10 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdThat's it. I could perhaps have been clearer.
Ah, I get you now.
Yes, if the nature of the psuche is growth, change, development, etc., then—in a model of individual “psychic” immortality—it seems to make no sense that such would cease. And, in terms of the salvific questions explored in this thread, would imply the continued possibility of salvation (especially under a soteriological model o ...[text shortened]... ) returns to final one-ness with the “ocean” from which it arises, I don’t see the same problem.
Ultimately my problem with any soul that is, or can become, NOT subject to the bindings of time and space is indeed the same as my problem with the idea of a god who can exist outside time and space. And that is that I can attach absolutely no meaning to it.
That's why, for me, "no" is not an appropriate answer to the question: "Does the Christian god exist?"
10 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellI have the same time/space problem. The “grammar of our consciousness” is conditioned by our existence in time-space; and if we try to imagine—well, that “grammar” is what we imagine with as well, so there’s no getting out of it.
That's it. I could perhaps have been clearer.
Ultimately my problem with any soul that is, or can become, NOT subject to the bindings of time and space is indeed the same as my problem with the idea of a god who can exist outside time and space. And that is that I can attach absolutely no meaning to it.
That's why, for me, "no" is not an appropriate answer to the question: "Does the Christian god exist?"
I, too, have probably been guilty of sloppy use of the word “exist.” To put it metaphorically, I generally try to reserve it to the “figure,” ex-isting from the “ground.” Even in non-dualism, I think the only way one can properly speak of the “All without another” as existing is in terms of the expressed forms. Maya exists; Brahman does not. The same for ein sof in Judaism, and (I think) the “Godhead” for Christians such as Meister Eckhart—as well as various Eastern Christians who insist that God is not a being...
10 Apr 07
It's all AND nothing.
We seem pretty important to ourselves .. you might say, everything, but the truth IMO is that we're not all that in the big picture.
I figured that out on a beach at Big Sur in 1967 when I took my first hit of Orange Sunshine. I went from lord of the universe to less than a grain of sand in about 10 minutes.
An ego brought to Earth. The doors of perception opened for an instant and I peaked inside. Serious business on the beach that day .. ego teardown in process .. humility installed
It's a wonder, it's Maya with milli-seconds of clarity.
Hold on .. here it comes.
10 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by jammerIt's a wonder, it's Maya with milli-seconds of clarity.
It's all AND nothing.
We seem pretty important to ourselves .. you might say, everything, but the truth IMO is that we're not all that in the big picture.
I figured that out on a beach at Big Sur in 1967 when I took my first hit of Orange Sunshine. I went from lord of the universe to less than a grain of sand in about 10 minutes.
An ego brought to Earth. ...[text shortened]... lled
It's a wonder, it's Maya with milli-seconds of clarity.
Hold on .. here it comes.
Can be a shattering bit of clarity, though.
Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw, where a guy was saying, "Suddenly everything became crystal clear--then it all went a way again..." His face in the cartoon looked something like this: 😕
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdThat's not funny. Here, try this one on for size:
[b]It's a wonder, it's Maya with milli-seconds of clarity.
Can be a shattering bit of clarity, though.
Reminds me of a cartoon I once saw, where a guy was saying, "Suddenly everything became crystal clear--then it all went a way again..." His face in the cartoon looked something like this: 😕[/b]
A Buddhist walks up to a hotdog vendor and says, "Make me one with everthing."
*ba-da-bing*
10 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdIt may have been touched on by this point (although I certainly missed it in my skimming of the four pages thus far), but there exists a distinction between God's permissive will and His perfect will.
There has been some talk here recently about whether or not God* can fail—
Can God’s “plan for salvation” (however you see that) in the end fail? What would constitute a failure?
There seem to me to be only two ways in which God could be considered not to fail:
(1) God from the beginning did not want (and does not want) all humans to be sav ...[text shortened]... Referencing the famous 3-O super-being God here; not every notion of God falls into this box...
10 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI confess I have never heard that. I’d be interested in both hearing what it entails, and when/where it originated...
It may have been touched on by this point (although I certainly missed it in my skimming of the four pages thus far), but there exists a distinction between God's permissive will and His perfect will.
However, with regard to the Pauline references noted on page 3 (and in the multi-referenced essay from which they came), I will repeat your words in the “All Are Welcome?” thread: “Last time I checked, ‘all’ meant ‘all.’”
A lot of wind has rustled the trees since that opening post. I remain convinced that the particularly western juridical model of salvation is simply wrong, on a number of grounds, most of which I have articulated more than once in recent weeks. I am more convinced of the arguments from scripture for an ultimate universal salvation (with, for purposes of this thread anyway, the possibility of an intervening “hell” ) than I was before. I am finding that historically this has been not such a minority stream in Christendom as I had thought: it is both broad and ancient.
11 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdI've just been reading some stuff in Richard Tarnas' The Passion of the Western Mind--a handy 500-page exposition of "the great minds of Western civilisation and their pivotal ideas", with blurbs to die for--about the shift from exultant primitive Christianity, which, in context, is something I fully appreciate, given its notion of salvation being a fully participatory process that had already begun and integrating the Fall as the necessary first step in the evolution of consciousness, towards a more pessimistic, dualistic conception that foregrounded the miserable, undeserving, sinful qualities of Adam & Sons, with salvation shifted towards the end of time, not the present day. This juridical model also locates the church as chief soteriological institution, with obedience to doctrine being the most reliable key to the Gate.
I am finding that historically this has been not such a minority stream in Christendom as I had thought: it is both broad and ancient.
11 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdSo you are of the opinion (correct me if I'm wrong) that because God
It’s a possibility, I suppose—but I’m not the one doing the “boxing.” John did that in his epistle when he declared that God is agape (is love, not loving or love-able or some other adjective). He says twice: ho theos agape estin. Literally: The/this God love is (the “the” may be for emphasis, or to identify the subjec ...[text shortened]... not act. In model (1), God either (a) chooses not to save, or (b) fails to save, at least some.
is Love, He cannot also be just, because Love means that justice must
be set aside for the warm and fuzzy no matter what? There is not a
balance that sets both up perfectly?
Kelly
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI would say that if God’s essence is agape, then justice, or whatever else, serves that. I don’t see how God can be love, and act any other way but from that essence.
So you are of the opinion (correct me if I'm wrong) that because God
is Love, He cannot also be just, because Love means that justice must
be set aside for the warm and fuzzy no matter what? There is not a
balance that sets both up perfectly?
Kelly
I have never seen agape as “warm and fuzzy.” Have you never heard phrases such as the “flames of passion,” or “the fire of love”? Where do you get this idea that love means “warm and fuzzy”? Neither did St. Gregory of Nyssa’s nor St. Isaac the Syrian’s viewpoints reflect “warm and fuzzy.” But yes—if there was a conflict between agape and justice, agape wins.
As I have said, I think the love/justice dichotomy is a false one; the issue for salvation is healing, not pardon or punishment. However, even in the juridical model of salvation (1) there is no reason to translate aionios as “eternal,” and (2) eternal punishment is neither loving nor just.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdGod never fails...ever...
There has been some talk here recently about whether or not God* can fail—
Can God’s “plan for salvation” (however you see that) in the end fail? What would constitute a failure?
There seem to me to be only two ways in which God could be considered not to fail:
(1) God from the beginning did not want (and does not want) all humans to be sav ...[text shortened]... Referencing the famous 3-O super-being God here; not every notion of God falls into this box...