Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology Perspectives on spiritualityGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Perspectives on spirituality | Login/Join |
I think Helminiak does a great job drawing the distinctions between nonreflecting and reflecting consciousness, between the conscious and the intentional. Lonergan's schema of 1) Experience - data - empirical 2) Understanding - - ideas - intellectual 3) Judgment - facts -rational and 4) Decision - values - responsible, with their imperatives to 1) Be Attentive 2) Be intelligent 3) Be reasonable and 4) Be responsible, pretty much can be described, in a nutshell formula: Unpacking Intentionality = Unfolding Spirituality. I think the East has done a superlative job of helping us in the West to better discipline ourselves to Be Attentive and to cultivate our nonreflecting consciousness. It makes sense to get this first step right! What happens when we get this first step right? We can be said, in Helminiak's terms, to have cultivated a heightened nonreflecting awareness. How is this experienced? Again, in Helminiak's view, a habitual, heightened nonreflecting awareness is nothing more, nothing less, than contemplative experience. A powerful, momentary and disruptive heightened nonreflecting awareness is a mystical experience. With what do these experiences gift us? An openness to the spiritual, to novelty, to growth, to life, to surprise, to the extraordinariness of the ordinary, etc A couple of examples: 1) 12 Step Programs, neither necessarily theistic nor theotic, gift us with our growth possibilities, gift us with openness to the infinite. 2) Eastern Nonduality, similarly gifts us with growth possibilities and openness to the infinite. That's why such disciplines as Zen and other Eastern spiritual technologies can be so efficacious. A caveat: We must not confuse our new-found Openness to the Infinite and Openness to Growth with Fullness of the Infinite, which would obviate the need to grow, again, side-stepping the theotic. This, in a nutshell, is the mistake made by so many nondual theoreticians/practitioners. From a theological perspective, one might say they deny original sin and human finitude, a denial that doesn't square with the emprical data of humankind! Clearly, there is a rupture between our idealizations and their realizations, between our possibilities and their realizations? This rupture is more than an illusion or delusion? Its repair requires more than the proper cultivation of nonreflecting consciousness? If we have harped on these distinctions on prior threads, such as re: Wilber, it is because the presuppositions embedded in these different views have ENORMOUS import for spirituality, not only short-circuiting its unfolding from the theistic and theotic perspectives or spheres of concern, but shutting down our natural growth processes in the philosophic sphere also, making for a very impoverished humanism. pax, jb | ||||
|
import for spirituality, not only short-circuiting its unfolding from the theistic and theotic perspectives or spheres of concern, but shutting down our natural growth processes in the philosophic sphere also, making for a very impoverished humanism. OK, I got carried away there  Maybe others can tease out the elements of truth in that statement but also the elements that require more nuancing re: how impoverished our natural spiritual growth might be or not if we equate our nonrelfecting consciousness with an awareness of our own divinity. Was my statement too strong? Aren't there elements, for instance, such as in Buddhism's Eightfold Path, that correspond to Lonergan's imperatives? (even if Buddhism is not generally considered to make any theistic moves, still some sects do). It would seem that the Buddhist view of nonduality and of suffering as rooted in illusion is not helpful, on the surface, but this is very much tempered by their stressing the need for compassion due to our ordinary experience of duality, which is to say, of others. The Hindu claims re: nonduality and divinity seem to be more problematical, which is to suggest, clearly more likely foreclosing on the theotic than the Buddhist? Although Helminiak generally considers the theotic to be, mostly, restricted to Christianity, I suspect we can find some loopholes, somewhere, to affirm its possibility in other religions? What say? pax, jb | ||||
|
Them are mighty big words, pard�ner. Care to back them up with that fancy six-shooter ya got there? Actually the words "impoverished humanism" caught my eye. Then I worked my way backwards seeing if I agreed with your reasoning. I�m still working on it. Perhaps one of you could expand on your definition of nonreflecting and reflecting awareness. Those concepts are unclear to me. As for poverty, some, like Sagan, might say it is believing in things that can�t be scientifically proven. Others might say poverty is refusing to believe in anything unless one first has 100% concrete proof. I won�t try to make those extremes stand in for the typical, while noting that your "fides et ratio" might not be so typical either. It�s certainly not easy, at least. J But clearly, at least to me, it seems that human nature, while it is experiencing existence, needs, because of the stresses and uncertainties involved, to bite down on the bullet of truth, no matter how incomplete, incompatible or inconclusive that truth is. Yes, we hurt ourselves and others by doing so, but if you look at the totality of the human race as an example, we do do this. Hell, even when science enters the picture where it becomes regular and routine to disprove what was thought fact just the other day, people are still highly dogmatic about things (not mentioning any names, cough - Carl Sagan - cough). You named, JB, a couple possible