[canajan, eh?]

davidk, on Jul 8 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

If I express myself in philosophical or theological terms of a propositional, verbalized revelation, knowledge that man has from God, the liberal would consider it unthinkable. Because by his world view of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system, everything is a machine and there is no knowledge from outside, from God.
If this is your world view, and cannot consider any other, you are at a dead end.

What has this got to do with being progressive and liberal? I am a progressive Christian precisely because I do not believe that everything is a machine, and I am tired -- very, very tired -- of conservatives such as you, Davidk, who try to squeeze our entire understanding of a very complex scientific universe into a tiny and very old machine called the Bible. It is your world view that is closed, Davidk, not ours.

Jen

[davidk]

There is a fear of the word 'closed' and an ignoring of the word 'if'.
--
Natural Systems Theory is an interpretation of the known, established facts of natural science.
The naturalistic view is: there has not been, nor can there be, an outside influence or revelation from God. In other words: nature (universe) is a machine, all on its own with no external influences.

That world view of the uniformity of natural causes is closed to the concept of knowledge or influence from outside- from God.

If you hold this naturalist view, as many liberal theologians do, eliminating the reordering and outside knowledge from God, you would be at a dead end trying to explain the trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, atonement, or salvation. As some posts can attest.

If you believe God has and can reorder and impart knowledge to man, you believe in an open system.
--
We agree the universe is complex. There has been no implication of acquiring our entire understanding of its physics comes from the Biblical text.

[minsocal]

A naturalistic system with certain emergent properties such consciousnes would allow for interaction with God. Emergent properties, at least of the strong type, negate the predictability of the "machine".

[soma]

Christians can be progressive, liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian; we are who we are. When we judge others we are only expressing the projection of our own mind. If we believe the path we are following is the true path we would rejoice, are absorbed in that path and being the best Christian we can be. If we are unsure we try to prove our path is true by comparing it with other paths, but we don't know the other path because we are not absorbed in it. We project our thoughts on that path and then argue to prove to ourselves that our path is best. I say we are all following the way of Jesus.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jul 9 2008, 12:41 PM, said:

There is a fear of the word 'closed' and an ignoring of the word 'if'.
--
Natural Systems Theory is an interpretation of the known, established facts of natural science.

Incorrect and out of date. State your source please.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Jul 10 2008, 06:01 PM, said:

A naturalistic system with certain emergent properties such consciousnes would allow for interaction with God. Emergent properties, at least of the strong type, negate the predictability of the "machine".

A naturalistic system by definition explicitly denies that anything in reality has a supernatural or more than a natural significance. It is characterized by or in accordance with naturalism. Specifically, the laws of cause and effect (ie; physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological conceptions of nature are invalid.
If the supernatural is "allowed" to emerge, the system can no longer be considered naturalistic. If you try to make it fit, you'll have to change definitions across the board.
--
If you read what I said earlier in #39 a little closer, it is that the world view of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system* denies supernatural revelation. Which many liberal/progressive theologians conform to. But if the system allows such revelation, it is the uniformity of natural causes in an open system.

Now, I called neither a 'natural system', but either an 'open' or a 'closed system' of the uniformity of natural causes. Neither denies the operations of the physical world, but they differ either by accepting or denying revelation and reordering by God.

If you don't fit the catagory of one, you would necessarily fit the other. You world view is not for me to conclude. If you believe in the open system that allows revelation from God, your view would be much more in line with traditional Christianity than the liberal. This is merely defining historical philosophic differences. The liberal world view may have undergone change that I am unaware of, but the traditional Christian world view hasn't.

If not accepting revelation from God is your view, there will be no basis for the understanding of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, et al. Competance in these matters depends on what God has revealed to man.

