Trinity" and The Economic Trinity".

    By Ontological Trinity we mean the Trinity in and of itself, regardless of the cosmos, creation, and all the rest, by Economic Trinity (from the Greek oikonomikos which means 'relating to activities' and theologically meaning 'revelation') we mean God as He is known by His activity.

    The Ontological Trinity deals with who God is, and the Economic Trinity deals with what God does. There is, for example, a sharp tension between Latin and Orthodox theology. The Orthodox insist God cannot be known in essentia, in His essence, but only according to his energia, in His activities (in which He is immanently present nonetheless), whereas the Latins insist God can be known in essentia.

    with regard to the Buddhist example — I refer to it as 'anecdotal' because one could offer exactly the same story from a Christian point of view. How many people crossing the concourse of any train station in the rush hour realise they are "Temples of God"? Not many ... but then I would not determine them as a different species to those who do ... so the term 'hungry ghost' is a qualitative distinction peculiar to the Buddhists. Then again:
    Luke 4:19 "To preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised... " Christ came to gather the 'hungry ghosts' to Himself.

    I recall someone telling me a Native American wiseman said "everybody's born people. You have to work to become human".

    Again, Matthew 8:22 "But Jesus said to him: Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead."

    Thomas
     
  3. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Dear all —

    From my previous posts re the development of the idea of the human person, I'd now like to focus on the distinction between human nature, as something common to the species, and the human person, as a unique individual.

    The definition of a person in the Western philosophical tradition is founded on Boethius (480-525), from his work "Against Eutyches and the Nestorians":
    'an individual substance of a rational nature' (Naturæ rationalis individua substantia).
    Each Latin term is the topic of a discussion in its own right, and will come up for review as we progress, but we should not let that delay us here.

    I would be interested in 'definitions' (if such are possible) from other traditional perspectives.

    Thomas
     
  4. Nick_A

    Nick_A Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thomas

    Cosmology seeks to put your ontological trinity and economic trinity into a meaningful mathematical relationship that makes the unification of science and religion possible.

    Man is a creature within the workings of the economic trinity that is dual purposed: having both an animal and spiritual nature. These dual natures are reconciled within man as a microcosm. We are the wretched man so live as a plurality. The whole concept of the relativity of Man is the difference between man as a plurality, the wretched man, and man as inner unity or the awakened microcosmos, a Son of God.

    This is why I prefer to define the human person as a sufficiently awakened microcosmos and fallen man on earth within Plato's cave as a "seed" of evolved man.

    "Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God seed into God ." — Meister Eckhart
     
  5. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Again I must ask ... who's cosmology? Your argument is vague in the sense that the terms are not defined sufficiently for the other person to get a grasp of what you are trying to say.

    What do you mean by 'meaningful mathematical relationship'? The Trinity is One, and it is Three; It is Three, and it is One ... what more meaningful mathematical relationship d'you want?

    Remember that mathematics is an abstract model that helps us explain the universe. Numbers are things that don't actually exist: There are three apples, take away one apple, and where is 'three'? Number has no intrinsic existence of its own ... it's a language of relation.

    So the question is, what paradigmatic model are you trying to relate the Trinity to?

    What 'science'? Empirical science? Metaphysics?

    +++

    Again ... who's model are you referring to. This is neither Christian Trinitarianism, Christian anthropology, nor Christian Cosmology. I'm just seeking clarification, that's all.

    OK. I don't, and Christianity doesn't. And sadly I don't find your thesis very compelling — especially when you couch it in Christian terms, as I find the argument flawed in its basic premise.

    I'm trying to get to grips with the 'first fruits' of the world's wisdom, and not with individual reinterpretation of that wisdom. To do that, I would require you to define every term you are using.

    I did say, at the outset, that the point of this board is not what 'I' believe — the rest of IO is for that, but what a given doctrine believes.

    As you reference Christian one minute, Buddhist the next, Hindu the next ... I'd rather get to grips with them, not a syncretic or synthetic understanding. Hope that makes sense.

    Thomas
     
  6. Nick_A

    Nick_A Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    1
    If you remember, I began a thread on the Transcendent Unity of Religions based on Schuon's book by the same name which asserted that religions have a common origin that devolves into the various exoteric forms we see IN the world. There are a minority of people that believe it to be true and seek the esoteric or inner path within all traditions that gradually awaken us to our transcendent origin.

