Dave Marshall

I agree that humans have a fairly (maybe even totally) unique capacity for self-awareness, "knowing that we know," etc.  But I don't think it "grounds us in eternity" in a way that the rest of the world and/or cosmos doesn't share.  I think it makes us consciously aware that all temporal reality is grounded in eternity, which is part of what gives us the unique role and responsibility I alluded to in my earlier response.

Perhaps grounded was the wrong word for what I meant. I think of creation as only having existence in our now, with the past being 'simply' an imprint on the present. So 'temporal reality', if the time-slice we consider to be 'now' is infinitely short, is just a plane of space that has no meaning of itself for what it is logically contained by. It's only those of us that exist within this continuity of plane recreation (what we experience as spacetime) and that also have some 'external', ie. eternal, point of reference (to give us self-awareness) that find meaning here.

Or something like that.

If we were hypothetically to discover another species in the cosmos who had an even higher degree of reflexive capacity than we do -- which seems far from unlikely -- how would that discovery alter our eternal standing?  Or, for an example that hits closer to our experience, what about people who are born with severe brain damage, and lack the level of reflexive capacity that "ordinary" people possess?  Do these people have less eternal significance?

Whether it's another species elsewhere in the cosmos, or Flow's one yet to evolve on earth, or a brain-damaged one of us, this eternal component of these persons' being does not seem dependent on their biology for it's significance. Perhaps we can only know them when we're no longer bound by the limitations of our humanity. I suspect there's a lot of stuff like that.

I have a BIG problem with saying that only humans have eternal significance. I just don't get that at all. Upon what can we base this anthropocentrism besides pure egocentricity and a wish?

 

Such anthropocentrism is precisely what has led us to destroy the natural environment and to treat our fellow creatures with horrific cruelty. We've got to expand our theological thinking beyond ourselves to consider all life on the planet... and even the cosmos.

I get to this by assuming that anything bound by time is by definition destined to end. Only those things within time that have an eternal connection can of themselves have eternal significance. Which as far as my thinking goes limits that to humanity. We appear to be the only life-form in the universe with the capacity for self-awareness. Other animals have consciousness and may know as much about their worlds as we do about ours, but they don't seem to know that they know. This suggests to me that some facet of ourselves, the 'soul' perhaps, is grounded in eternity. It's what gives us the ability to think about ourselves from an outside-of-ourselves viewpoint, what we call self-awareness.

The impact of the rest of the cosmos on each of us gives it considerable indirect influence because it's our primary source of information about the Creator. But the only eternal significance of this 'book of nature' is I think in the changes it inspires in that part of us with the potential to continue beyond physical death.

Did you guys know that there is a club for "Daves"?

I didn't. Don't know that sharing a name is enough to make me want to join though.

Thanks for the clarification, Fred. I wasn't meaning to appear critical of anyone, just unsure (again ) of quite what flow was getting at.

As far as I can see there is only one person who has made definitive statements on this thread regarding the nature of G-d and his/her universe. I attempted to point out at the beginning of this discussion (?) how really futile it was to make such definitive, and hence, self-limiting claims; and, I believe that we're all experiencing this futility first hand as this thread tries to progress.

Is this a reference to my original post? If so, I'm not sure how the rest of your post relates to it. I was hoping that if this tentative statement of faith was in fact making unsupportable claims about God, people might want to say how and why. To look at some specifics rather than go round the houses simply in order to be dogmatically unspecific..

If you're saying we should say nothing whatever about God, I'm not sure how God or G-d can have any meaning.

To limit God to the Now is not to limit God at all according to an Eastern and possibly Process approach.  Because there is only the Now.  Mysticism, the perennial philosophy, asserts this belief and I'm persuaded by it.

That's a connection I not considered before. I knew I'd learn stuff here...

Progressive Christians need to be patient. I know it's hard. I'm preaching to myself as well as to you. The network is growing. We are making a difference. Just trust the process. I know you believe that. Just a reminder! A little encouragement I hope.

Yeah, you're right. And the encouragement is appreciated. Thanks.

You haven't given the impression that God isn't real, just extremely limited in fundamental knowledge and power, compared to a more traditional view (which, again, puts you in fairly good company in the TCPC).  In this sense, I said your proposal had a strong process flavor to it.

