minsocal Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 It is that you had just previously asked I not take the phrase about God speaking to man about what love is "too literally."This appeared to be your saying that you believe He did not. Did I misinterpret you? Is you pin your metaphor? Sometimes the windmill speaks and the flower is silent. Sometimes the flower speaks and the windmill is silent. This can be found in one person. This can be found in God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Sometimes the windmill speaks and the flower is silent. Sometimes the flower speaks and the windmill is silent. This can be found in one person. This can be found in God. I see we are still in the metaphor mode. You know, it could be construed that your metaphor means the different persons of God speak to each other. Why, it could belie the very essence of progessive epistemology! If you would recognize it, it could also be a door through which you could see God is what gives real meaning to love and is the one who demonstrates that love is rational and moral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 As previously stated, practical rationality has four basic components: cognition, conation, intuition and emotion. If any of the four components were sufficient causes for behavior, this would not be be rationality in the sense used here. Rationality requires an agent with an enduring sense of self and the capacity to act ot not act (volition) based on a prior set of beliefs (cognition), intuitions, emotions, or any combination thereof. Note that there is no 'law' that says any of the components must be in accord with each other. One can desire to behave morally, yet hold beliefs contrary to the desire. I can desire to treat all religions with respect but, as was my case, it took some time to realize that this desire had, over time, come to match my own beliefs. It could have been the other way around! This introduces another factor into consideration. The view of the Bible as a set of 'laws' is synchronic. That is, the person either accepts or rejects a view based on the assumption it is God's word. Learning, however, has a diachronic component. This simply means that over time we gradually bring a diverse set of factors into higher levels of coherence and correspondence. In other words, human development is a lifelong task. We need to be careful how we interpret and apply passages from the Bible. Take, for example, the concept of 'original sin'. This concept appears to require the assumption of a divide between God and Nature. I, for one, do not believe in such a division. A belief in a God of Love combined with monotheism makes a 'corrupt nature' somewhat hard to explain. In other words, I certainly do not believe in the devil, that would deny monotheism unless one is willing to do a lot of intellectual tapdancing. I do not believe that a God of Love created a corrupt Nature. I do not believe that Nature became corrupt after the fact. Is there an alternative interpretation? Of course, there always is. The alternative is to take who and what we are and take what is sometimes regarded as 'corrupt' and move it into rational analysis. This is currently taking place in psychology and some forms of theology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 When the Bible speaks of itself as "the Law", do you interpret that to mean it as just being a book of rules or as the body of God's commandments and revelations to man? If the creator God made the created universe, how does the Progressive explain God and nature not having a divide? Man needs an explanation for this observable division. It may be hard to explain but that is the need. How does the Progressive explain the dilemma of how man with all his wonder and nobility, can yet be horribly cruel? If man in his cruelty was created that way, you're right- God would be cruel. If God is love and He created everything good, how do we presume to fight social evil? Wouldn't that be fighting God who made the world as it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted February 28, 2009 Author Share Posted February 28, 2009 As I understand it, Progressive Christianity has it's own coherent set of beliefs that, to a large degree, agree with science and the Bible at the same time. This set of beliefs is not limited to Christianity. It is becoming clearer and clearer that certain core intuitions and core moral emotions are shared by all cultures. To put it bluntly, God does not favor only Christians. Part of our problem has to do with assumptions and questions. As I have noted elsewhere, the concept of 'time' is a human necessity not related to God the Creator. The human concept of time creates an illusion that there is a divide between nature and the divine. Spinoza, a Jew, sensed this in the teachings of Jesus and, paid the price. Spinoza, in this sense, anticipated the theory of evolution. Strip out the human element of time and the theology changes. Again, to put it bluntly, C. G. Jung was critical of Christianity for it's failure to to account for evil. Yes, that's what he said and I agree. How so? Step one in the denial of responsibility is for humans to create a 'devil'. This serves two purposes. We can excuse our own bad behavior with the explanation "the devil made me do it". We can also 'demonize' the 'other'. Christian sects do this to each other as well as any other religion. The mutual demonization of Christian sects against each other is a serious problem. The issue here is captured in the words "join" and "disjoin". Unite and divide. The first element to look for in all discussions of morality is the "locus of responsibilty". I could repeat this point to some individuals 100 times with no effect. Others get it quite easily. God gave us the task to become moral and self-responsible individuals. She gave us a finite time to do this. So, let's get on with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Biblical Christianity not only supports the scientific method, but is a siginificant reason for its existence. Again to imply Biblical Christianitry claims any exclusive right to moral motions or God's generosity is factually