    Much of theology deals with interpretations on the exoteric level which is why all I am aserting here are indications to the idea of man's relativity of being where the seed becomes what it is a seed of.

    Jesus describes the process in John 12

    Esoteric Christianity is this way so it is sufficient for this board just to explain that Man is like a caterpillar that can go through a process and become a different quality of being. In Man's case the process is conscious

    Esoteric Christianity, Dwight Ott - alternative Christianity

    This relative understanding of Man and Christianity exists within the church but the exoteric level has no use for it. Defining the human person has to be considered within seven levels to become meaninful I place it here since levels of relity exist within all the traditions in one way or another as Schuon has pointed out
     
  7. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Hi Nick —

    OK, I'm with you now.

    But that 'common origin', whatever it may be, is inaccessible to man, and is only accessible through the revealed religions. We may speculate about it, but the data on which we base our speculations is revealed through the traditions.

    There is no actual meta-religion, nor is there any means by which man may bypass religion and get to the 'trascendent unity' — he can certainly bear that in mind in our interfaith discussions, but Schuon is not inventing or revealing a new religion, indeed it would need to be a meta-religion.

    This is the claim made by people like the Bahai's and the Theosophical Association, and Schuon and the other voices of the Sophia Perennis are in accord in the rejection of such notions. Indeed Guénon has written a devastating critique of such movements in Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion and The Spiritist Fallacy.

    I'm sure they are ... but as Schuon himself asserts without any shadow of doubt, there is no access to the 'inner esoteric path' of tradition except through allegiance to the outer exoteric forms.

    Indeed it does, but then that's in the nature of things.

    But that's the very point of this board — I'm referencing authors who are not exoteric. That was the point of 'going deep' on this board, which invariably does not happen on the others.

    A last point:

    A good clue to a real Christian esoterism is to look for reference to the Holy Spirit — where there is none, there is no authentic esoterism.

    The long text you quote is just more sub-Christian cosmology. You don't need 'Christ' in there to make that work, it's mostly common sense — certainly nothing revealed or esoteric. It's just psychology.

    Thomas
     
  8. Nick_A

    Nick_A Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't know if we disagree or not. The potential disagreement is how we perceive level 4 or the point of change: metanoia. It is not possible without the Spirit or as is said in the song Amazing Grace. "once was blind but now I see.

    Christendom as with all secular religious paths uses the emotional energy natural for earthly emotion to imagine the results of the spirit or spiritual energy. This is why there is so much friction between paths since emotional energy has taken the place of the Spirit. Transcendent Interfaith is based on experiential heart knowledge of the Spirit. Father Sylvan puts it nicely in Jacob Needleman's book "Lost Christianity" Someone posted an excerpt so I'll borrow from his efforts:

    Jacob Needleman on the soul The Search For Integrity

    Jacob Needleman, Lost Christianity : quoting “Father Sylvan”
    Where the secular religions including Christendom are concerned with what we do, Father Sylvan expresses the ancient idea of the quality of energy itself that enables us "to be."

    Metanoia makes us aware of this difference. Unfortunately without practice it devolves into normal emotional expression and becomes lost while inviting endless arguments.

    The human person is the conscious evolutionary result of the Spirit while man in Plato's cave is the result of emotional energy responding to conditioning that changes between positive and negative expression allowing us to perform on one day with true compassion and with the most vile cruelty on the next and of course all is justified.
    I will agree with you that without the Spirit all of this is modern psychology. However genuine metanoia that remains open to the Spirit without the need to interpret it is a psychology of a far deeper more genuine origin because it doesn't judge but teaches us how to remain inwardly open to receive the spirit.
     
  9. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Hi Nick —

    That is my point. With no reference to Christ or the Holy Spirit, the model presented is a generic psychological pattern, and somewhat general at that — emotion/senses/superstition are not faculties within humanity, they are products of the faculties.

