Progressive Epistemology

[davidk]

davidk,

 

The word "change" is unsatisfactory for many Progressive Christians. I ask you this very simple question. What is wrong with seeing Christianity in a new, meaningful and vibrant way? The art of "progress" (read progressive) is to preserve order in the midst of change and change in the midst of order. Change, in this sense, is the future oriented "how" of epistemology, not the "what" of true or false beliefs (read propositions). To know "how" is very different from knowing "that".

 

minsocal

minsocal,

 

It is only right to see Christianity as a new, meaningful, vibrant way. (As long as one believes there can be a wrong and a right.)

 

For to each generation, the Gospel is new. The problem for the former generation is speaking with the new one in a language where the search and discovery of the truth can be understood as being vibrant and meaningful. That's what man does, through science and religion, is search for truth. Breaking all the particulars down to the universal. Reconciling all that man observes about the universe and himself, finding meaning and purpose.

 

Man's exploration for truth comes with man's intellectual presuppositions. What they are will determine if man has his questions answered in reality or not.

 

You are correct about the How and What. How do we know what we know? Is man the initial cause or is God? In other words, did we figure it out only amongst ourselves, or was it God that spoke first?

[minsocal]

minsocal,

 

It is only right to see Christianity as a new, meaningful, vibrant way. (As long as one believes there can be a wrong and a right.)

 

For to each generation, the Gospel is new. The problem for the former generation is speaking with the new one in a language where the search and discovery of the truth can be understood as being vibrant and meaningful. That's what man does, through science and religion, is search for truth. Breaking all the particulars down to the universal. Reconciling all that man observes about the universe and himself, finding meaning and purpose.

 

Man's exploration for truth comes with man's intellectual presuppositions. What they are will determine if man has his questions answered in reality or not.

 

You are correct about the How and What. How do we know what we know? Is man the initial cause or is God? In other words, did we figure it out only amongst ourselves, or was it God that spoke first?

 

I will attempt to answer your questions as best I can. My first goal is to remove the idea that there is a conflict between what we know about the world today and the ancient views of the Bible. This will take some careful explanation and a precise definition of some of the concepts involved.

 

I have no problem with the idea that God is the source of what A. N. Whitehead calls Eternal Objects. Physics, as understood today, has no problem with that concept either. According to the Big Bang theory, the laws of our cosmos were set within seconds of the Big Bang. Note that time and space for our cosmos began at the instant of the Big Bang. This does not mean that God only created our universe. An infinite God could create more than one. It also means that everything created within our cosmos, including nature, is all part of One Creative Act. We know today that this Creative Act is still going on. We can observe this fact when we see pictures of galaxies being destroyed by "mighty winds" from the center of black holes and, in the process, creating new stars. If that sounds like the opening verses of Genesis, it should. Go back and read it ... closely.

 

God did not need to "speak" in order to act. That comes much later in the evolution of the cosmos. Now comes the question raised by Whitehead. What became of God after the Creation? Following from Spinoza, Whitehead concludes that God has a dipolar nature. There is the aspect of God that is the Creator outside of time and space, i.e. Eternal. The source of Eternal Objects. But, there is also the aspect of God that is part of Creation itself. This is the God of Love. Hence, we can come to know the Eternal Objects from the cosmos and nature but, more importantly, we come closer to the consequent nature of God through love and compassion. This is the message of the prophets and the message of Jesus.

 

Now, where does language enter in? It is the very point where our human consciousness evolved into the possibility of free will. Remember, "free will" is not so "free" after all. With free will comes responsibility. That is the story of the Garden of Eden. The dawning of consciousness and language is the real story. Here comes the twist many progressives talk about. If there is a consequent nature of God as part of Creation, and we are part of creation, then we are co-creators with God (but never equal to God) in the ongoing creation. We have responsibilities. To care for this Creation. To care for others. To feed the poor. To take care of widows. You know the message that Jesus brought to us. Put another way, as John Searle, puts it ... you cannot have a rational human without strong altruism. Not possible. Whitehead agrees. Even science is now coming to that understanding.