*error: in post #42, "That world view of the uniformity of natural causes is closed to the concept of knowledge or influence from outside- from God." It should read, "That world view of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system is closed to the concept of knowledge or influence from outside- from God.
-----

soma, on Jul 10 2008, 08:59 PM, said:

Christians can be progressive, liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian; we are who we are. When we judge others we are only expressing the projection of our own mind. If we believe the path we are following is the true path we would rejoice, are absorbed in that path and being the best Christian we can be. If we are unsure we try to prove our path is true by comparing it with other paths, but we don't know the other path because we are not absorbed in it. We project our thoughts on that path and then argue to prove to ourselves that our path is best. I say we are all following the way of Jesus.

What is this to say of the Trinity?

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jul 11 2008, 09:52 PM, said:

A naturalistic system by definition explicitly denies that anything in reality has a supernatural or more than a natural significance. It is characterized by or in accordance with naturalism. Specifically, the laws of cause and effect (ie; physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological conceptions of nature are invalid.
If the supernatural is "allowed" to emerge, the system can no longer be considered naturalistic. If you try to make it fit, you'll have to change definitions across the board.

By definition

Quote

Not everything is nothing but a natural thing, nor need naturalism be a totalizing philosophy that accords unconditional primacy to the natural face of existence.

Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1995, p. 518).

[davidk]

davidk, on Jul 12 2008, 12:52 AM, said:

A naturalistic system by definition explicitly denies that anything in reality has a supernatural or more than a natural significance. It is characterized by or in accordance with naturalism. Specifically, the laws of cause and effect (ie; physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological conceptions of nature are invalid.
If the supernatural is "allowed" to emerge, the system can no longer be considered naturalistic. If you try to make it fit, you'll have to change definitions across the board.

Belief that all objects, events, and values can be wholly explained in terms of factual and/or causal claims about the world, without reference to supernatural powers or authority. Prominent naturalists include Wm. Clifford and John Dewey. Willard Quine proposed a naturalistic epistemology, understood as empirical study of the origins and uses of sensory information.

Belief that the principles of human conduct can be derived from a proper understanding of human nature in the context of the universe as a rational whole. Although voluntarists suppose that god could will anything at all, Aquinas held that even the divine will is conditioned by reason. Thus, the natural law provides a non-revelatory basis for all human social conduct. Modern appeals to natural law are the foundation for social thought in the philosophies of Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf.

Philosophical Naturalism, ed. by Peter A. French, Theodore E. Uehling, and Howard K. Wettstein (Notre Dame, 1995); Naturalism, A Critical Analysis, ed. by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (Routledge, 2000); Naturalism and Ethics, ed. by Dagfinn Follesdal (Garland, 2000) Robert F. Almeder, Harmless Naturalism: The Limits of Science and the Nature of Philosophy (Open Court, 1998); Michael Rea, World Without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism (Oxford, 2002); Penelope Maddy, Naturalism in Mathematics (Oxford, 2000); , ed. by James Beilby (Cornell, 2002); David Ray Griffin, Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts (SUNY, 2000); and Naturalism: A Critical Analysis, ed. by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (Routledge, 2000). John Finnis, Aquinas: Moral, Political, and Legal Theory (Oxford, 1998); Samuel Pufendorf, On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law, ed. by James Tully and Michael Silverthorne (Cambridge, 1991); Joel Feinberg, Problems at the Root of Law (Oxford, 2002); Mark Murphy, Natural Law and Practical Rationality (Cambridge, 2001); Martin Rhonheimer, Natural Law and Practical Reason: A Thomist View of Moral Autonomy, tr. by Gerald Malsbary (Fordham, 2000); and Robert P. George, In Defense of Natural Law (Oxford, 2001)

[soma]

The Trinity is a concept, a tool to help us understand God and grow closer to Him. People use tools in different ways and understand concepts at different levels. The people at the bottom of the mountain only see one concept and one meaning. Climb the mountain, enjoy the view and all becomes clear. Three in one and one in three like a music chord. Three notes making one sound.