    If we were talking esoteric or, as I would prefer, mystical, I would suggest the following:

    The lower three:
    1: The Will
    2: The Intellect
    3: The Senses
    (I would suggest these three are the source of the 1-3 listed)

    4: Metanoia
    This is not a position arrived at by unaided reason, it is not a psychological disposition but an infused condition, an illumination of the whole person, all three faculties, by the inspiration and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

    The higher three:
    5: Faith
    6: Hope
    7: Caritas
    These are the Theological Virtues and are the infused virtues of their respective faculties:
    Faith corresponds to the Will
    Hope corresponds to the Intelelct
    Love corresponds to the Senses

    On other matters:
    From In search of the miraculous, by Stratford Caldecott

    from a review of Lost Christianity by Dr. Johannes Aagaard, Aarhus University, Denmark.

    The highlights I think, are telling: How can one discuss esoteric Christianity without Christ? Without the Theology of the Mystical Body? (see Innerexplorations).

    I am not surprised that, in the absence of everything between the Theotokos and the Blessed Trinity, in the absence of an understanding of hypostatic union, then all one can do is fall back on psychologisms ...

    Indeed, Needleman's necessity to apparently 'create' a Fr Sylvan — possibly his alter-ego? an expedient fiction? — asks a number of telling psychological questions.

    This seems to be the tragedy and the 'problem' for the likes of Needleman and indeed Weil — two people who write and speak about Christianity, who are 'fascinated' by it, drawn inexorably towards it, but yet are not Christians, never embraced it, and why? One suspects that they cannot just simply accept the love of God as transformative, but insist on constructing intellectual edifices that forever keep them separate from that which they seek.

    Thomas
     
  10. Nick_A

    Nick_A Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi Thomas

    Are you suggesting that these three correspond to the # 1,2,3 that you list?

    3. emotion (automatic feeling)
    2. senses (physical senses) { -- ORDINARY HUMANITY
    1. superstition (imagination)

    The lower three:
    1: The Will
    2: The Intellect
    3: The Senses
    (I would suggest these three are the source of the 1-3 listed)

    You seem to be associating will with imagination. I would rather associate desire with imagination. Is a response to desire an act of will. Many would think so but I would only define human will in relation to the non-illusory.

    I don't regard physical sensations as intellectual. A clam responds through sensation. No intellect seems to be needed here.

    You seem to be associating sensations with emotions yet they are different but easy to confuse. We say that we feel cold when what we mean is that we sense cold. To feel cold and sense cold are different experiences.

    Agreed. It is putting new wine into new bottles.


    I understand the sacred impulses of faith, hope, and love to differ primarily if they reflect consciousness or not. The faith OF Christ for example is a conscious faith that is an attribute of evolved human being. Christ was a conscious being. Faith IN Christ is a mechanical conditioned faith. Even though the disciples had faith IN Christ, they did not have the faith OF Christ which he was trying to awaken them to.

    It is this higher faith that allows us to be receptive to grace rather than block it as we always do by our attachment to the world which deny us will and keep us as creatures reacting to desire.



    Of course he acknowledges it but also acknowledges that we are not open to the Spirit. Yes Metropolitan Anthony Blum says just that but we go on to see by experience how far we are from it. We simply cannot accept it. If we could we would be capable of what Simone suggests:



    Job could do this but we cannot. The question then is how to become open rather than imagining God or a faith in God. As the wretched man, we are one way at one moment and another way on the next. We have no inner unity to have a relationship with God since in our darkness we are closed to grace. Prayer is a means of becoming open.

    Prof Needleman avoids using words like the Spirit so as not to diminish it in the reader that automatically creates associations. He is not telling you what to think but rather illuminating the problem of the human condition. I remember a passage in the book that states that there are no esoteric thoughts but only esoteric thinking. This means to me is an open pondering without asociative thought that invites the Spirit.

    From the book:

    This is the danger of theology. It invites just these distortions since it can either be without the energy of the spirit when written or read without being open to the Spirit. It is senseless to argue these things because to truly begin to distinguish how we lose the spirit in argument requires the conscious intent to be open. We see how rare this is from the development of so many different forms of Christendom that have succeeded in denying the Spirit.

    Actually my own experiences with the captivating force of righteous indignation has had me thinking more about the importance of "Apatheia" as explained by Evagrius Ponticus since it directly concerns how these negative emotions within us including me. deny the spirit and keep us as we are. If you're game for it, I could start a thread. It wouldn't attract many though even if it concerns the benefits of detachment known in the Eastern traditions since it requires admitting essentially that we normally are in the psychological darkness of Plato's cave. As we know, this goes over like a lead balloon. but even so, I believe it is necessary for anyone attracted to the essence of Christianity rather than the glitz, to come to grips with what we ARE and how the spirit can help us rather then justify our fantasies..
     