 

Kant and Whitehead sensed this. We need to look seriously within our own Created Nature and also outside to the cosmos. God is with us, within us ... infinite. This last point is most important. An infinite God cannot be excluded from any part of Creation.

[minsocal]

davidk,

 

I would like to add the following. Yes, the Bible is frequently wrong. But, and the word 'but' looms large, it is sometimes right on the facts. In the book of Genesis, it states that the maximum human life span is 120 years. Putting aside the cultural hyperbole known at the time that accords key figures a much longer lifespan, this fact has been verified by hard core science. Out human life span is determined by a feature of the stem cells out of which we develop. Those stem cells have a mechanism built into them that determine how many times they can replicate to replace dead tissues. That mechanism equates to exactly 120 years of life for humans, at the maximum. Scientists have found the same mechanism in other organisms and altered the formula. They have created variations of lower level organisms that live to 2X, 4X, and even 16X their normal lifespan. It may be tempting, but I am not so sure that I want to live 240 or 480 years. Is this really what Genesis is saying? We have a finite existence and do the best we can in that span? As Whitehead puts it, we are enduring objects ... for a time. Only for a time.

[davidk]

It seems to me that each one of us is on a conditioned path being neither 'right' nor 'wrong'. Everything is just as it is.

It is what it is. When we have had our fill of stagnation, we will be open for further evolving and it seems to me the right circumstances and wisdom will always present itself.

 

It seems to me there is no need to be concerned about not having mystical experiences. One cannot make them happen. To me there is much truth in the saying "no one can come to God except the spirit draw them". God is your very life force whether you can feel that presence or not. Why should we fear God whose very essence is the substrate of our existence? Whether God slay me or raise me up to sit in high places is of no concern as I am always at his mercy whether in life or death. Life is more than this physical existence and even if one thought this not to be so, what does it matter in the scheme of things. Shortly this body will pass to dust and only my essence in God remains. It is the holding on to that which perishes that brings forth suffering and anguish in this life. One who has surrendered to this has nothing to suffer or fear.

Just some words on the matter to consider.

Love Joseph

Joseph,

You know I love you, but really, ...? You stance is against stagnation, at the same time insisting everything is just what it is.

You decry saying whether anything is right or wrong, yet you insist on waiting for the RIGHT circumstance and RIGHT wisdom.

You say fear has no part in your perception of God since it is of no concern to you. If it were of no concern nor fear, there would be no cause to surrender.

 

Despite the logical inconsistencies, you have revealed some truths.

This body does pass, it is the evidence of the beginning of our existence and meaning. It is our opportunity to submit to God so our spirit may survive in His Spirit, not as His, nor apart.

 

God is the creator with the power to destroy as well as create, and that commands a great deal of respect (AKA: fear); and whatever religious experience you may have it is not under your control.

 

More importantly you've recognized God as a personal and infinite God by admitting He has the power to create, slay, raise, love and show mercy. All things an impersonal God could not do.

[JosephM]

Joseph,

You know I love you, but really, ...? You stance is against stagnation, at the same time insisting everything is just what it is.

Surely you again misunderstand my words. I have no stance against or for stagnation. Everything is as it is at this moment . Everything from the smallest sub-atomic particle to the largest object is in a constant state of flux and in divine harmony. If it were not so life as you know it would cease to exist.

You decry saying whether anything is right or wrong, yet you insist on waiting for the RIGHT circumstance and RIGHT wisdom. You say fear has no part in your perception of God since it is of no concern to you. If it were of no concern nor fear, there would be no cause to surrender.

I am waiting on nothing. I am complete in Christ already. Surrender is not a sign of fear as you suppose. Surrender is acceptance of your true nature. If fear were present then would I fight. There is only peace and therefor there is nothing to fight for within me therefor I am surrendered to my essence in God.

Despite the logical inconsistencies, you have revealed some truths.

This body does pass, it is the evidence of the beginning of our existence and meaning. It is our opportunity to submit to God so our spirit may survive in His Spirit, not as His, nor apart.

God is the creator with the power to destroy as well as create, and that commands a great deal of respect (AKA: fear); and whatever religious experience you may have it is not under your control.