[JosephM]

Wikipedia said:

Neither of the words "Trinity" nor "Triunity" appear in the Old Testament or New Testament, which of course does not necessarily mean that the doctrine signified by these words has no basis in Scripture.[13] The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of "later theological interpretations of Christ's nature and function" (Harris 427-28) argued in debate and treatises.[14] [15]The concept was expressed in early writings from the beginning of the second century forward. Various passages from both the Christian and Hebrew scriptures have been cited as supporting this doctrine, while other passages are cited as opposing it.

It seems to me it is important to note... The Trinity is a Christian Church (organization) doctrine, stating that God exists as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases, but is one being. In Greek, hypostases literally means "that which stands beneath" Personally I find the literal Greek word more accurate than 3 'persons' which the dictionary defines as a "living physical human". I say this because God's essence cannot be limited to a living human (form) and neither have I found that God has any parts yet God is that which stands beneath all things. Else they would not exist.

If the doctrine of the trinity is useful in explaining or understanding God then all you have is conceptual knowledge 'about God'. This seems to me to be far inferior to having the mind of Christ which is to know God. Perhaps the progressive Christian progresses beyond church dogma and finds that which stands beneath all things and can dispense with concepts that do little to edify the church (not an organization) but rather causes division as in Binatarianism, Unitarianism, Oneness and Modalism. Each of course claiming to be Christian and believe the same book yet convinced it has an exclusitivity on discernment and understanding of 'knowledge about' yet missing that which is pointed to.

Just one view to consider,
Love in Christ,
Joseph

[soma]

I think Trinity has become doctrine and repeated over and over, but I think it was intended to be used as a tool to know the mind of Christ. I think it was used to help one know how dualism exist in the non duality and harmony of God's pure consciousness.

[canajan, eh?]

davidk, on Jul 9 2008, 03:41 PM, said:

There is a fear of the word 'closed' and an ignoring of the word 'if'.
--
Natural Systems Theory is an interpretation of the known, established facts of natural science.
The naturalistic view is: there has not been, nor can there be, an outside influence or revelation from God. In other words: nature (universe) is a machine, all on its own with no external influences.

That world view of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system is closed to the concept of knowledge or influence from outside- from God.

If you hold this naturalist view, as many liberal theologians do, eliminating the reordering and outside knowledge from God, you would be at a dead end trying to explain the trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, atonement, or salvation. As some posts can attest.

If you believe God has and can reorder and impart knowledge to man, you believe in an open system.
--
We agree the universe is complex. There has been no implication of acquiring our entire understanding of its physics comes from the Biblical text.

"There has been no implication of acquiring our entire understanding of its physics comes from the Biblical text" . . . While I agree with this statement, I am curious to know why you have tried so hard in the past, Davidk, to convince us that the Old Testament contains advanced scientific insights into areas such as cosmology. Maybe you don't remember the arguments you made, but I do, as I'm sure others here do.

"If you hold this naturalist view, as many liberal theologians do, eliminating the reordering and outside knowledge from God, you would be at a dead end trying to explain the trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, atonement, or salvation" . . . Now this is a most interesting statement, Davidk. It would appear, from what you're saying on this thread about closed systems and open systems, that you are looking for what you suppose to be a logical philosophical argument to explain to us poor progressives why we are wrong and you are correct about the trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, atonement, and salvation.

So . . . by your reasoning, an open system is one where we, as Christians, do not begin our journey as spiritual beings by asking what Jesus said, and what Jesus taught, and what values Jesus lived by, but instead -- because we live in an open system where God is imparting knowledge to man [humankind] -- we are not Christian enough unless we accept later Church dogma on the trinity, on the nature of the incarnation, on atonement, and on salvation. If I'm correctly reading between your lines, Davidk, your explanation and justification for later Church doctrines that don't match the original teachings of Jesus is that these later Church doctrines were revealed. According to you, then, the writings of Paul, Augustine, and Anselm were revelatory in nature, and therefore must be kept, even when they have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus' teachings about love and forgiveness.