  11. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Hi Nick —

    I'm saying in traditional psychology, emotion is a function of the will, and imagination is a function of the intellect. The senses respond to empirical data in a bodily or sensible fashion.

    Whilst there is an argument of primacy — the Franciscans and Dominicans famously argued over the priority of the will and the intellect — all agree that the intellect does not move the individual, it just casts its light ahead. It is the will that moves the person, whether towards the light, it's own light, or some supposed light, is another matter.

    Eriugena's 'esoteric' reading of John 20:3-8 sheds light on this. For him, John is the intellect, Peter the will, and the interplay between them, when informed after the crucifixion that the tomb is empty, is telling:

    "Peter (will) therefore went out, and that other disciple (John — intellect), and they came to the sepulchre."
    At this stage both are 'in the dark' with regards to what has happened, but the will moves, the intellect casts its light in the direction dictated by the will, and thus can illuminate the darkness of the non-understanding of reasonable and natural things by its own light (its reasoning faculty), but it cannot illuminate the supernatural. Only the will can move into unchartered waters, the intellect, by its very nature, can only light the way for the will to go, it does not move under its own steam.

    "And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre."
    Once given direction by the will — to get to the tomb — the intellect flies ahead, because it holds a picture of the tomb to itself before it gets there.

    "And when he stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying; but yet he went not in"
    Again, the intellect meets the occluded, the darkness of unknowing, and cannot proceed — it sees the dark, as it were, but cannot enter the dark.

    "Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre,"
    So the will "rushes in where angels fear to tread" — because only by an act of will can man overcome his preternatural fear of the dark, his instinct for survival. In that moment, which you would call blind faith, the will has entered into the heart of the Mystery.

    "... and saw the linen cloths lying, And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place"
    All this data is delivered to the intellect to make something off ... (the will does not 'think', the will 'does')

    "Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw, and believed."
    So the intellect is taken to a place it would not go by the will, and draws on the data there ... like a good CSI, he realised this was not a case of grave-robbery or despoilation ... something supernatural had happened and the place was left, neat and tidy ... but the body was gone.

    +++

    Sorry, but this is psychobabble to me. Christ is the Incarnate Son of God. You either read Scripture and believe that, or you read Scripture and don't, in which case, walk away, find something else which works for you. 'Divine Union', 'Grace', are not evolutions of human nature, they are supernatural gifts.

    But reading claims of an 'evolved human being' in Scripture is pure invention. It's no different from a reading of the text to show that Christ is an alien from a distant galaxy.

    +++

    Well patently, he doesn't.

    That's offensive and insulting suggestion. He holds a pretty low opinion of his readership, don't you think, that they cannot aspire to his intellectual height, so it's not even worth trying to explain himself?

    I don't think so, I think Needleman would be annoyed by your suggestion.

    No, he can acknowledge that he is not open, and indeed, he has met people who are open, by his own testimony, and who offer a solution, one that he can't accept.

    'We'? ... You can only speak for yourself.

    Well here's my psychobabble response: I think Weil had guilt issues. She left her religion, and suffered guilt; and then couldn't embrace Christianity because she felt guilty about her Judaism. I mean, heck, the Jews invented guilt, ask any Jewish author or commedian, it's their whole schtick! Ask Philip Roth, ask ... I mean, we Catholics are pretty big on it too, don't get me wrong, but boy, credit where credit is due, there's nothing a Catholic can teach a Jew about guilt!

    She left France, and suffered guilt, so she starved herself out of guilt ... I think she said the above because she felt guilty about being happy when she wasn't suffering.

    Thomas
     
  12. Nick_A

    Nick_A Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thomas

    In all due respect, I believe you are trying to understand the "calling" by secular standards. You simply cannot do it with people like Simone. This is one of my favorite quotes of Meister Eckhart. We simply cannot understand these people like Simone. We don't have that light yet to recognize it in another so try and analyze by secular standards. It cannot lead anywhere but is rampant in secularism.



    I know this to be true which is why I know guilt has nothing to do with it. Guilt is denial and Simone needed to "affirm."

    Simone Weil - explorefaith

    Simone was always the opposite. One man remarked that with most they seem attractive at the beginning until you get to see the deeper side. With Simone she was initially unattractive but once getting beyond that, one bcame aware of her deep inner beauty.