God commands nothing of me. God is love and in Love there is no fear. If I were to identify with my flesh then fear would be present because of its knowledge of death but since I identify with Spirit there is no fear nor am I under the law. I am already dead and my life hid with Christ. There is nothing left of me to die, therefore there is nothing for God to destroy nor does my Father have any such desire.

 

More importantly you've recognized God as a personal and infinite God by admitting He has the power to create, slay, raise, love and show mercy. All things an impersonal God could not do.

Though I have spoken those words and the potential exists, God being the potential, there is no need nor does an infinitely powerful God destroy or slay. God is in the creation business. Only flesh and blood destroys flesh. It is not an attribute of our Father as you might suppose.

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

An infinite God cannot be excluded from any part of Creation.

Minsocal,

 

I'm trying desperately to keep up with your posts with the small time I can share. I'm sure I'll pass over something quite significant without realizing.

 

Well, the questions were really more rhetorical rather than a demand for answers. I do appreciate your consideration, however.

---

My two cents: Science suggests a need for the laws of the universe to already be in place at the beginning so as to have allowed anything to happen at all.

---

I believe it was Whitehead who, along with some of his contemporaries, realized that in order for something to be known it must be spoken.

---

I differ as to whether free-will is not free because of some responsibility. I propose to you that as long as the responsibility and consequences are known there is indeed- free will. However, if the consequences and responsibilities are not revealed or are hidden, free will can not exist.

 

It also seems apparent, that Eden's story is of man, intrinsically conscious and verbal from the beginning, excercised his free will by wantonly disobeying God, completely aware of the consequences which had been stipulated to him by God himself in a thorough briefing, and suffering the aforementioned results of his choice of consequences.

---

I wish to beg your pardon, but saying "...(because) we are part of creation, then we are co-creators..." has little and confusing support. We are the made, not the Maker. It can be a reasoned explaination of what we observe of the differences in man from all the rest of ceation.

 

You know that there is a gap to be explained; two gaps actually. The Creator from the created (infinite vs finite).

 

The other gap is a little more subtle; the personal God and the (in the image of God) personal man from everything else. The only way to explain man's personality is for God to have had personality first. (man's personality is really inexplicable otherwise.) This gap is between the personal God and Man from the impersonal all else.

---

John Searle: "you cannot have a rational human without strong altruism." I can certainly concur, but I think we should go back further. Since you seem to have implied that man was created in God's own image and as such it would stand to be reasonable to think man would also be rational and altruistic (truly loving), with, of course God being the rational, loving first. It is reasonable to think that; since God were the first to have rationality and love so when He created man in His own image, man's attributes would be the same, but finite.

 

By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host. (Ps 33:6)

[minsocal]

Minsocal,

 

I'm trying desperately to keep up with your posts with the small time I can share. I'm sure I'll pass over something quite significant without realizing.

 

Well, the questions were really more rhetorical rather than a demand for answers. I do appreciate your consideration, however.

---

My two cents: Science suggests a need for the laws of the universe to already be in place at the beginning so as to have allowed anything to happen at all.

---

I believe it was Whitehead who, along with some of his contemporaries, realized that in order for something to be known it must be spoken.

---

I differ as to whether free-will is not free because of some responsibility. I propose to you that as long as the responsibility and consequences are known there is indeed- free will. However, if the consequences and responsibilities are not revealed or are hidden, free will can not exist.

 

It also seems apparent, that Eden's story is of man, intrinsically conscious and verbal from the beginning, excercised his free will by wantonly disobeying God, completely aware of the consequences which had been stipulated to him by God himself in a thorough briefing, and suffering the aforementioned results of his choice of consequences.

---

I wish to beg your pardon, but saying "...(because) we are part of creation, then we are co-creators..." has little and confusing support. We are the made, not the Maker. It can be a reasoned explaination of what we observe of the differences in man from all the rest of ceation.

 

You know that there is a gap to be explained; two gaps actually. The Creator from the created (infinite vs finite).

 

The other gap is a little more subtle; the personal God and the (in the image of God) personal man from everything else. The only way to explain man's personality is for God to have had personality first. (man's personality is really inexplicable otherwise.) This gap is between the personal God and Man from the impersonal all else.