I'm cautious about labels like process. If I look up process theology on Wikipedia I get a list of concepts, most of which don't match my current understanding. I'd not want to say I limit God at all, merely that I exclude from my concept of God what appears inconsistent with our experience of being created.

there is a growing movement among theologian-scientists called kenosis theology that you might be interested in checking out.

From a very brief look around, this seems to rely on prior assumptions about God other than as creator. I'd be interested to hear more from someone familiar with the ideas.

what is the OP?

The Original Post or Original Poster. It's an abreviation common on another board that I assumed was widespread. Sorry about that.

I believe that most TCPCr's are hesitant to specifically comment upon your proposals because to do so would be a self-limiting act by the commenters. I believe that the TCPC is a totally open-ended and no holds barred forum about what we may discuss concerning G-d and the universe(s); and, when specific things are written to define the inherently infinite nature of G-d and his/her universe(s) many are fulmmoxed about just what to say.

I think my approach is essentially practical. The reality of God and what we don't know about creation is so mind-bogglingly vast it can never be contained by anything as limited as our thought processes. But if there's to be any point in our consideration of such things, if they are to have any relevance to how live, I think we have to at least attempt to crystalise out something to give form to the vague impressions we have. As long as we keep these tagged 'provisional', in indelible day-glo marker, they seem like a necessary part of any shared thinking about God.

But thanks for the welcome. I've not come across a verbal zoo before.

I hope I haven't given the impression that I don't think God is real or anything like that. The statement of faith is only something that was written because it seemed useful, one concrete alternative I could point to that reflected God as creator that was not the traditional Christian sin and salvation story.

I'd be interested in specific comments/critcisms of the OP (however many worms might crawl out), but is this the kind of thing TCPC does? I wonder if the organisation as a whole is more about reflecting the views of those churches and groups that have affiliated.

Right now, unless I'm seriously mistaken, we're all watching G-d speak to us from the whirlwind.

Thanks for the thoughts, flow. I understand I'm new here, but I have no idea what you mean.

Can you give any examples of the kind of thing you see God saying to you?

Or is everyone who posts here dealing with hurricane-survival issues? If so, I apologise for being insensitive.

I am however genuinely confused by your post.

I was hoping that perhaps a few people here might want to agree/disagree/object to some of these statements, but no interest so far.

In particular, I'm aware that statements 4 and 5 clash somewhat with traditional Christian theology. Do such beliefs cross some boundary that TCPC considers it's theological limits?

Or have I posted on the wrong board? I'd appreciate your thoughts.

I don't like creeds in general, but was provoked recently into writing one I'd be willing to sign up to if I had to. A bit more prodding to expand on it slightly, and I ended up with this.

It's obviously nothing more than an outline, but the statements in bold do I think mark out a theological position that relies only on the assumption that we are being created. I wonder how compatible this is with progressive Christianity?

1. The universe is being created.

This is how it seems to me, based on my 50-odd years experience.

2. The creator can be known to the extent that we can imagine an entity with the capability and willingness to sustain life as we experience it. This entity is God.

If we want to think about the creator, we have to imagine a God and fit that concept around what is and can be known. It's important to retain the underlying unknowability in order to determine the limits of how we can reasonably use our concept of God.

3. The nature of the universe shows God to be absolutely consistent and selflessly committed to its completion.

This seems to be the limit of what we can in general positively infer from God as creator. If either the consistency or the commitment were missing, there would be no universe. Its completion, whatever that means, seems inevitable in the light of the consistency and commitment.

4. God does not remember the past or know the future but is with us in the present, inspiring and enabling us to become fully human.

This ties God's involvement in history to the only time we experience - the present. Nothing else follows from God as creator.

5. Human life alone has eternal significance. The compatibility with eternal values of the values we adopt in this life determines if the identity forged in our humanity continues after death.

Sin and salvation, heaven and hell, have no basis in the universe as we experience it. It's more consistent to imagine that a similar kind of process to the one that controls life within time also applies when life and time separate.

6. The nature of the universe and the good we see in humanity provide grounds for hope that all will at the end be well.

However much humanity in general screws up, however devastating a natural disaster, there always seems to be something to inspire hope. We only have to look in the right places. Why should the end be any different?