So in your open system, which in my humble opinion is a sieve that invites the worst possible kind of human psychopathy to pour through in the guise of divine revelation, the musings of later Church leaders take precedence over the teachings of Jesus, even when those musings lead to systemic injustices against women, against those of non-white origin, against those of different cultural backgrounds, and so on. This is not acceptable.

It is beyond obvious for me to say that I believe in a system where God imparts knowledge to human beings. Many Progressive Christians I have talked to in my community know that God is continually guiding us and showing us new ways of understanding our relationship with the divine. A belief in the guiding presence of Spirit an indication of one's spiritual wisdom and maturity. It is a powerful emotional and loving experience that can only be described secondarily in scientific and/or philosophical terms. It is a waste of time to fill up a page with philosophical terms if you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is -- if you are not willing to be vulnerable in the presence of God's intensely vulnerable love.

There are many liberals (both religious liberals and secular liberals) who hold to a closed system, just as there are many conservatives who hold equally stubbornly to the closed system that comprises the Bible. It has been my observation that when a religious conservative shifts from a closed system of belief to a truly open system, it is impossible for that person to maintain a conservative stance. He or she will inevitably "lighten up" and find joy in the wonder of ambiguity and empathy.

I love you, Mother and Father!

Jen

This post has been edited by canajan, eh?: 17 July 2008 - 07:14 AM

[davidk]

Jen,
Thank you for your comments.

Although I do have to say I was led on by an earlier post, which now must be considered an exaggeration.
"... I am tired -- very, very tired -- of conservatives such as you, Davidk, who try to squeeze our entire understanding of a very complex scientific universe into a tiny and very old machine called the Bible."
Then there followed an added comment making much the same accusation as the earlier one:

canajan, eh?, on Jul 17 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

... I am curious to know why you have tried so hard in the past... to convince us that the Old Testament contains advanced scientific insights into areas such as cosmology.

To live at all is not possible except in the understanding that the universe is there, has a certain form, a certain order, and that man conforms to that order so he can live in it.
If we begin with an impersonal beginning (time +chance) it cannot be demonstrated how the complexity of the universe (unity & diversity), let alone the personality of man (aspirations, morals, knowledge of man's meaning, etc), exists.
In short, the infinite-personal beginning (creator God) provides those answers. If He does, it would then be reasonable that if there is an infinite-personal God, he can and will communicate with us, since we are beings that rely on communication and are created "in His image".
Obviously we recognize, God's knowledge is infinite while ours is not. Therefore, we cannot be expected to recieve infinite, exhaustive knowledge on any subject (history, spirituality, cosmos), but we can expect what is communicated to us by God to be true. That source of our basic knowledge from which to explore and discover must begin with the truth so any subsequent knowledge gained can be relied upon. (The founder's of modern science understood this.) And that basic source is the Bible. It is a reasonable concept that can be discussed. Hopefully with out further derision.

canajan, eh?, on Jul 17 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

It would appear, from what you're saying on this thread about closed systems and open systems, that you are looking for what you suppose to be a logical philosophical argument to explain to us poor progressives why we are wrong and you are correct about the trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, atonement, and salvation.

If you hold to the naturalistic view, you would have no basis for explaining the above, because teleological conceptions are considered invalid. This is philosophically true.
Whether open or closed, neither view denies the operations of the physical world. They differ by accepting (open) or denying (closed) the revelation and reordering by God.
Explaining these differences in philosophies is merely a clinical view. You simply have to decide on your view, based upon the premise that things do exist, and exist in their present form and complexity.

canajan, eh?, on Jul 17 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

So . . . If I'm correctly reading between your lines, ...

Not only is your reading "between the lines" incorrect, your reading the lines themselves is highly suspect.

canajan, eh?, on Jul 17 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

It is beyond obvious for me to say that I believe in a system where God imparts knowledge to human beings. Many Progressive Christians I have talked to in my community know that God is continually guiding us and showing us new ways of understanding our relationship with the divine. A belief in the guiding presence of Spirit an indication of one's spiritual wisdom and maturity. It is a powerful emotional and loving experience that can only be described secondarily in scientific and/or philosophical terms. It is a waste of time to fill up a page with philosophical terms if you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is -- if you are not willing to be vulnerable in the presence of God's intensely vulnerable love.