---

John Searle: "you cannot have a rational human without strong altruism." I can certainly concur, but I think we should go back further. Since you seem to have implied that man was created in God's own image and as such it would stand to be reasonable to think man would also be rational and altruistic (truly loving), with, of course God being the rational, loving first. It is reasonable to think that; since God were the first to have rationality and love so when He created man in His own image, man's attributes would be the same, but finite.

 

By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host. (Ps 33:6)

 

1. You engage people constantly on this forum, so you must have time to engage me. You cannot pick your battles.

 

2. Your approach cannot be rhetorical when you claim that you have the only definition of what it is to be "Christian".

 

3. Regrading Whitehead and "what must be spoken" ... well, you are so wrong I cannot begin to explain. You have no idea what Whitehead was talking about. Whitehead's philosophy is a FEELING THEORY. BASED ON NATURAL EMOTIONS. It followed the work of William James (the James-Lange theory of emotions). Whitehead and James were close friends. Get it? Whitehead said it MUST BE FELT BEFORE IT CAN BE SPOKEN. NO EMOTION, NO VALUE. WORDS AND PROPOSITIONS ARE MEANINGLESS WITHOUT THE VALUE ADDED BY EMOTIONS. A GOD OF LOVE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT FACTS ... LOVE IS AN EMOTION, NOT A PROPOSITION.

 

4. If you believe the story of Eden is of "man" intrinsically conscious and "verbal from the beginning", well ... we have no grounds for discussion. YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. AND, EVOLUTION SEEMS TO DAMAGE YOUR WORLD VIEW. I AM SORRY FOR YOU, if you cannot see God in any other light. Whitehead fully, and openly accepted Darwinism. So did William James, his close friend.

[davidk]

1 Easy now. Actually, I can.

 

2 The classical definition of Christianity is merely how I repeat it. It is apparent some wish to redefine Christian. Now if your faith does not fall under the recognized definition of Christian, then another word for that faith should be found that fulfills the new need. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call your faith: "Whiteheadian"?

 

3 I had said I had believed it was Whitehead who had said that, and on investigation, I found that it was, in fact, not Whitehead as I had not so efficiently recalled. It was actually two other more recent philosophers by the names of Heidegger and Whittgenstein in their use of language and linguistic analysis that had reached that profound conclusion to the problem of language. There's no need to get your drawers all in a wad.

 

I beg to disagree and say that love is an act of the will.

 

4 Man has always been man. "Evolution" or not doesn't change that. "Evolution" has neither damaged nor threatened my world view with a personal-infinite God creating all that exists. How He did can certainly be discussed openly.

 

I still wholeheartedly agree with your comment from Dec 5; "An infinite God cannot be excluded from any part of Creation."

[minsocal]

1 Easy now. Actually, I can.

 

2 The classical definition of Christianity is merely how I repeat it. It is apparent some wish to redefine Christian. Now if your faith does not fall under the recognized definition of Christian, then another word for that faith should be found that fulfills the new need. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call your faith: "Whiteheadian"?

 

3 I had said I had believed it was Whitehead who had said that, and on investigation, I found that it was, in fact, not Whitehead as I had not so efficiently recalled. It was actually two other more recent philosophers by the names of Heidegger and Whittgenstein in their use of language and linguistic analysis that had reached that profound conclusion to the problem of language. There's no need to get your drawers all in a wad.

 

I beg to disagree and say that love is an act of the will.

 

4 Man has always been man. "Evolution" or not doesn't change that. "Evolution" has neither damaged nor threatened my world view with a personal-infinite God creating all that exists. How He did can certainly be discussed openly.

 

I still wholeheartedly agree with your comment from Dec 5; "An infinite God cannot be excluded from any part of Creation."

 

What is the relationship between the "classical definition of Christianity" and the actual words of Jesus? These appear to be two different sets of "propositions". I will quote you Whitehead on this matter. Whitehead (1929). "Preface", xiii ...", "repudiated habits of thought", (ii) "The trust in language as an adequate expression of propositions". Notice the word "repudiated"?

