Jump to content

Ignosticism


romansh

Recommended Posts

You assume I missed your point - I believe I didn't.

Even with the explanations you asked for - you don't assume something 'more' exists because you don't believe 'it' does.  

 

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
9 hours ago, romansh said:

A place for words 

  • Sanctify - ?

When used in the sense of internal sanctification I have no idea.

 

The concept of sanctity is to establish a condition of purity with the intention that God may find it suitable for purpose.

Internal sanctification is a part of most spiritual development paths.  The person practices removing impure thoughts and actions and a godly spiritual life results.  It the practice of spiritual development by a method parallel to learning piano.  One plays scales, then simple tunes, learns to sight read and becomes more proficient until it is an integrated skill where one can sing, play and read music simultaneously.

It is part effort, part talent, part teaching and part method.  Few become great but all who persist improve.  Some become distracted or lazy and quit learning to play nothing but the radio or become passive pew sitters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This phrase I always have trouble with

  • The Ground of Being:    Being monistically inclined I can't but help but read this phrase as the universe or multiverse if we are inclined that way.

Any one else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Illusion:   something is not as it seems.
  • delusion:  believing something is as it seems when it is not.

Should there be any future confusion as to how I use these words.

Ground of being anyone ... seems to come up fairly frequently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, it is part of everything. seen and unseen . It is difficult to describe except to say it can be experienced as a feeling described as  home without location , peace and the perception of oneness (or non-separation) with it.  Is being  existence ? ..... perhaps one could say being encompasses existence but i am neither a philosopher or  scientist nor master of words to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being encompasses existence, or is its substrate. Although we are not bound by definitions, I did recheck and substrate is defined as the surface or material on or from which an organism lives, grows, or obtains its nourishment.

It, for me, is reminiscent of Paul's take on God: in whom we live, move and have our being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 7:38 AM, thormas said:

Being encompasses existence, or is its substrate.

So Being is more than its substrate. Again what is this more? Do influence this more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I don't like or typically use the word substrate as it suggests an underlying 'material' and that is not how I see Being. I also rarely use ground of being but am more use to this one. I have used both to try to accommodate the use by others.

So, we have been over this, but Being is not a thing among other things, not an object among objects it is not a supreme being among other beings - rather it is the very possibility of all that is: it is absolute and necessary whereas creation is contingent and dependent. Again, this has been discussed previously but if you follow through on your book review of one of the books you asked me to suggest (Macquarie or Hart) and I think Hart, being more contemporary, is the best choice, you will see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK So Being is more than existence. Again what is this more? What influences this more?

36 minutes ago, thormas said:

rather it is the very possibility of all that is

What does this mean?

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Hi Joseph … thank you for your clarification on the spiritual

  • While the word to me is a bit abstract perhaps one could say to be Spiritual  is to awaken to the discovery of our spirit, our connection to all things, the Oneness that is the substrate of all there is and to strive to stay attentive to what it is speaking. that we may operate in harmony with it. Not the same thing as the common understanding of being religious.

While I get this "interconnectivity" and philosophically I am pretty close to monism. I might quibble about "harmony" as this must be illusion bordering on delusion. Also if we take "religion" to be re-connect (re-ligare), this too fits. The question is reconnect to what? For me in non-fancy-language it would be to regain our understanding that all is connected.

No need for gods, One, Being, Love, IS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, romansh said:

While I get this "interconnectivity" and philosophically I am pretty close to monism. I might quibble about "harmony" as this must be illusion bordering on delusion. Also if we take "religion" to be re-connect (re-ligare), this too fits. The question is reconnect to what? For me in non-fancy-language it would be to regain our understanding that all is connected.

No need for gods, One, Being, Love, IS.

I'm pretty much sitting in this camp too, Rom.  It seems a lot of talk about spirituality, Gods, kingdoms, oneness etc - it all just brings us back to the same point and it's really not rocket science - We all come from the same stardust - that is our commonality and our connection.  Now get on with living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PaulS said:

it's really not rocket science

👍

Well it's a bit more complicated than that, but not much. Whether we see existence as some megalithic causality or we can have the ability to parse it a bit … does not matter.  We will get on with life one way or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
On 8/8/2017 at 12:03 PM, romansh said:

For me

  • faith: a thought that is held as true despite scant evidence for or even the evidence is against the held truth.
  • belief: a thought that held as true, but is incompletely substantiated with evidence and data but likely can be substantiated.
  • knowledge: a collectively accepted position that is backed by a wealth of evidence but may be subject to revision.
  • know: philosophically to be absolutely certain, in the vernacular to be able to recall or understand, and believe either are accurate.
  • data: observations, often formal, of our universe: can have various formats, not necessarily limited to narratives, pictures, numerical descriptions, recordings etc.
  • evidence: is data in support of a particular proposition, hypothesis, theory or perhaps even a speculation.

My first crack at these words.

Well I have defined faith and belief here. Perhaps thormas you may want to clarify what you mean by believe and belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Bump …  see post above especially for Joseph

 

from wikipedia

Rabbi Wine coined the word ignosticism. It is the view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed.

Edited by romansh
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, romansh said:

Rabbi Wine coined the word ignosticism. It is the view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed.

This understanding stands in stark contrast to the understanding that God (in himself) is not in/of time, space or history and therefore cannot be defined or conceptualized. Yet there have been meaningful discussions about the 'human experience' of God for thousands of years, including those who share the Rabbi's faith.

Didn't the Jews even substitute letters to stand in for (the name of) God  in recognition of this belief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, thormas said:

God (in himself) is not in/of time, space or history and therefore cannot be defined or conceptualized.

You can have a meaningful discussion about things that can't be defined or conceptualized?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, romansh said:

You can have a meaningful discussion about things that can't be defined or conceptualized?

 

God in himself is beyond conception (so it is believed) so most religion is about the 'human experience (insight) of God.' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, thormas said:

God in himself is beyond conception (so it is believed) so most religion is about the 'human experience (insight) of God.' 

Moving the goal posts thormas are we?

Sherwin said "before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed" and you want to discuss "experience".

OK lets meaningfully discuss the experience of "red" without defining it first.

Edited by romansh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, romansh said:

Moving the goal posts thormas are we?

Sherwin said "before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed" and you want discuss "experience".

Actually not at all. This has always been the case and my understanding for decades. There is a difference between God in Himself (referred to at times as God the Father) and God in human experience (referred to as God the Son). The Son/Word 'reveals' the Father for man or the human is able to 'see' or understand something about God in their experience of the word. Christianity believed that Jesus give an insight into what God was: words reveal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, romansh said:

If you read about Sherwin Wine … I think he and Spong would have been kindred spirits. If they weren't already.

Any sources for him or is it just the basic google? 

Are you saying that Spong defines God in himself?

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, romansh said:

Moving the goal posts thormas are we?

Sherwin said "before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed" and you want to discuss "experience".

OK lets meaningfully discuss the experience of "red" without defining it first.

You don’t need Sherwin Wine for that.  You need Sherwin Williams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service