false. Since the creator God created all else, time was created by God. If made for no other reason than for man, it doesn't make time any less real. Time actually exists. Jung's criticism of Biblical Christianity's failure to account for evil is not for the lack of a Christian's accounting, but his disagreement with the Biblical premise. Biblical Christianity places the decision of each individual to behave badly or not, squarely on the individuals shoulders. The first element to look for in all discussions of morality is: it's definition and why does it make any difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 1, 2009 Author Share Posted March 1, 2009 Frankly, if it takes blunt language to make a point, then why not? I grew up on a farm. From the time when I was very young, I watched cows attempt to mount cows in heat (ewww ... how unatural according to some). But, there it is, nature as created by God. But then, when a cow is having touble birthing, you fight like heck to save both lives. And, you might learn that before reading the Bible, or it might seem natural before reading the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Frankly, if it takes blunt language to make a point, then why not? I grew up on a farm. From the time when I was very young, I watched cows attempt to mount cows in heat (ewww ... how unatural according to some). But, there it is, nature as created by God. But then, when a cow is having touble birthing, you fight like heck to save both lives. And, you might learn that before reading the Bible, or it might seem natural before reading the Bible. I hope you're not saying we should behave like cows! Some of the problems progressives have is in understanding the two created divisions of everything: God from man and nature; and, God and man from nature. --- I agree, again, that all men have moral motions. While man's not required to read the Bible to behave morally, the Bible does truly teach why morality has meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 I hope you're not saying we should behave like cows!Some of the problems progressives have is in understanding the two created divisions of everything: God from man and nature; and, God and man from nature. --- I agree, again, that all men have moral motions. While man's not required to read the Bible to behave morally, the Bible does truly teach why morality has meaning. Progressives have no such problem, davidk. God never created such a division. It is YOU who created the division. I do not think anybody here here agrees with you davidk. Not one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 davidk, I come from four generations of progressive Christians. Yes, four generations. Tracing back to Kant. They put their lives on the line to oppose the practice of "red string chidren". These were poor children who were forced to wear a red string around their neck so the military could pick them out for manadatory service. Time and time again, they resisted the military machine. They did this at their own risk. Generation after generation. They did this on Christian principles. When they came to this country, they were astounded that Americans did not even care for their animals. They could not comprehend leaving animals out in the cold of winter. Instead, they built barns to shelter their animals. God told them to be good stewards of creation, and this they understood. What I get from your responses is that this means nothing to you. That being the case, you will never be comfortable in the world of progressives. You will only bask in the egotistical view of 'man' above nature. You have a right to that view, I guess, but just keep it to your own group if you would. I, for one, do not welcome it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 Good, and ...! (just picking one of the feelings) Why does love have any meaning? What is it that gives real meaning to love? My guess is that most people know exactly what I mean. Love is felt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 My guess is that most people know exactly what I mean. Love is felt. Hi Myron, Personally, i do not share your view that Love is felt. In my view it may or may not accompany feeling. Love to me, is a divine quality very difficult to both language or gauge by feeling. To me, I agree with you that Love does not appear rational or need to appear moral for that matter. To me, Love is benign and and if an emotion is applied would be languaged as reverence. Davidk indicated as a response to your statement that "love is neither rational or moral" , that it would then be meaningless. That is because it is my view that he is stuck in his intellect where positions are refined and put into abstract symbols and languaging. This of course puts it in the realm of assumed logical linear reasonableness. The basic defect of the intellect, seems to me, that it is unable to tell truth from falsehood or comprehend real meaning. My experience shows the intellect seems to ignore data that conflicts with its positions. From the position of intellect it is very difficult to see how there would be meaning if love were not judged as rational or moral. Yet to me, I find Love has meaning in itself. Just a view to consider, Love, Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Hi Myron, Personally, i do not share your view that Love is felt. In my view it may or may not accompany feeling. Love to me, is a divine quality very difficult to both language or gauge by feeling. To me, I agree with you that Love does not appear rational or need to appear moral for that matter. To me, Love is benign and and if an emotion is applied would be languaged as reverence. Davidk indicated as a response to your statement that "love is neither rational or moral" , that it would then be meaningless. That is because it is my view that he is stuck in his intellect where positions are refined and put into abstract symbols and languaging. This of course puts it in the realm of assumed logical linear reasonableness. The basic defect of the intellect, seems to me, that it is unable to tell truth from falsehood or comprehend real meaning. My experience shows the intellect