How do you have the audacity to say you believe in what you previously claimed "invites the worst possible kind of human psychopathy to pour through in the guise of divine guidance"? The problem may be one of inconsistency in your position.

canajan, eh?, on Jul 17 2008, 08:07 AM, said:

There are many liberals (both religious liberals and secular liberals) who hold to a closed system, just as there are many conservatives who hold equally stubbornly to the closed system that comprises the Bible. It has been my observation that when a religious conservative shifts from a closed system of belief to a truly open system, it is impossible for that person to maintain a conservative stance. He or she will inevitably "lighten up" and find joy in the wonder of ambiguity and empathy.

There is a strict avoidance of considering the Bible as the written revelatory communication of God to man, while relying on self-centered, ambiguous, human emotions.

There is an unambiguous joy in the Lord.

[minsocal]

davidk,

You overstate the relationship between science and the Bible. Galieo found it necessary to reinterpret the Bible based on his findings and Descartes found it necessary to reject miracles.

minsocal

[davidk]

minsocal, on Jul 20 2008, 06:07 PM, said:

davidk,

You overstate the relationship between science and the Bible. Galieo found it necessary to reinterpret the Bible based on his findings and Descartes found it necessary to reject miracles.

minsocal

minsocal,

I cannot overstate the impact of the Bible.
--
This has apparently been something you have forgotten. For if you may recall I have shared the philosophic positions of Whitehead and Oppenheimer saying, modern science could not have been born except in the milieu of Chistianity. Why, you ask? Because in the area of Biblical Christianity, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon all the way up to Newton and Faraday, men understood that there was a universe there because God had made it. And they believed, as Whitehead has so beautifully said, because God was a reasonable God one could discover the truth of the universe by reason. Again, this came, as Whitehead said, out of the fact these men really were sure that the truth of the universe could be pursued in reason because it was made by a reasonable God. (note: I did not say W, nor O, was Christian.)
--
Galileo defended Scripture passages and claimed they were not contrary to his... heliocentrism, for example. This defense was one of the reasons he was in such hot water with the Catholics and the Jesuits who argued in direct oppostion.
Descartes believed God is benevolent. He had faith in the reality his senses provided him, because God has provided a mind and a sensory system and does not desire to deceive. From this presupposition, Descartes establishes the possibility of acquiring knowledge of the world based on reason.
--

Enough of this. It is distracting from the topic that no one of a progressive/liberal ideolgy can defend, the Trinity.

[JosephM]

davidk, on Jul 21 2008, 05:43 PM, said:

minsocal,

(snip)
Enough of this. It is distracting from the topic that no one of a progressive/liberal ideolgy can defend, the Trinity.

David,

There is nothing to defend.

Love,
Joseph

[October's Autumn]

JosephM, on Jul 21 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

David,

There is nothing to defend.

Love,
Joseph

Joseph,

I love reading your responses and take on various things. You have a way of speaking that really hits the nail on the head.

[canajan, eh?]

davidk, on Jul 18 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

QUOTE(canajan, eh? @ Jul 17 2008, 08:07 AM)

Quote

It is beyond obvious for me to say that I believe in a system where God imparts knowledge to human beings. Many Progressive Christians I have talked to in my community know that God is continually guiding us and showing us new ways of understanding our relationship with the divine. A belief in the guiding presence of Spirit an indication of one's spiritual wisdom and maturity. It is a powerful emotional and loving experience that can only be described secondarily in scientific and/or philosophical terms. It is a waste of time to fill up a page with philosophical terms if you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is -- if you are not willing to be vulnerable in the presence of God's intensely vulnerable love.

How do you have the audacity to say you believe in what you previously claimed "invites the worst possible kind of human psychopathy to pour through in the guise of divine guidance"? The problem may be one of inconsistency in your position.