    As a side note, the author is in error since she didn't look into the void but rather experienced the world with detachment while maintaining her contact with the void.

    But the bottom line is that she wasn't guilty but inwardly aware of the human condition but too young to have the perspective to put it in. Her life was based on acquiring attentive perspective. It is a spiritual/conscious calling that is shunned by society yet essential for our spiritual part and to Christianity.

    Imagination takes place in the emotion as well. It is a function of the intellect that is taking the place of the necessary function of conscious attention
    The text doesn't refer to taking a nap but rather the psychological sleep of imagination. Jesus calls them to awaken to conscious attention.
    Sorry, but this is psychobabble to me. Christ is the Incarnate Son of God. You either read Scripture and believe that, or you read Scripture and don't, in which case, walk away, find something else which works for you. 'Divine Union', 'Grace', are not evolutions of human nature, they are supernatural gifts.

    No not a distant galaxy but from a level above.

    Grace for us is a divine gift since we live in darkness but God's love permeates the universe. It is we who deny it. IMO you deny the human condition by believing we can be open to grace whenever we want to. You underestimate our resistance. It is not a matter of reading scripture but of admitting ourselves. I am willing to admit how closed I am and a victim of imagination. Socrates was willing to admit he knew nothing. It is to our advantage to do so in respect to becoming open

    What in you is offended and insulted? You might be surprised when you witness it rather than be just become it.

    Jacob Needleman doesn't give answers but helps us to raise questions. This book is an account of his search: his questions. It took me a long time to realize that the value of a finding sincere questions is worth far more then arguing answers.
    Simone put it this way:

    Some argue answers and others seek the experience of the question and to intensify it so as to invite help from above. We have to ask ourselves this: What do we want, justification or reality? Our personality wants to be justified and our budding soul craves the vertical reality. For reality we have to become able to "ask" in order to receive. But this requires sincere questions from the depths of our being and not expressions of conditioned ego frustrations.
     
  13. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Quite the reverse. It is I who insists that the "calling" is the word of the Lord, the "still small voice" (1 Kings 19:21) written in the very depths of our being (cf Acts 17:28, Matthew 25:34, Ephesians 1:4...).

    It is His voice only I seek, for "the Lord is my helper" (21 times in Scripture) and "there is no other" (I lost count...). "The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my saviour" (2 Kings 22:2).

    My faith is this: "Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:39).

    If you will speak to me of 'esoteric Christianity' then speak of Him, and no other, for "with men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26) ... do not speak to me of a "gnosis falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) that seeks to put a barrier between His love and me.

    For myself, at this point, this conversation has exhausted itself.

    Thomas
     
  14. Nick_A

    Nick_A Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    1
    That 's OK. Remember that I believe that Christianity can serve as one of the unifying principles of science and religion. Einstein said that
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." This is true and lame science is a fast way to our mutual destruction.
    As far as I'm concerned Christianity has already begun to create the objective relationship. I support its efforts if for no other reason then I believe the future of our race may depend on it. As usual Simone Weil was far ahead of her time for establishing the proper relationship

     
  15. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Ah, Nick, Nick ...

    There is nothing in that quote that hasn't been said by philosophers for over a thousand years, and better and more accurately said, too, might I add.

    Plato has Socrates offer the analogy of 'the divided line' (Book VI of The Republic). Aristotle calls it the "first philosophy" or "the study of being qua being", or "wisdom", or "theology" ... it goes on from there.

    I understand that you are in awe of her, I was in awe of Schuon ... but we must learn to step back, and get a perspective, that's what philosophical objectivity is all about. A philosopher must not let his devotion to his master obscure the truth that we are all fallible.

    If you have discovered anything in Weil that is 'new', 'original' or a 'breakthrough', then go back, hunt it down, look again at the Masters, from Plato on, and I'll bet a penny to a pound that you'll find, to your amazement and delight, that it was there all along. It'll be illuminating, I promise you.

    (I've never really studied 'the divided line' analogy. Now, in just a glance, I can see how it underscores the 'multiple states of being' in both oriental and occidental metaphysics ... Philosophy! Don't you just love it?)