[minsocal]

1 Easy now. Actually, I can.

 

2 The classical definition of Christianity is merely how I repeat it. It is apparent some wish to redefine Christian. Now if your faith does not fall under the recognized definition of Christian, then another word for that faith should be found that fulfills the new need. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call your faith: "Whiteheadian"?

 

3 I had said I had believed it was Whitehead who had said that, and on investigation, I found that it was, in fact, not Whitehead as I had not so efficiently recalled. It was actually two other more recent philosophers by the names of Heidegger and Whittgenstein in their use of language and linguistic analysis that had reached that profound conclusion to the problem of language. There's no need to get your drawers all in a wad.

 

I beg to disagree and say that love is an act of the will.

 

4 Man has always been man. "Evolution" or not doesn't change that. "Evolution" has neither damaged nor threatened my world view with a personal-infinite God creating all that exists. How He did can certainly be discussed openly.

 

I still wholeheartedly agree with your comment from Dec 5; "An infinite God cannot be excluded from any part of Creation."

 

I have no need to consider Heidegger or Wittgenstein "profound". They present nothing, nothing, nothing, relevant to the teachings of Jesus.

[minsocal]

 

I still wholeheartedly agree with your comment from Dec 5; "An infinite God cannot be excluded from any part of Creation."

 

So, is God supernatural? Or not?

[davidk]

What is the relationship between the "classical definition of Christianity" and the actual words of Jesus? These appear to be two different sets of "propositions". I will quote you Whitehead on this matter. Whitehead (1929). "Preface", xiii ...", "repudiated habits of thought", (ii) "The trust in language as an adequate expression of propositions". Notice the word "repudiated"?

---

I have no need to consider Heidegger or Wittgenstein "profound". They present nothing, nothing, nothing, relevant to the teachings of Jesus.

---

So, is God supernatural? Or not?

1. There still seems to be some thorn in your shoe about the phrase 'verbalized propostional revelation'. When I say the Bible is God's spoken, propositional truth to man, I simply mean they are His truths set forth in verbal form; presented in a manner we can understand and consider. I'm not certain why there is such insistance on complicating what I have tried to make as simple as I know how.

 

Classical Christianity: affirms the Trinity of the infinite-personal God as the Father Almighty, merciful creator; Jesus Christ as the visible God, Lord and Savior who proclaimed to man the Gospel of Salvation that is worked through the Holy Spirit; professes and promotes the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice and recognizes it as the book of sacred scripture stemming from God having spoken to man.

 

It is by what Jesus had spoken about himself that got the chief priests all wrankled to begin with and finally have Him killed for! It is the doctrine of Christianity that Jesus was who He had said He was.

---

2. If I'm not mistaken you had addressed me with an experiment in communication, I had just assumed it required the use of language. Man was created to be a verbalizer in the area of propositions in his horizontal communications to other men and it always must be linked to language.

 

Since these two men (Heidegger & Wittgenstein) had "discovered" that in order for something to be known- it must be spoken. Language would necessarily be needed. When Jesus spoke it has been unanimously determined that He was teaching. This complies with what H and W had later discerned in their individual studies of language and linguistic analysis: knowledge depends on something that can and must be spoken, even if it is to oneself. This bit is profoundly different from your Mr. Whitehead and, frankly I believe, much more in tune with reality.

---

3. God is supernatural. The non-Christian view considers a real revelation from a supernatural God as nonsense. Their philosophy, by denying God's revelation, continues to operate in a closed system of the uniformity of natural causes. A real problem for their epistemology, if there is no knowledge from outside- from God.

 

[minsocal]

1. There still seems to be some thorn in your shoe about the phrase 'verbalized propostional revelation'. When I say the Bible is God's spoken, propositional truth to man, I simply mean they are His truths set forth in verbal form; presented in a manner we can understand and consider. I'm not certain why there is such insistance on complicating what I have tried to make as simple as I know how.

 

Classical Christianity: affirms the Trinity of the infinite-personal God as the Father Almighty, merciful creator; Jesus Christ as the visible God, Lord and Savior who proclaimed to man the Gospel of Salvation that is worked through the Holy Spirit; professes and promotes the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice and recognizes it as the book of sacred scripture stemming from God having spoken to man.