reasons for our rupture, divisions, or causes of getting stuck in one of the lower boxes in Phil�s chart. I agree fully with you that attitudes about "human finitude" are actively in play. Again, humans seem to show themselves so often to be one-dimensional blinkered horses when riding in the saddle pursuing their passions. Without the idea that we could and probably should make some new discovery that will better our lives, we might still be blood-letting to try to cure the common cold. On the other hand, the lack of humility can lead to things even worse than anemia. And I fully support your idea that people who just keep open the possibility of things beyond themselves will do better science and probably enjoy it more. So, yeah, I think "human finitude" is an issue, but perhaps the bigger one is "human rear view mirrors" where people are able to see outside of their chosen form of tunnel vision. You also mentioned "original sin" as perhaps being a major dividing line. You might be right but it could be in the sense that you guys have got this a bit wrong. Although we can and must make moral choices as best we can while in this earthly domain, we did not create this domain. I find the whole concept of original sin to be one of blaming the victim. I just don�t see it fitting in with a coherent worldview that includes a just God. Surely one can see that we are forced to kill and consume other creatures just to survive. We did not make this rule. Maybe I�m not understanding original sin correctly, but if so I�ve certainly never heard a reasonable explanation of some of my objections. So I score it Sagan 1, JB 3 (you get point for degree of difficulty). | ||||
|
[/qb] Nah, I provided enough weasel words ahead of time to get myself out of that lasso. Besides, they've already served their purpose, smoking you out of the neighboring saloon.  [/qb] Nonreflecting consciousness is what your consciousness is doing when it isn't being intentional. It is awareness, something the East really gets , something the West has to work on. [/qb] Yes. That's why I find Helminiak's distinctions so helpful. First, however, we must return to my distinction between, on one hand, spheres of concern , and, otoh, aspects of knowledge. Poverty, then, can exist in either realm and poverty in one is different from poverty in the other. A poverty regarding spheres of concern translates into a lack of concern about ultimates, for example, a restricted and constricted perspective. A poverty regarding aspects of knowledge translates into a lack of understanding of how it is we come to know what we know and how the nature of what is being known makes different demands on the knower as the knower moves from one sphere of concern to the next or one task to the next. Everybody, including scientists, believe in things that can neither be scientifically proven nor logically demonstrated. Take, for example, reality's intelligibility or human intelligence. I believe in both of those realities but I cannot formally prove them. On Wednesdays, I am a solipsist, because no one can prove to me the existence of other minds. On Thursdays, I believe in the principle of noncontradiction, which asserts that something cannot be both true and false at the same time. On Mondays, I believe in the principle of the excluded middle, that something is either true or false. I believe these first principles, but no one can prove them. The simplest and most straightforward explanation of original sin is that offered by Don Gelpi: It is the effect on Brad of his own personal sins and everyone else's personal sins (from down through the ages). For me, it is the effect of JB's personal sins plus everyone else's personal sins. We sin and it hurts ourselves and others, quite naturally, and, unfortunately, sometimes for a very long time. Think of it as It's a Wonderful Life/Butterfly Effect in reverse. Now, it doesn't seem fair, to be sure, that others should make me suffer for stuff I never did and vice versa. But it is not counterintuitive that we do hurt one another and that there are ripple effects. The only consolation is, perhaps, that, as Art Garfunkel sings: I bruise you. You bruise me. We all bruise too easily. Still, a theodicy mystery perdures and no explanation can exhaust it. How can a good God allow so much innocent suffering? The answer, of course, is that God is NOT good. And I do not jest. He is good in a way that is like human goodness but not the same as human goodness. Whatever Her Goodness consists of, it far surpasses our own and we can only trust that, in the end, everything is going to be alright, rockabye. That takes a LOT of trust, too, on an ongoing basis, not just a once-in-a-life decision. But, heck, I trust others who are fallible and sinful, over and over, because I have more compelling reasons to trust them than to distrust them, even though I DO have reasons to distrust them. Same with God. I'll give Him the benefit of the doubt, for today, for now. I'm sure She'll be in hot water with me in the near future, though. In and out the tub, this Godde of mine, of ours.  pax, jb | ||||
|
Just to add my two cents on the issue of theism here: minimally, it's an affirmation of the existence of a Creator as explanation for the existence of contingent creatures. It doesn't necessarily affirm that the Creator is good, loving, just, etc. -- only that the Creator created and that creatures exist because they were created by the Creator. (Whew!  )I cannot for the life of me understand the atheist or agnostic's position on this matter. What they propose as alternatives is far less compelling or coherent, and is certainly not established by any scientific evidence. Affirmation of the Creator as good, just, etc. is the contribution of a tradition of revelation (e.g. Judaism, Islam, Christianity). One can decide for oneself whether this makes sense and if the evidence for revelation in the tradition is consent-worthy. | ||||