There is a strict avoidance of considering the Bible as the written revelatory communication of God to man, while relying on self-centered, ambiguous, human emotions.

There is no inconsistency in my position, Davidk. My position does not fit neatly into your black-and-white categories of understanding. Therefore, you conclude that I am inconsistent.

I will say, and continue to say, that the worst possible kind of human psychopathy pours through in the guise of divine guidance. This is a fact. Jim Jones, mastermind of the horrific Jonestown massacre, is but one recent example of a human being afflicted with severe mental dysfunction who engineered the "martyrdom" of over 900 people because he said -- and others believed -- that he was a prophet.

So get a life, Davidk. There have been more false prophets -- psychopaths who use "divine revelation" as a ticket to power -- than there have been true prophets. But the fact that false prophets have existed (and will continue to exist until we get things right) doesn't alter the reality that true prophets have also existed. Just because I try to hammer home to others that it's dangerous to allow psychopaths to masquerade as prophets does not mean that I have abandoned belief in a world where divine revelation exists.

Let me be clear. I think Jesus was a true prophet. I think Paul, Augustine, and Anselm were false prophets. Can I be more clear? I think Jesus's teachings about love, forgiveness, empathy, inclusiveness, and the present "kingdom of the heavens" were true teachings that were divinely guided. I think the teachings from Paul, Augustine, and Anselm about sin, eschatology, salvation, and atonement theory were false teachings that were not divinely guided, and have done very little to help us forge the world of love, forgiveness, empathy, inclusiveness, and present joy that Jesus envisioned.

My position, in case you didn't get it the first few dozen times I said it, is that we live in a complex quantum universe, where God does intervene, and angels do communicate with incarnate beings, and miracles do take place, but all within the context of scientific laws and principles that we are only barely beginning to grasp. In particular, the emerging laws of neurophysiology as they pertain to the interrelationship between our soul and our physical biology must be studied and understood using rigorous scientific principles so that we can begin to correctly recognize Jim-Jones-type-"prophets" and refuse to become enablers of their psychopathology.

Davidk, you continue to see ambiguity and nuance as a "negative." You think we Progressives don't see anything of value in the Bible, but this isn't true -- we are trying our hardest to sort out the teachings that come from false prophets (for example, scriptural justification for slavery and discrimination against women and smiting one's enemies) and to identify, understand, and embrace the teachings that come from true prophets. We are seeking the word of God that appears in parts -- but only parts -- of the Bible. At the same time, we are refusing to accept as "biblical truth" the false teachings that take us further away from our ability to have loving, trusting relationships with God and each other.

Jen

[canajan, eh?]

davidk, on Jul 18 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

Jen,
Thank you for your comments.

Although I do have to say I was led on by an earlier post, which now must be considered an exaggeration.

There you go again, blaming other people because you can't control your own thoughts and feelings. If you now regret what you previously said, and wish to change your position, then have the courage to say so in a forthright manner. We will respect you if you find the courage to say that you have done some reflecting on your previous position, and now see that you spoke up before you had fully reflected on the matter. We will not be able to offer you respect if you continue to blame other people for your own lack of patience and courage.

Jen

This post has been edited by canajan, eh?: 22 July 2008 - 08:02 AM

[canajan, eh?]

davidk, on Jul 18 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

Quote

QUOTE(canajan, eh? @ Jul 17 2008, 08:07 AM)
So . . . If I'm correctly reading between your lines, ...

Not only is your reading "between the lines" incorrect, your reading the lines themselves is highly suspect.

So . . . now I'm not allowed to read your lines? Or maybe you misread my statement, and you're trying to say I'm not allowed to read and interpret the Bible's lines? Or maybe you don't use the idiom "to read between the lines" in the same way I do (I use this phrase to mean that I am trying to infer what you were indirectly implying)? Or maybe you're saying I misinterpreted what you were trying to say? What do you mean?

Jen