[minsocal]

davidk, on Feb 20 2009, 09:35 AM, said:

Good, and ...!

(just picking one of the feelings) Why does love have any meaning? What is it that gives real meaning to love?

My guess is that most people know exactly what I mean. Love is felt.

[JosephM]

minsocal, on Mar 2 2009, 10:51 PM, said:

My guess is that most people know exactly what I mean. Love is felt.

Hi Myron,

Personally, i do not share your view that Love is felt. In my view it may or may not accompany feeling. Love to me, is a divine quality very difficult to both language or gauge by feeling. To me, I agree with you that Love does not appear rational or need to appear moral for that matter. To me, Love is benign and and if an emotion is applied would be languaged as reverence. Davidk indicated as a response to your statement that "love is neither rational or moral" , that it would then be meaningless. That is because it is my view that he is stuck in his intellect where positions are refined and put into abstract symbols and languaging. This of course puts it in the realm of assumed logical linear reasonableness. The basic defect of the intellect, seems to me, that it is unable to tell truth from falsehood or comprehend real meaning. My experience shows the intellect seems to ignore data that conflicts with its positions. From the position of intellect it is very difficult to see how there would be meaning if love were not judged as rational or moral. Yet to me, I find Love has meaning in itself.

Just a view to consider,
Love, Joseph

This post has been edited by JosephM: 03 March 2009 - 05:27 AM

[davidk]

JosephM, on Mar 3 2009, 05:20 AM, said:

Hi Myron,

Personally, i do not share your view that Love is felt. In my view it may or may not accompany feeling. Love to me, is a divine quality very difficult to both language or gauge by feeling. To me, I agree with you that Love does not appear rational or need to appear moral for that matter. To me, Love is benign and and if an emotion is applied would be languaged as reverence. Davidk indicated as a response to your statement that "love is neither rational or moral" , that it would then be meaningless. That is because it is my view that he is stuck in his intellect where positions are refined and put into abstract symbols and languaging. This of course puts it in the realm of assumed logical linear reasonableness. The basic defect of the intellect, seems to me, that it is unable to tell truth from falsehood or comprehend real meaning. My experience shows the intellect seems to ignore data that conflicts with its positions. From the position of intellect it is very difficult to see how there would be meaning if love were not judged as rational or moral. Yet to me, I find Love has meaning in itself.

Just a view to consider,
Love, Joseph

Just a quick note here, Joe. You're right- love is first of all, "a divine quality". That was well said.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Mar 3 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

Just a quick note here, Joe. You're right- love is first of all, "a divine quality". That was well said.

Just a quck note here davidk, that is what soma and I have said.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Mar 3 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

Just a quck note here davidk, that is what soma and I have said.

I'm glad we agree that it is God who loved first. Because we know God loved first, it gives love real meaning and the true reason why we should.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Mar 4 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

I'm glad we agree that it is God who loved first. Because we know God loved first, it gives love real meaning and the true reason why we should.

Welcome to the world of Progressive thought. Whitehead would be proud of you.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Mar 4 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

Welcome to the world of Progressive thought. Whitehead would be proud of you.

Whitehead views God as growing and changing, he's wrong as well as being outmoded. God is the ultimate constant.
Whitehead believes truths are only half truths. If truths are only half truths, does that mean the half truths are themselves only half true, and so on?
For Whitehead, Truth is never really true.
However, because he even chose to say there is any truth at all, he either knowingly or unknowingly has acknowledged the existence of a true truth, the absolute. To my knowledge, since all of his papers were destroyed at his death, he was never able to explain nor overcome this inconsistency.

[minsocal]

Note: I do not intend this to be a debate with conservatives (Post # 1).

[davidk]

minsocal, on Nov 17 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

Most Progressive Christians that I know look to the Bible not as a source of factual (belief) knowledge, but as a "how to" or "how not to" quide (how knowledge). Although epistemology allows that "knowing how" is a valid concern, it is strangely silent on any details of what that means. The same can be said for non-propositional knowledge. The bulk of epistemology seems to concern itself with propositional knowledge. The reason, I suspect, is that philosophers are afraid to admit that their insular world of propositions can be threatened by any other source of knowledge. It's about job security.

Is it conservative to point out you argue for a reasonable epistemology and then argue it does not have the quality of being rational? "Epistemology is not rationality"

minsocal, on Nov 17 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

Hypothesis 1.

There is a strong tendency in Progressive Christianity to avoid "black or white" reasoning. There is a practical advantage in this approach in that it allows access to the "half truths" often found in competing theories. In other words, many theories fail because of a single defect, when in fact the rest of the theory is saying something true beyond that defect. A greater truth is gained by preserving the truth of both sides, and allowing the defects to pass gracefully pass into oblivion.

Is it conservative to point out that to seperate the truths from the defects in half-truths cannot be done without black and white reasoning.

minsocal, on Nov 17 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

Hypothesis 2.

Jesus is an example of belief-in-action. Progressive Christians place a strong emphasis on action. An overwhelming proportion of the Bible is devoted to principles-in-action. Principles are "how to" and "how not to" which are meaningless without action.

Is it conservative to point out that this reflects a literal interpretation of the propositional principles in the Bible? "... faith without works is useless." Jas 2:20

minsocal, on Nov 17 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

Hypothesis 3.

Practical rationality (practical reasoning), as traditionally defined in the Western (or Classical) Model of Rationalty is all about deliberating on and willing the means to any end. In other words, practical rationality has nothing to do with the ends, it is all about obtaining the means. As it stands, I reject this notion. Jesus asks us to consider the ends as well as the means.

Is it conservative to point out that deliberating the means to an end always has the end in consideration. Otherwise, wouldn't the rationale be impractical, since with no end in mind there is no means to consider? "What should I do", or "How should I live?" both need the consideration of the end. Rationality conforms pretty well to what you have claimed was taught by Jesus.

minsocal, on Nov 17 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

Hypothesis 4.

In achieving ends, there are often unintended consequences. It is often taught, in psychology and Progressive churches, that positive intentions outweigh negative consequences. My question is ... is that a practical Progressive Christian perspective? My intuition says "no", but intuition is not rational.

Is it conservative to ask the same question? Since it is taught in Progressive churches does that make it a practical Progressive perspective? I agree with your assesment that it is not practical nor, would I add- realistic.
But, is it a Progressive Christian perspective; I would have to say that based on the evidence you provided- yes.

Negative consequences are the results of man's sin.

minsocal, on Nov 17 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

Comments? How does practical rationality enter into Progressive Chrisianty?

My question, based on the model of practical rationality, is simply this: We have beliefs (knowledge) and we have desires (how we want things to be in the world). How do we form a coherent structure of beliefs and desires that are consistent with the teachings of Jesus?

Note: I do not intend this to be a debate with conservatives who have little or no knowledge of Progressive Christianity. Constructive comments are always welcome, the converse are not.

Progressive Christianity is a community of people earnestly searching for the truth. And just like all of mankind, they struggle to overcome themselves to find it.
I would only suggest we not look at ourselves and expect to find the answer. It is above our pay-grade.