|
Correct. For most, the theodicy issue doesn't result in a default to atheism but, rather, to deism. It takes a more essentially metaphysical maneuver to arrive at atheism, which just isn't metaphysically compelling to most people vis a vis common sense. | ||||
|
Because of both of your lack of condescension, and because of your honesty, I think your positions on the issues that I raised are strengthened even though your answers are not composed of unassailable certainty. A poverty regarding aspects of knowledge translates into a lack of understanding of how it is we come to know what we know and how the nature of what is being known makes different demands on the knower as the knower moves from one sphere of concern to the next or one task to the next. I think that�s always been one of your strong points, JB: teaching about the "aspects of knowledge". For any type of spirituality I think one absolutely needs some kind of justifications that it�s okay to think of things outside the realm of Carl Sagan, for lack of a better analogy. (Okay�I admit I like doing a little Carl Sagan bashing.) Some of my theodicy issues are dissolving into idi-odicy issues, if you know what I mean. I learn. For instance, although I�m pretty sure I could tweak some of the parameters of existence to make it more humane, I can see now how, if one wishes to share existence with others and if one�s ethics require that free will be an inherent part of existence, that it would be near impossible to have a free will universe that didn�t quite resemble the one we are in (although this one seems to at least look like a deist universe where everything is sort of wound up and then set in motion with no external intervention).I appreciate your explanation, but the whole concept (not your explanation) of original sin still sounds too much like a contrivance. "S-happens" might describe innocent suffering just as well�if not better. Don�t take that as a bitter, reproachful comment, JB. It�s a comment from one who is sincerely searching and not just playing "Beat the Religious Guy" like some home edition of a game show. (Although that certainly is a lot of fun as well. ) But again, if the highly astute minds of both you and Phil also have to somewhat struggle with the logic of all this (if I understand you correctly), it gives me hope. | ||||
|
re: if the highly astute minds of both you and Phil also have to somewhat struggle with the logic of all this (if I understand you correctly), it gives me hope. By all means, my good, good friend, HOPE! Yes, you understand me correctly, which is quite the accomplishment for both of us, based on my long experience on the Internet  The default to deism DOES look like a rather easy solution to the theodicy issue and CAN very much appear to be the best explanation. This fellow named Feuerbach claimed that all we have done, as believers, is we have anthropomorphized a god in our own image. Non-believers, who move straight past theism to atheism, without at least pausing at deism (since it is so very metaphysically compelling vis a vis First Causes, Prime Mover and such), are pretty much guilty of reverse anthropomorphizing God, which is to say they suggest that since She doesn't match their criteria, He doesn't, ergo, exist. John Paul II once wrote that God did not have a responsibility to justify Himself to humankind and that hit me right between the eyes; I almost apologized to God right then and there! especially once considering the very strong probability that that is exactly what He did! The thing to remember about faith is that it is a polar reality. Doubt is not the opposite of faith but an integral part of the faith experience. A Cardinal once said that "faith is always poised over the abyss of doubt" and THAT comes from a Cardinal, so let that give you more hope than any of my puny struggles. If faith is the confident assurance in things hoped for, then not everyone's level of confidence would be expected to be the same based on our different life experiences and formative influences (including the de-formative and re-formative and trans-formative) and what I call existential warrants (miscellaneous reasons to believe or not), which are required to bolster our essentialistic understandings (iow, creeds and such). What Helminiak opens us to is the embrace, foremost, of a wider sphere of concern, of even extra dimensions of concern, of the greatest possibilities: the most true, the most beautiful, the most good, the most love. Long before we settle on assigning various probabilities to the various possibilities, the faith-oriented possibilities, however perceived as slim, are quite the notion to meditate on! This COULD all be true! The very fact that it could be true flat-out astonishes me and blows me away! It reminds me of that old Tiffany ballad: And what could've been is much better than what could never be at all! Just to be alive and aware in a multiverse with such possibilities is more than any of us could ask. BUT, it does NOT stop there! We are invited, nay, even required by the lonerganian precepts to apply those imperatives in every realm of concern, which, one might want to consider, could involve assigning probabilities to all of the possibilities? In assigning those probabilities, in employing the aspects of our knowledge as fully and as earnestly as we can, in being attentive, intelligent and reasonable, we must become RESPONSIBLE. There is a LOT of evidence out there for any earnest inquirer to consider as part of the human community of inquiry (in the positivistic/historical/archaeological/literary/anthropological and philosophic realms as well as the theistic and theotic, including testimony of the mystics). The responsible response would seem to require a careful weighing of the evidence and an assignment of probability (not an assignment of necessity or definitiveness, that doesn't exist even in science). The probability doesn't have to exceed a certain percentage; it only has to be probable, even if a minority position. Then, one can experience, whatever their view, themselves to be AUTHENTIC and to have, as Randy Travis says: A Satisfied Mind! And friend, two different people can believe differently and still both, authentically and legitimately, have a satsified mind A satisfied mind would seem to require perpetual openness, however, given our fallibilistic milieu.pax and hope! jb | ||||
