thormas

Nicely said.

For the person of faith who can celebrate Russell's comment, it is never about evidence, sufficient or otherwise; evidence is not a consideration and doubt always plays its part. And, for some it isn't a game: the belief, say theism, with abiding questions, is an attempt to understand existence and live it. I do like the bubbles. I place myself somewhere in the vicinity of 'believes God exists" and "believes we cannot know." That's why it's belief.

I've always liked Russell and he makes a good point. Just as agnosticism is a 'belief' of which one can not be certain (the agnostic states they don't know whether there is meaning to life or not or for those phrasing it in religious terms, whether there is a God or not), so too the same must be said of all 'beliefs' such as theism, pantheism, panentheism, Buddhism and Taoism. It is probable that some adherents of any belief are 'certain' that they are right. Then there are the others who recognize it as belief, do their best to live their belief and use their reason to continually probe into areas of uncertainty and questions in an attempt to better understand (and express) that which they believe. Anyway, being of a panentheistic persuasion, which makes sense (or most of it, most of the time), I would call (the subject of my) uncertainty, God, Love and Being. If, indeed, Russell was the poster boy for atheism/agnosticism, it seems like he was pretty certain (of his uncertainty) and, like many believers, still held a certain element of doubt.

We come at this from seemingly very different perspectives, so I am not surprised it doesn't speak to you. Not sure how it matches with the notion of acceptance because I think Joseph is talking about accepting 'such as it is' - what (already) is, while I was trying to say something about that which allows what is to 'be' in the first place. Simply, and for lack of a better descriptor (and pardon the caps), it is Being that empowers all that is to be (this is letting be). And letting be can be named love because it is a gracious (gift) and compassionate act that gives, accepts and enhances the life of the other. In Christian understanding, we are to image Love/God: If letting be or love, properly understood, empowers another to be, or to have a truly human life, then it begins to become obvious what the Christian or truly Human response must be to starvation or any human suffering. 'Letting be' the starving child is not the same as 'letting it be' or leaving it alone - it is not passive or dismissive (BTW, I am not suggesting this is your stance). Panentheism suggests that God is (already) in creation (but is not identical with creation): there is no need to interfere if one is already present. The human experience of love is that is comes from beyond oneself, i.e., it comes from another (mother, father, friend, lover, stranger, etc.) and yet the love given is here and it has an impact here and now. Traditionally, God is understood to be both transcendent (beyond) and immanent (here and now). God is 'present' in and through us; God's power is love but like all real love, it is persuasive (not coercive). God is therefore 'limited' for his creation: limited by the freedom of man and by the ways of nature. This is theodicy: the question of not only the goodness of God, but the very existence of God in the face of evil and suffering.

Then the world need more such inspiration.

Then talking definitions: if for the Christian, Love is 'letting be' - then that speck of dust is acted upon. Creation is not a once and done, it is on-going and sustained. Such 'letting be' or compassionate concern is evidenced in holding the door for another (it images God), that is why it is a loving act. Of course, although Christianity is not deistic, theism (or panentheism) allows that the ever-present God does not coerce men and women or interfere in nature or natural law. Of course such a view, doesn't leave much room for miracles but, from my perspective, that is fine.

Where do you get these? Again, fun stuff!

Why would God become very limited? Christianity believes that God is the Creator of all that is. Although this is theistic language, another approach is that God is 'I AM' - Being - and as Paul writes, we live, move and have our being in God/Being. Some theologians also use philosophical language to further 'define' Being as 'letting be' i.e. empowering/enabling all to be - in other words, creation. Christianity also believes that God is Love, thus Christians believe, not only that the universe (and all) is created out of love, they believe Love created it (God is what he does). Thus we have God/Love creating and in all creation.

Okay, seem like a difference over word preference. I would say recognize, not accept, bullying and then act against it. But I get your line of thought and although I don't talk about internal space or vantage point, again I follow your line of thinking. For me, faith understood as a response to Being/Love results in wisdom and compassion. At some point you'll have to give your take on what is. Thanks

Joseph, If by acceptance you mean faith, i.e. the human response/acceptance to the self-giving God/Ultimate Reality and the resulting compassionate concern, I agree. However, sometimes it is precisely refusing to accept that is the essential action. For example, refusing to accept a culture of intimidation or the bullying of the group that you might have belonged to as a kid. So, acceptance of what? If it is 'what is' then, for you, what is?

1

Actually, although second nature for me also, it was an act of caring or concern taught to me, by example and in word, from when I was very young. Love in Christian circles is defined as 'compassionate concern' for the other: so indeed it is love - I know so.

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.

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.

Do you think cancer is loving or, conversely, that love is cancer? I must disagree with you there?? No ethereal phenomena is Love.

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.

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

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.

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.

great stuff Burl, just got caught up on this page.

OK, really just one more: Bills my friend, real bills that impact people - Trump made his claim and it was a lie. Okay, really time to move from the profane to the profound.

I will only do this once because I consider this space somewhat sacred and don't want it to become political. Student driver? The excuse of a teenager not a grown man: if you run for our highest office, if you have a transition team, if you can bring in all manner of experts to educate you and/or help run things - that is the responsibility. You now 'own' it and the country depends on you, no students allowed. No excuse. We are getting out of Syria? We will see as we have a new red line: we bombed once, we now have to bomb every time that line is crossed. However, the trade agreements seem to have helped - our allies are negotiating agreements among themselves. Merit badges are for scouts, not Presidents and check the legislation. There is no substantial voter fraud but I do like the states stating their rights and telling the commission to go jump in the lake, the ocean or the gulf. Of course he is ahead of others in 'researching' pardons: he spoke about it in the Oval, we know he didn't research anything and had to go to the legal minds but those minds insist they didn't talk pardons. Oh, communications are a hit though. And he is a fine example, how many times has he commented on a woman's body while in office? Oh, he was asked about God and he pointed to a man made landscape, might have been his golf course, as evidence. I guess all his buildings must also be evidence of God. No mention of his high regard for our intelligence services, the climate, his love affair with Russia/Putin, how he is getting China to help with N. Korea (I know student driver) or his fixation with size (like crowd size and popular vote size) and his Twitter fixation (but he has to do something with his hands and use that mind on something other that watching TV). Ok, back to high minded pursuits.

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.

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

Think we have to be careful here. Incarnation is understood (theistically) as God become man, to suggest otherwise can lead one into the old 'false opinions' (either not really God or not really man). The ancient theistic wisdom stated this 'truth' but never really tried to explain the unexplainable. Your response does seem to represent a theistic point of view: the Deity incarnates in a human body - as opposed to a dialectical theistic or panentheistic approach. The latter places a focus on man (specifically Jesus) freely responding, in faith, to God and doing God's will or doing what God is: Love. Man, in response to God, freely 'takes up' Love and it lives in man. This is incarnation (Love made flesh) and it is the creation of a 'new being' - a Truly Human Being (which is only possible when Divinity lives in humanity). However, while a unique being because it has been accomplished in/by Jesus, it is not unique in that this is what we all are born to Be. If there is a 'fundamental improvement' it is that the possible has been actualized - and if one can do it, the possibilities are endless.........