    Thomas
     
  16. Nick_A

    Nick_A Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thomas

    It has all been said before in one form or another as rightly pointed out in Ecclesiastes. Because science has advanced in our time, the artificial division between science and religion is vivified.

    I'm not in awe of Simone but rather admire her as one of the few people that have lived their religion which has allowed her to have a religious understanding rather than just quote from books as people normally do. She experienced the Christ because she lived Christianity. Christendom supports the Pharisee that Jesus criticized since it lives by appearance, lacking the humility for the inner experience of the teaching but content to identify itself by "appearance" and defending this appearance.

    "Being" in the West is often a word that refers to existence as compared to non-existence. People do not know of a scale of being which determines "objective quality" which is defined cosmologically by distance from the source of being. It is this scale of being that the universal movements of involution and evolution have their existence. Science is becoming aware of it through quantum physics.

    When the being of man (what we ARE) will become understood and what our potential being is and its importance in a universal context, hopefully more will come to see what the striving for Christian re-birth actually is and more scientists will become aware of the logic of it as well as the limitations of their logic.

    To most, the following two quotations from Simone Weil would appear to be a contradiction. Those more familiar with cosmology would see instantly that the first refers to science and the second to the experience of our "being."



     
  17. Thomas

    Thomas Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,549
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Hi Nick —

    Only in the secular mind ... this separation came about as a result of the Enlightenment, which declared religion to be superstition, and insisted that man could shape the cosmos according to his own image. The foremost spokesperson of which was Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

    The following from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
    This is where the opposition between man and nature, and science and religion, begins. It is not, as so many assume, down to a misreading of Scripture, but down to the assumptions of the Enlightenment.

    Which is where the West stands today, and where even President Obama is certain that the only cure is more of the same ... more science, more technology.

    The problem being, that people view religion without realising they're doing it through a scientific mind, or rather trying to understand religion from a secular mindset.

    She lived what she thought.

    No ... sadly, no she didn't — she lived what you assume Christianity to be, but as I keep pointing out, you'be got it wrong.

    Yet you continually quote from books by people who have not found what they are looking for. Peace.

    You'd do a lot better to read the books of those who found apatheia, ratrher than from those who haven't and assume it to be all sorts of things it isn't.

    That's just the kind of thing a secular person would say, because they can't see what it is.

    Yes, but this is cosmology — it's nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is a transcendent revelation, not a scientific discovery, nor can it be expressed in terms of cosmological processes, etc.,

    As I keep pointing out, you're trying to make something fit in a neat cosmological formulae, and it doesn't. You're trying to render Christianity as a series of equations ...

    ... Science will never find God, although it might find ample evidence of the handiwork of the divine, for those who have the eye to see.

    Take a look at the De docta ignorantia, whose contribution to Western scientific methodology is immense. Don't let the name or the title put you off, he was an inspiration and influence on Count Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494), author of Oration on the Dignity of Man which has been called the "Manifesto of the Renaissance".

    Thomas
     
  18. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,374
    Likes Received:
    166
    According to the Gospels, after Peter denies Jesus three times, he "went out and wept bitterly" (Luke 22.62). David Hart uses this as a springboard for his discussion of the person in Christianity. He says this description of Peter weeping doesn't merit any special attention from us at first glance, but back then other readers or listeners from the rich literate class wouldn't have experienced the text the way we do. He says the literate back then would experience this scene as "an aesthetic mistake." Hart continues:

    ". . . for Peter, as a rustic, could not possibly have been a worthy object of a well-bred man's sympathy, nor could his grief possibly have possessed the sort of tragic dignity necessary to make it worthy of anyone's notice. At most, the grief of a man of Peter's class might have had a place in comic literature: the querulous complaints of an indolent slave, the self-pitying expostulations of a witless peon . . ."

    Interesting observation.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2015
  19. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,374
    Likes Received:
    166
    Why can't I edit my post here?

    "The following error occurred:
    403 Forbidden
    Forbidden
    You don't have permission to access /community/threads/10583/add-reply on this server."

    But I can edit this post? So strange . . .

    Okay. I edited it. But the error popped up whenever I tried to add a lot of text. Oh well . . .
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2015
  20. StevePame

    StevePame Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,148
    Likes Received:
    279
    Thanks for letting me know, Ahanu. There might be a character limit that is preventing you from posting, but the database is set to allow all posts less than 500,000 characters so I'll try raising that limit.
     

Share This Page