|
A satisfied mind would seem to require perpetual openness, however, given our fallibilistic milieu. You saved the best for last (but the rest was very good and I thank you for it). Your above statement has the ring of truth to it. And yet it seems to be at the root of another paradox. We ought to find peace through our spirituality (and I�m not saying that we don�t), but on the other hand, holding oneself open is often a painful and disorienting process. Less painful than atheism or fundamentalism? I�d say yes since I think I know my way around both. I�d rather be a little woozy and light-headed than angry and thick-headed. Not that I couldn�t find a way to be an obnoxious, angry spiritualist. Never underestimate the power of ego. Heh�leggo my ego! But the topic is "Perspectives on Spirituality" and I�ll try not to make this about me, Me, MEEE!!! But first, let me talk about my own perspectives on my spirituality. Right now I�m in empirical mode. I�ve made a couple assumptions and am testing them. So far the results are positive. (Keeping in mind that with Phil�s long tutelage that I understand many of the nuances of this art/science as well as the rules of proof.) One must first stick one�s finger in the socket in order to get the needed jolt. That spark ought to be powerful enough to arc right out from outlet to wherever you�re standing, and some say it does to some extent, but to get the full effect you apparently have to plug in. Of course, what I�m finding out is that I�ve been plugged in the whole time in some ways � different ways, of course, but ways all the same. It�s not necessarily much of a leap for me (he says) in that in some ways it�s simply realizing that "Oh, it�s a particle as well as a wave." If this makes absolutely no sense to you then -- tuh-dah! -- you�ll not be surprised to hear that I�ve been under the wise tutelage of JB for some time now as well. Now, could you please hand me that Bunsen burner and the whoopee cushion? | ||||
|
. . . the whole concept (not your explanation) of original sin still sounds too much like a contrivance. "S-happens" might describe innocent suffering just as well�if not better . . . Indeed it does! And so there's a need to distinguish between suffering caused by sin and suffering caused by what we might just call existence. As you noted above, life forms eat each other, but that's not original sin. Neither is suffering caused by tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, etc. That's just the way it goes, and that would be the case without original sin. Original sin has to do with sufferings caused by social injustice and dysfunctional family traditions. These are not "natural," but are a consequence of non-love passed along through the generations, as JB described above. One can complain that the Creator should have made another kind of universe where no suffering was possible, including the possibility of sin and its consequences. But one is not the Creator and so does not know the reason why this universe is as it is. Neither can one presume to do a better job at any of this than the Creator; as the old myths put it, this presumption was Satan's downfall. The universe is as it is and it's far better to be grateful for the gift of existence than to complain about what one finds lacking in it. There is, after all, something that we can do about our plight, and that, also, is a gift of the Creator. Were that not so, people could not better their lives, and we know that we can. To not even acknowledge the existence of the Creator, however . . . I just don't get that one!  | ||||
|
Someone told me a couple of weeks ago that Karl Rahner, in the midst of some horrific times during WWII, was asked how he could possibly pray in such circumstances. He was reported to have responded: "I don't pray because I believe. I believe because I pray." Think of the situation, perhaps, as analogous to your being stuck in a very perilous situation with nothing but a cell phone and the ability to dial 911, but not knowing if anyone could actually receive your call or even hear you, just hoping they could somehow triangulate your position from the incoming signal so as to send some help, some assistance, of any kind, just hoping they can hear you sending your love that they could relay it and your gratitude to those whom you love and to whom you are grateful. Now, I am grateful, even if there is no one to thank, And I need help, even if there is no one to send assistance. And I am going do dial 911 in the sky, incessantly, and offer my gratitude and love, unrelentingly, and seek all manner of help, most importunately. It seems to me to be the fitting and proper thing to do, not at all unrational, not at all totally hopeless or meaningless, but just the opposite. I call 911 not because I know anyone will receive the call. I call 911 and yell into the phone because I believe someone just might hear me, even if I cannot hear them. It is the only thing I can do and must do. I believe because I pray. I get answers to my prayer, because ... ... I pray. Sometimes I get answers even when I don't pray. Well, that's my Rahneresque story. pax, jb | ||||
