Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
romansh

Ignosticism

67 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Burl said:

No, this is description not definition.

No Burl; think of this as a request for clarification.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, romansh said:

No Burl; think of this as a request for clarification.

 Then I don't understand your question.  When we think/feel/observe God acting in this way we label it the action of the Holy Spirit.  To just call it God is correct but loses descriptive value.

Air might be called oxygen, or hurricane or lift if one is speaking about flying.  There are more and less specific ways of talking about the same thing based on function, purpose, etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, romansh said:

So are there moments in time this first mover is not acting on, within or between? And why just people?

My question again  ... are there times when this first mover (God) does not act? And does it act on the inanimate? ... This is sort of in line with Thormas' answer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romansh said:

My question again  ... are there times when this first mover (God) does not act? And does it act on the inanimate? ... This is sort of in line with Thormas' answer.

It is more accurate to say that nothing, animate or inanimate, exists outside of God.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burl said:

It is more accurate to say that nothing, animate or inanimate, exists outside of God.

Are the animate and inanimate somehow separate from God? Are they one? (That is lower case o)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, romansh said:

For you is there any separation between God, humanity and creation?

My understanding of your Being probably mot?

Actually there is difference but perhaps not separation.

Edited by thormas
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, romansh said:

Are the animate and inanimate somehow separate from God? Are they one? (That is lower case o)

Yes and no.  Both/and.  God is a superset containing both plus much which is not understood.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Burl said:

Yes and no.  Both/and.  God is a superset containing both plus much which is not understood.

Just curious does this superset containing much that we don't understand have an or intents inn general?

 

Thormas  so when you said there are no moments when God is not acting in humanity and in creation. Is this "Love" a proximate cause for the cancers etc that beset humanity and creation in general?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, romansh said:

Just curious does this superset containing much that we don't understand have an or intents inn general?

Go back only a few hundred years and compare what we thought we knew then to what we think we know now.  

We know an incredibly small percentage of the universe, and most of what we thought we understood has been disproven.

Except religion, of course.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, romansh said:

Thormas  so when you said there are no moments when God is not acting in humanity and in creation. Is this "Love" a proximate cause for the cancers etc that beset humanity and creation in general?

No, for who would suggest that cancers are creative, life enhancing or loving.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

57 minutes ago, Burl said:

Go back only a few hundred years and compare what we thought we knew then to what we think we know now.  

We know an incredibly small percentage of the universe, and most of what we thought we understood has been disproven.

Except religion, of course.

For me, the 'except religion' piece is a bridge too far. With religion, it is not a case of being disproven, rather it is whether Christianity is truly heard and understood, in today's world, so that it is Good News  -that empowers humanity to make a true and 'permanent improvement' in our relationship with God.

Edited by thormas
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎23 at 3:52 PM, thormas said:

No, for who would suggest that cancers are creative, life enhancing or loving.

And yet you implied God is everywhere and Love?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, I did.

A parent who witnesses their child with a serious cancer is probably 'with them everywhere' and all the time, either literally or with a spouse. And they are certainly loving. 

Yet, still none of us would say that cancers are creative, life enhancing or loving in and of themselves.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmn

Love is acting in all creation and all the time. That would put Love in cancer, in hate, lust and all the things we consider negative.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The parent always loves the child yet their love is not in the cancer (or the other negatives listed), rather their Love 'is' in the face of the cancer.

Edited by thormas
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Love is not in all creation?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you said earlier, "Love is acting in all creation and all the time."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎07‎-‎22 at 0:31 PM, thormas said:

I would suggest there are no moments when God is not acting in humanity and in creation.

Removing the double negative ... this translates to God [Love] acts in humanity and in creation in all moments.

So Love is acting in cancer at all moments.

To me this seems a very unusual position.

Your parent analogy does not work in that I would posit parents don't love the cancer for one single moment. Perhaps they even hate?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need for a translation from the double negative.

Love is 'ever-present' as I agree with Paul that we live, move and have our being in God. So too, it can be said that God/Love is always present and acting (in and with creation). 

It would follow, that God/Love is present/acting in those moments where there is cancer or the other negatives listed -although it is not clear what you mean when you write that God (or Love) is acting 'in' cancer. 

The parent analogy works fine and, further, neither the parent or God could be said to love cancer. 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love is acting in creation [cancer]

For you Love seems to be some ethereal phenomena.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think cancer is loving or, conversely, that love is cancer? I must disagree with you there??

No ethereal phenomena is Love.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Love is more an acceptance of all things as they are in the moment,   ....  both which we may deem good or bad. Cancer is cancer, not desirable to most all of us but still a part of creation and therefore inseparable from it. If God is All in All, then there are no exceptions to me. Personally,  i do not try to separate God from anything. Just my 2 cents.

Joseph

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think Love is more than acceptance (of course I might be misunderstanding your comment): it is, for lack of a better way to say it at the moment, an 'active going out' and, thereby, it literally, gives and enhances life. Such seems to be the reality of love in human encounters. And, for a person of faith, this is understood as participation in what might be called God.

 

Edited by thormas
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that many people love a person because that person has what  they might  consider lovable traits. On the other hand it seems to me acceptance of all things created is closer to biblical love because it is closer to love being unconditional. Words are always lacking but i would say, to me, perhaps true love is neither physical or romantic but rather "true Love is an acceptance of all that is, has been, will be, and will not be." To me that is Creation As Is and synonymous with God ..... but i will try to not get stuck on a group of vowels and consonants comprising words..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't necessarily referring to romantic love but I do allow that such love also is or becomes 'biblical love' in that it involves/demands acceptance, sacrifice, self-giving and graciousness.

I understand what you have written but still understand love as more than acceptance. Perhaps it is where we place the emphasis but, for me, the love of spouse, child, friend, co-worker, the stranger, the woman you hold the door for or the guy you greet when you walk the dog is more than acceptance - it is action that does not merely accept what is but creates what is and can be. I simply think of it as more active, literally creating and furthering Life. Again, perhaps perspective.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0