 

It is by what Jesus had spoken about himself that got the chief priests all wrankled to begin with and finally have Him killed for! It is the doctrine of Christianity that Jesus was who He had said He was.

---

2. If I'm not mistaken you had addressed me with an experiment in communication, I had just assumed it required the use of language. Man was created to be a verbalizer in the area of propositions in his horizontal communications to other men and it always must be linked to language.

 

Since these two men (Heidegger & Wittgenstein) had "discovered" that in order for something to be known- it must be spoken. Language would necessarily be needed. When Jesus spoke it has been unanimously determined that He was teaching. This complies with what H and W had later discerned in their individual studies of language and linguistic analysis: knowledge depends on something that can and must be spoken, even if it is to oneself. This bit is profoundly different from your Mr. Whitehead and, frankly I believe, much more in tune with reality.

---

3. God is supernatural. The non-Christian view considers a real revelation from a supernatural God as nonsense. Their philosophy, by denying God's revelation, continues to operate in a closed system of the uniformity of natural causes. A real problem for their epistemology, if there is no knowledge from outside- from God.

 

 

Your continued reliance on defining "Christian" from your perspective will not gain you any foothold with me.

[davidk]

Your continued reliance on defining "Christian" from your perspective will not gain you any foothold with me.

minsocal,

 

The perspective I am presenting is the perspective of what God has personally revealed to all men. I pray you see what truly is there for us to see.

Any refusal to acknowledge the Bible as God's revealed word to us and our need for salvation through the finished work of Jesus Christ, is a redefining of the Christian perspective to what is not a Christian perspective at all.

 

Respectfully,

 

Dk

[minsocal]

minsocal,

 

The perspective I am presenting is the perspective of what God has personally revealed to all men. I pray you see what truly is there for us to see.

Any refusal to acknowledge the Bible as God's revealed word to us and our need for salvation through the finished work of Jesus Christ, is a redefining of the Christian perspective to what is not a Christian perspective at all.

 

Respectfully,

 

Dk

 

It would be of great use to us if you could list all of the Christian sects from the time of Jesus until now and tell us which are Christian and which are not. You might also explain the introduction of neo-Platonism into Christianity and tell us whether this is "Christian", and how?

[minsocal]

davidk,

 

I was wondering if you could give us your views about proximate cause and ultimate cause within a progressive Christian context?

 

minsocal

[minsocal]

davidk,

 

The title of the thread remains "progressive epistemology".

 

minsocal

[davidk]

It would be of great use to us if you could list all of the Christian sects from the time of Jesus until now and tell us which are Christian and which are not. You might also explain the introduction of neo-Platonism into Christianity and tell us whether this is "Christian", and how?

I'm not fluent in neoplatonism, but it appears they believe man can achieve perfection and happiness on his own. With no need for a Savior, they believe man can achieve perfection and happiness through his own philosophic contemplation. This runs counter to Christianity, which realizes man's true helplessness in perfecting himself.

---

Ultimate and proximate causation:

If I'm correct, they are the 'why' and 'how' questions, respectfully.

I have provided, in the past, a discussion of universals and particulars and a belief that if something is true, its opposite is not true. The universals (considered the ultimate) provide meaning for the particulars (the proximates) and truth is an absolute.

Everyone wrestles with trying to find meaning for proximate causes but because Progressives seem to have no reference to an infinite-personal ultimate cause or absolute they have no adequate and sufficient ultimate cause for what exists. For the progressive it seems all is relative, and nothing has any real certainty.

Some may call progressives Christian but their uncertainty leads only to pessimism, and that is not Christian.

[minsocal]

I'm not fluent in neoplatonism, but it appears they believe man can achieve perfection and happiness on his own. With no need for a Savior, they believe man can achieve perfection and happiness through his own philosophic contemplation. This runs counter to Christianity, which realizes man's true helplessness in perfecting himself.

---

Ultimate and proximate causation:

If I'm correct, they are the 'why' and 'how' questions, respectfully.

I have provided, in the past, a discussion of universals and particulars and a belief that if something is true, its opposite is not true. The universals (considered the ultimate) provide meaning for the particulars (the proximates) and truth is an absolute.