|
Some say that Catholicism embraced heresy by declaring our original goodness, but it's right there in Genesis chapter one, and Luther is said to have offered the world "cheap grace," and letting sinful Christians off the hook. The Buddhist and the humanist from different angles preach ignorance as the root of suffering. How about ignorance of both our original sin and original goodness? Could this be why religionists, as Christ pointed out, continue to revert to taking advantage of our guilt and shame to bring us back into bondage to the law, spiritual formulae and practices, almsgiving and works of contrition, etc, rather than pointing to the door and perhaps even stepping through it themselves. Perhaps they are frustrated. In AA we try to break through the ignorance and hard shell of the addict and the alcoholic, but we know that only one out of twenty-five of them are going to maintain a year of sobriety. Hard hearted religion for heard headed people.  "How about a tough-minded faith for tender-hearted people?" - Robert Schuller openmindopenheart.com ps (great-full 4 your presence) | ||||
|
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan I wonder if he was right�and if he found out? Phil said: To not even acknowledge the existence of the Creator, however . . . I just don't get that one! In the simplest terms, there is existence and there are reasons or causes for that existence. Since we're in a universe in which there is consciousness it takes very little leap of faith to suppose a super-consciousness or some other attribute or thing we can't even imagine, particularly given the obvious limitations of our minds. We know it would be near useless to try to make a dog understand algebra but we often have trouble believing there are things equally outside our grasp. So I'll bet that you could get 95% of people to agree to the concept of God. It just depends on how you define it. There will be a superset gathered under the heading of "Higher Power" and ever-diminishing subsets as we get to things like a personal God. A higher power seems rather obvious and somewhat inevitable. The personal God concepts is much harder to believe because it leads to other questions like, "If there is a God, particularly a personal one, why is He so subtle?" I consider myself to have fairly highly tuned senses and even I find it quite difficult to detect God. But I'm also lucky enough to have had a few experiences that leave me with little doubt that there is something else. Well, that's my Rahneresque story. That was a very fine story, JB. A keeper. "I don't pray because I believe. I believe because I pray." In my situation, if I believe it is because I no longer particularly need to believe. I'm not asking for anything anymore � at least not in the material sense. But whatever the case for God may be, there *is* the holy. I have seen it, tasted it, touched it. It is the most irrational thing in the world and that is precisely why it is so rational. It is sacrifice or love or kindness done for no other reason than because it seems like the right thing to do. It is not done for reward or for acclaim. It is just done because something in the vast darkness cries out that it must be done. | ||||
|
The Buddhist and the humanist from different angles preach ignorance as the root of suffering. How about ignorance of both our original sin and original goodness? That's an interesting thought, MM. Without sufficient reason or evidence, I believe that people are good. I'm not going to change that opinion. Now, it's quite interesting to contemplate, if this is so, what turns us away from being good? Do we start good and then get corrupted? Do we start neutral and need to be "infused" with good? Do we start out sort of tending toward bad and needing to be infused with good? If one looks as the natural state of children you see much that is good, normal, joyful, playful and exuberant. And yet, as I often describe them, they are little dictators by nature. If the world complied with their every command (at it starts off doing out of necessity) they would never change this nature. So I�m left with sort of an ambivalent attitude about the nature of our goodness and whether it's merely a capacity to do good or if we really do have an innate good nature. Maybe it's some combination of both. But I do know that, almost without exception, if you pour good in you will get good out (the reverse is true, of course, for the most part). So getting back to this ideas of "ignorance as the root of suffering" one is then faced with the necessity of deciding what exactly isn't ignorance, which is to say, what exactly should be taught? And this is often times when Buddhism, in my humble opinion (yeah, right) fails. I'm not saying Buddha failed, but the tradition that follows him fails and it's as easy and clear to see as their obvious preference for Marxist principles and antipathy toward capitalism. They haven't quite conquered their ignorance, in my opinion, and therefore are in no particular position to save us from our suffering. Of course, I have a bone or two to pick with the Christian (and Jewish?) idea of original sin, but I'll leave that to another time. I must ruminate more about that subject. But I think clearly Christianity is in a position to clear our much of our ignorance and that is because, first and foremost (at least as I see it), it teaches humility. That doesn't mean that message is always received, but that's the message that I see emanating. One can be a Christian and explore other religions, study science, engage in politics, whatever. And along with that grounding comes some of the most solid moral principles on the face of the planet. I don't see that kind of flexibility coming from secular humanists, atheists, leftists, liberals or, God knows, Islam. | ||||