seems to ignore data that conflicts with its positions. From the position of intellect it is very difficult to see how there would be meaning if love were not judged as rational or moral. Yet to me, I find Love has meaning in itself. Just a view to consider, Love, Joseph Just a quick note here, Joe. You're right- love is first of all, "a divine quality". That was well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 Just a quick note here, Joe. You're right- love is first of all, "a divine quality". That was well said. Just a quck note here davidk, that is what soma and I have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Just a quck note here davidk, that is what soma and I have said. I'm glad we agree that it is God who loved first. Because we know God loved first, it gives love real meaning and the true reason why we should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 I'm glad we agree that it is God who loved first. Because we know God loved first, it gives love real meaning and the true reason why we should. Welcome to the world of Progressive thought. Whitehead would be proud of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Welcome to the world of Progressive thought. Whitehead would be proud of you. Whitehead views God as growing and changing, he's wrong as well as being outmoded. God is the ultimate constant. Whitehead believes truths are only half truths. If truths are only half truths, does that mean the half truths are themselves only half true, and so on? For Whitehead, Truth is never really true. However, because he even chose to say there is any truth at all, he either knowingly or unknowingly has acknowledged the existence of a true truth, the absolute. To my knowledge, since all of his papers were destroyed at his death, he was never able to explain nor overcome this inconsistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 Note: I do not intend this to be a debate with conservatives (Post # 1). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Most Progressive Christians that I know look to the Bible not as a source of factual (belief) knowledge, but as a "how to" or "how not to" quide (how knowledge). Although epistemology allows that "knowing how" is a valid concern, it is strangely silent on any details of what that means. The same can be said for non-propositional knowledge. The bulk of epistemology seems to concern itself with propositional knowledge. The reason, I suspect, is that philosophers are afraid to admit that their insular world of propositions can be threatened by any other source of knowledge. It's about job security. Is it conservative to point out you argue for a reasonable epistemology and then argue it does not have the quality of being rational? "Epistemology is not rationality" Hypothesis 1. There is a strong tendency in Progressive Christianity to avoid "black or white" reasoning. There is a practical advantage in this approach in that it allows access to the "half truths" often found in competing theories. In other words, many theories fail because of a single defect, when in fact the rest of the theory is saying something true beyond that defect. A greater truth is gained by preserving the truth of both sides, and allowing the defects to pass gracefully pass into oblivion. Is it conservative to point out that to seperate the truths from the defects in half-truths cannot be done without black and white reasoning. Hypothesis 2. Jesus is an example of belief-in-action. Progressive Christians place a strong emphasis on action. An overwhelming proportion of the Bible is devoted to principles-in-action. Principles are "how to" and "how not to" which are meaningless without action. Is it conservative to point out that this reflects a literal interpretation of the propositional principles in the Bible? "... faith without works is useless." Jas 2:20 Hypothesis 3. Practical rationality (practical reasoning), as traditionally defined in the Western (or Classical) Model of Rationalty is all about deliberating on and willing the means to any end. In other words, practical rationality has nothing to do with the ends, it is all about obtaining the means. As it stands, I reject this notion. Jesus asks us to consider the ends as well as the means. Is it conservative to point out that deliberating the means to an end always has the end in consideration. Otherwise, wouldn't the rationale be impractical, since with no end in mind there is no means to consider? "What should I do", or "How should I live?" both need the consideration of the end. Rationality conforms pretty well to what you have claimed was taught by Jesus. Hypothesis 4. In achieving ends, there are often unintended consequences. It is often taught, in psychology and Progressive churches, that positive intentions outweigh negative consequences. My question is ... is that a practical Progressive Christian perspective? My intuition says "no", but intuition is not rational. Is it conservative to ask the same question? Since it is taught in Progressive churches does that make it a practical Progressive perspective? I agree with your assesment that it is not practical nor, would I add- realistic. But, is it a Progressive Christian perspective; I would have to say that based on the evidence you provided- yes. Negative consequences are the results of man's sin. Comments? How does practical rationality enter into Progressive Chrisianty? My question, based on the model of practical rationality, is simply this: We have beliefs (knowledge) and we have desires (how we want things to be in the world). How do we form a coherent structure of beliefs and desires that are consistent with the teachings of Jesus? Note: I do not intend this to be a debate with conservatives who have little or no knowledge of Progressive Christianity. Constructive comments are always welcome, the converse are not. Progressive Christianity is a community of people earnestly searching for the truth. And just like all of mankind, they struggle to overcome themselves to find it. I would only suggest we not look at ourselves and expect to find the answer. It is above our pay-grade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.