Everyone wrestles with trying to find meaning for proximate causes but because Progressives seem to have no reference to an infinite-personal ultimate cause or absolute they have no adequate and sufficient ultimate cause for what exists. For the progressive it seems all is relative, and nothing has any real certainty.

Some may call progressives Christian but their uncertainty leads only to pessimism, and that is not Christian.

 

If you are not fluent in neoplatonisim, then how can you make your claims about Christianity?

 

Ultimate and proximate causation are not about how and why. Do you really think that an "Infinite God" created a "finite" existence on this small planet earth? Really? That would require an inversion of "infinite", would it not? I leave you with a common expression from Progressive Christianity ... :My God is Greater Than That".

[davidk]

If you are not fluent in neoplatonisim, then how can you make your claims about Christianity?

 

Ultimate and proximate causation are not about how and why. Do you really think that an "Infinite God" created a "finite" existence on this small planet earth? Really? That would require an inversion of "infinite", would it not? I leave you with a common expression from Progressive Christianity ... :My God is Greater Than That".

While I'm not particularly well versed about neoplatonism, if I respond with what I do know, that doesn't disqualify me from knowing what Christianity is, however similar or dissimilar they may be.

Because the light comes on when you flip the switch, doesn't mean you have to be fluent in types of bulbs to make the claim.

---

If you are going to address U and P causations, perhaps you should first enlighten us about them. When I address universals/particulars, I do so because I had defined them first, very early on.

 

It appears that you may have in mind cause and effect. According to the law of cause and effect, no effect is equal to or greater than the cause.

[minsocal]

While I'm not particularly well versed about neoplatonism, if I respond with what I do know, that doesn't disqualify me from knowing what Christianity is, however similar or dissimilar they may be.

Because the light comes on when you flip the switch, doesn't mean you have to be fluent in types of bulbs to make the claim.

---

If you are going to address U and P causations, perhaps you should first enlighten us about them. When I address universals/particulars, I do so because I had defined them first, very early on.

 

It appears that you may have in mind cause and effect. According to the law of cause and effect, no effect is equal to or greater than the cause.

 

I urge you to enlighten yourself. That would be free will, would it not?

[davidk]

You're dancing, again, around not being able to provide support of your claim for why there is the necessity in neoplatonism! Or why what I said about it is incorrect. Or why the causations are not what I said they were.

 

Perhaps you have ben providing us with the "progressive Christian context": the "why" for anything cannot be found.

[minsocal]

You're dancing, again, around not being able to provide support of your claim for why there is the necessity in neoplatonism! Or why what I said about it is incorrect. Or why the causations are not what I said they were.

 

Perhaps you have ben providing us with the "progressive Christian context": the "why" for anything cannot be found.

 

I am not here to teach you about common concepts found in Christian dialoque throughout the ages. If you understood the question, you would know how and why Paul introduced neo-platonist concepts into the early Church.

[davidk]

I am not here to teach you about common concepts found in Christian dialoque throughout the ages. If you understood the question, you would know how and why Paul introduced neo-platonist concepts into the early Church.

Paul predated the neoplatonists by a couple of centuries.

If Paul's "concepts" were similar to Plato's, it is not really surprising. Christianity relies on rational and reasonable thought and a thorough examination of what is actually there. Plato, I believe, may have to be considered somewhat rational or reasonable, as well as Paul. The decided advantage Paul had was Jesus.

[minsocal]

Paul predated the neoplatonists by a couple of centuries.

If Paul's "concepts" were similar to Plato's, it is not really surprising. Christianity relies on rational and reasonable thought and a thorough examination of what is actually there. Plato, I believe, may have to be considered somewhat rational or reasonable, as well as Paul. The decided advantage Paul had was Jesus.

 

Let's see. Plato (427-347 B.C). Aristotle (384-322 B. C.) Neoplatonism ... Philo, the "Jewish Plato" (ca. 25 B.C. - A.D. 50)! A contemporary of Jesus. It was Philo who maintained that all knowledge comes from a personal relationship with God. Would you like a few more examples of neoplatonism?