|
"If there is a God, particularly a personal one, why is He so subtle?" As a Suitor, He is a gentleman, not One to force His way on anyone. As a Seductress, She is coy but not timid, ever revealing in part, always concealing in whole, unobtrusively stalking, never giving up. There is subtle. And, then, there is subtle. The Big Bang was not subtle and neither are tsunamis. Creation and life, themselves, are not subtle and neither is evil and death. The noise is not subtle but the signal requires tuning in. It is not the subtlety but the ambiguity of the classical mixed signal. But is the mix equal, the clarion, treble call to love against an ominous bass beat of evil and doom? Is the fade set equally, front to back, or can we not give a nod to necessity over chance, pattern over paradox, symmetry over asymmetry, systematic over random, order over chaos, you know the fugue? So, setting aside the subtlely and disambiguating the signals, revealing what is concealed, concealing what is revealed, the fact that we attempt a disambiguation is the proof of an overarching Truth; the fact that we protest against evil is the proof that there is something easily distinguished as an eternal Good; the fact that we are drawn to this Suitor and taken up with this Seductress is the proof that Beauty is what has a hold on us. This Truth, Beauty and Goodness is clearly and unambiguously Relational. Affirming this Relationality will put one a step further away from deism and a step closer to a Personal God/de. Now, the very fact that we remain outdone and so often protest (with the Psalmist) against this Relational Non-entity means that, at some level, we ARE taking His affront to our sensibilities very personally! and we are receiving Her signals, however mixed, as a personal invitation to continue pursuing the relationship. This gentlemanly suitor and alluring seductress are perhaps, then, waiting for us to take the first step to move beyond the casual relational to the intimately personal? With so much of the advantage stacked on Their side, there is too much jeopardy of overpowering us with Beauty by an instant and complete disrobing; there is too much peril of overwhelming us with Truth by a prompt and total revealing; there is also an incredible amount of danger in sending forth so much Goodness at once, a danger that we might reject it. Subtle is the m.o. by which way we have been granted our freedom, by which the cosmos is gently coaxed to unfold on its return to its Origin. Subtle and not subtle, at the same time: William Blake - Auguries of Innocence And, despite the jeopardy, the peril, the danger, Truth, Beauty and Goodness were nevertheless revealed in an instant, in time, and, sure enough, we tried to kill Him ... The Word on our streets, however, says we didn't succeed. And a whole bunch of otherwise reliable, credible and authoritative witnesses have backed this up with what would only otherwise comprise THE most incredibly strange display of behaviors (and changes of character) and THE most inexplicable unfolding of ensuing events in the History of the cosmos. It requires, in my view, more credulity not less, to believe the Resurrection Event was either a hoax or a delusion. What makes me incredulous is any notion that this man, Jesus, was some type of liar or lunatic and not, rather, Lord. Just speaking in terms of probability, of course. You know, like all good scientists. pax, jb | ||||
|
OK, introducing another nuance: constraints. JB mentioned earlier that the higher perspectives transvalue the lower, and that's true. But we also need to note the constraints involved, here. In a way, the principle of constraint is in the spirit of subsidiarity -- sort of. I.e., what can be affirmed at a lower level cannot be negated by a higher simply because it is higher. A few practical examples: 1. What science knows at a positivist level cannot be negated by one's philosopical or theological perspectives. If your theology affirms the existence of a flat earth and denies scientific information to the contrary, you need to re-think your theology. This is what the Church should have done in the Galileo controversy; it over-stepped into the positivist realm. Same goes for some of the debates on creation and evolution. Religious convictions do not trump in the positivist realm. They might help one to be a better scientist, however, so that's important. 2. A similar tension exists between theistic and philosopic ethics. Religion does not have a monopology on ethics, not even good ethics. What can be demonstrated to be ethically sound at the philosophic level ought not be in contradiction with what theism affirms to be the good. 3. Even the theotic is constrained by the lower levels. It might shed more light on issues that cannot be fully grasped by those levels, but it does not contradict what can be affirmed by them. E.g., belief in the Trinity cannot contradict belief that there is one God who is Creator, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Neither can belief in the immortal soul that lives forever (implication of the resurrection and last judgment) negate what we know about human beings through positivist and philosophic disciplines. So the constraints are real and even healthy. Where these are violated, there is dysfunction in the higher level that is over-stepping the constraining boundary. When the constraints are respected, however, there ceases to be antipathy between the perspectives -- e.g., science and philosophy, science and religion, philosophy and religion, etc. One does not have to choose between one or the other if the interest is really truth. | ||||
|
Now, it's quite interesting to contemplate, if this is so, what turns us away from being good? Do we start good and then get corrupted? Do we start neutral and need to be "infused" with good? Do we start out sort of tending toward bad and needing to be infused with good? I think MM was meaning to affirm the Catholic position (in contrast to the Protestant) that human beings are created good, but are wounded by Original Sin, which biases us toward moral and spiritual evil (some moreso than others, dependening opn the depth of the wounding). The prevailing Protestant view is that we are fundamentally evil because of Original Sin, until saved by Christ in some manner. So the Catholic view is that we are good/bad, fallen/redeemed, and that from the get-go. | ||||
|
So I'll bet that you could get 95% of people to agree to the concept of God. It just depends on how you define it. There will be a superset gathered under the heading of "Higher Power" and ever-diminishing subsets as we get to things like a personal God. A higher power seems rather obvious and somewhat inevitable. The personal God concepts is much harder to believe because it leads to other questions like, "If there is a God, particularly a personal one, why is He so subtle?" I see JB has written a good reply, but just to note, here, that the term, personal, in the strict sense, is in opposition to "impersonal." All that "personal" really means that that God is a spiritual being with intelligence and volition rather than an impersonal cosmic force or energy field. Perhaps that helps? It still doesn't establish whether the personal deity is good or bad, caring or detached, etc. I suppose even deists could affirm a personal God if they proposed that God has intelligence and volition but just isn't concerned about the universe and leaves it to work itself out according to the purposes implanted into its structure during the creation. So, just a technicality, I know, as when most people use the term, "personal God," they really mean something like "my God" or "my caring, concerned, involved God." That need not be the case, however. | ||||
|
I was waiting for this to roll around, because Helminiak really takes off on this, going in many different directions, which we might explore later (especially sexual ethics ). If I recall correctly, he points out that, at the core of Catholic moral theology is neither tradition nor authority but, rather, the natural law. This is very consonant with the notion of constraint, where the philosophic level re: ethics, for example, constrains the theistic/theotic levels re: moral theology. Bravo! pax, jb | ||||
|
The fundamentalistic, evangelical Protestant view ends up being at almost total odds with Helminiak's model. As much as Helminiak's overall schema is not an ontological treament, it has very clear implications (metaphysically, epistemologically, ontologically). When we turn our focus to the theotic perspective, inescapably, there is going to be something ontological going on because we are, then, clearly at the juncture between the human and the divine, which requires a bridging principle, n'est pas? And that principle is Grace and it involves the Indwelling and the sanctifying presence and aid of the Holy Spirit. It is clear from Scripture and from Church teaching that the Incarnation changed things, ontologically, for all of humanity through all of time, and this necessarily includes Christians and non-Christians, believers and nonbelievers. Helminiak's schema clearly presupposes an inclusivistic Christocentrism and not the exclusivistic type that some preach. Some interesting issues are raised by Gelpi in his treatment of thematic grace vs grace as transmuted experience (I'm suggesting the transvaluing of all of the levels - and Gelpi: all of the conversions - by each of the other levels/conversions, not ignoring the constraints). I see the implications of Gelpi's approach as not at all denying the Spirit's presence to all of humankind, in effecting ongoing conversions, but, at the same time, making it very clear that explicit faith has manifold advantages over implicit faith, an implicit faith seemingly denied by some Protestants with their radically dialogical imaginations, which see the world as devoid of goodness rather than incarnationally infused with the very glory of God. pax, jb | ||||
|
�the fact that we attempt a disambiguation is the proof of an overarching Truth; the fact that we protest against evil is the proof that there is something easily distinguished as an eternal Good; the fact that we are drawn to this Suitor and taken up with this Seductress is the proof that Beauty is what has a hold on us. This Truth, Beauty and Goodness is clearly and unambiguously Relational. Affirming this Relationality will put one a step further away from deism and a step closer to a Personal God/de. I find that persuasive, johnboy. With so much of the advantage stacked on Their side, there is too much jeopardy of overpowering us with Beauty by an instant and complete disrobing; there is too much peril of overwhelming us with Truth by a prompt and total revealing; there is also an incredible amount of danger in sending forth so much Goodness at once, a danger that we might reject it. Subtle is the m.o. by which way we have been granted our freedom, by which the cosmos is gently coaxed to unfold on its return to its Origin. I find that to be a notable and quite remarkable reflection. I think I understand the concept of too much beauty (or too much ugliness) overwhelming a person. I�m almost incapable of enjoying a trip to the museum or gallery because of sensory overload. I think one reason my dreams are so intense is that I may be glimpsing some raw truth or beauty and it�s just too much at times. We may start out using drug or alcohol (or some other addiction) as a way to get "high" feelings, but the truth may be is that it�s simply a way to anesthetize�usually from the bad feelings but could we have overlooked the difficulty we have also in handling the good feelings? That is just a remarkable, remarkble poem, JB. I�m glad you presented it this morning. Of course, I believe most people are familiar with the first stanza but I wonder if they�re like me and have never read the whole thing? I found many quite outstanding lines, including, but not limited to: He who shall train the horse to war Shall never pass the polar bar. The beggar's dog and widow's cat, Feed them and thou wilt grow fat. ----- A truth that's told with bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent. [mea culpa, many times over] ----- It is right it should be so; Man was made for joy and woe; And when this we rightly know, Thro' the world we safely go. Joy and woe are woven fine, A clothing for the soul divine. Under every grief and pine Runs a joy with silken twine. ----- The child's toys and the old man's reasons Are the fruits of the two seasons. ----- When gold and gems adorn the plow, To peaceful arts shall envy bow. A riddle, or the cricket's cry, Is to doubt a fit reply. ----- The emmet's inch and eagle's mile Make lame philosophy to smile. He who doubts from what he sees Will ne'er believe, do what you please. What makes me incredulous is any notion that this man, Jesus, was some type of liar or lunatic and not, rather, Lord. Just speaking in terms of probability, of course. You know, like all good scientists. You are a good scientist, JB, and not a half bad preacher as well. Many thanks for your remarkably inspirational thoughts this morning. You�ve no doubt been eating your Special K. | ||||
|
Right on. And it doesn't establish, either, how many persons or intelligences there are, or whether or not they all share the same attributes and are in agreement or consensus, and whether one is more powerful and on and on .. like Greek mythology. One thing Christianity has going for it, as far as myths go: it is based on actual historical persons and events. As has been said, if you are going to have a myth as your metanarrative, why not choose a true myth! pax, jb | ||||
|
Scientists are claiming that violence and prejudice and addiction are learned behaviors. I believe that is mostly true. We have to go all the way back to Greece and Rome and the middle eastern deserts to find out where we got off track. Christianity picked up a virus somewhere. What Protestant Christians in North America and Catholic Christians in South America did with Native peoples and slaves and the environment amounted to about the same thing. There is something wrong with western thinking and it's not Jesus. Somehow, we have misunderstood or failed to heed his message. If I can get a clue from Taoism or Zen or a Medicine Man, or from the Quakers or the Christian and Sufi mystics, I may find out someday. Thanks for the William Blake. I like him. caritas, mm <*)))))>< | ||||
|
Michael, your points above shed light on the fact that even within a perspective, there is good and bad. One can be working from a theistic perspective and using it to justify all manner of immoral behavior. At the philosophic level, however, it won't wash in terms of right ethics and integrative considerations. So in this case, the philosophic ought to act as a kind of corrective to the justifications in the name of theism . . . i.e., "by their fruits ye shall know them." - - - from JB: . . . the core of Catholic moral theology is neither tradition nor authority but, rather, the natural law. This is very consonant with the notion of constraint, where the philosophic level re: ethics, for example, constrains the theistic/theotic levels re: moral theology. Exactly. I wouldn't characterize Catholic moral theology as primarily an expression of natural law -- not even transvalued by theistic or theotic considerations. There is much of that, but also much that draws from the Bible -- 10 Commandments, beatitudes, works of mercy, etc. Some of these can also be found in the natural law, but others seem additional considerations drawn out from reflection on what it would mean to live a life committed to loving. | ||||
|
Let's take a perennially popular topic -- sex! -- and see how that plays out in the different perspectives. A. Positivist -- sex is a means for reproduction; in the higher animals, it also helps to bond the parents and this is of survival value to the offspring. There are many rituals . . . etc. B. Philosophic -- ideally, sex is the means by which man and woman express their love for one another in a gesture of total surrender and joy. Because of its powerful bonding energies, it is best to have sex in a context of trust and commitment. This transvalues what the positivist affirms. C. Theistic -- sex is the means by which human beings co-operate with the Creator in the act of bringing forth and nurturing existence. Its pleasures also indicate the joy of the Creator in creating and the goodness of what is created. D. Theotic -- the marriage between man and woman is analogous to Christ's love for the Church. Man and woman ought to love and serve one another as Christ loves the Church and laid down his life for her (Eph. 5). Sex is the sacramental celebration of this love -- a kind of marital eucharist, as it were. - - - Much more could be said about all of the above, but you can see how each level has a different perspective and appreciation. Only . . . don't expect people operating at the philosophic level to understand the theotic. OTOH, don't expect the theistic and theotic appreciations to be realized if the philosophic isn't. | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology Perspectives on spirituality