davidk Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 No David, words point beyond themselves. You can grasp them for just as long as you like! Taken as the/a thing itself, they create illusion. But anyway, by applying your catagories and logic, you manage to get back to either/or. Congratulations, you win again.... The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.... ...the unnameable is the eternally real * "The madhyamika insists that logic/words are all semantic illusions" "For me all words are deceptive" "We need to look at ourselves, and perhaps at the words that deceive and create..." Derek, In modern anthropology, the distinction of man against non-man is made in the area of language. If it is a verbalizer, it is man. We communicate to each other in spoken or written form in language. The way we think inside our own heads is in language. We can have other things in our heads besides language, but it always must be linked to language. When I spoke earlier of semantic illusions, I made it clear that I was speaking of semantic 'tricks'. The particular semantic trick concerned the connotation word 'theism' in pantheism. In this case, the word pantheism is a deception, because it connotes the personal when it means the impersonal. I think it unreasonable to consider all words as semantic tricks, or all words as deceptive. If they were, all communication would cease to exist. When I spoke of a word being grasped, I assumed you understood my meaning. Apparently, my assumption was worth what assumptions are usually worth. 'To grasp a word' was intended to be interpreted to mean 'to understand the meaning of a word'. It was not meant to grasp it as a 'thing', whatever that's supposed to mean. If my statement misled you, I offer you my regrets, and my apology. - * In these quotes some content was edited out for the sake of brevity, not context. -- Billmc, I'm just saying that we should be careful not to confuse rationality with Rationalism. We should not use Rationalism when rationality is meant. Rationality is the quality or state of being rational. I think this your intent. Rationalism is a belief theory that it is man's reason alone that arrives at truth. (the caveat- which man's 'truth'?) - I understand where you're going with being in God. And the metaphor is not entirely lost on me. I understand the word 'in' to mean, in the company of. And pregnant is being in the very close company of. I don't see that Pregnant has any relationship, metaphorically, or otherwise with panentheism. Which, by the way, are you now seeming to say limits God. And, I think God speaks to anyone He chooses. -- NG, I'm sorry, Neon, but I really have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to provide a brief explanation... - DavidK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 david, and I was merely "picking up" your words, and extending them in the way I view reality. Personally I see no reason for me to restrict myself to your own distinctions, catagories and understandings. They are yoursand my point would be that they are not an automatic "given". Once again, words point beyond themselves, they are not the thing itself. If I have given the impression I consider them all just tricks and deceptive then I have been unclear. All the best Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billmc Posted September 28, 2010 Share Posted September 28, 2010 * I don't see that Pregnant has any relationship, metaphorically, or otherwise with panentheism. Which, by the way, are you now seeming to say limits God. And, I think God speaks to anyone He chooses. Just a quick response and then I'll back out as I've probably said all I wanted to about this particular subject. Yes, IMO, panentheism does limit God because, as you have demonstrated in your response, God is seen as a person who is a "respector of persons" and who picks and chooses whom he wants to speak or work through, leaving everyone else out in the cold so-to-speak. While panentheism believes that everything is in God, it still holds to the notion that God is a person, thereby essentially creating God in a super-human image. And I think God is so much more than that. As long as we believe God plays favorites, as most of the monotheistic religions do, we will not find personal or global peace. 'Nuff said. Thanks for the conversation. The bottom line for me is that when we are deceived, we lead selfish lives. Truth leads us to live for others, as Jesus and other wisdom teachers did. Peace. bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted September 29, 2010 Share Posted September 29, 2010 Dear Derek, Believe me when I say I understand what you're saying. It's not that I agree, but I understand. Words are what we use when we wish to communicate what we wish to point to. In considering words, we must consider there's always a personality behind them that is doing the speaking. To even suggest that words have the capacity to actually point beyond themselves, is confusing at least, and deceptive at worst. - DavidK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted September 29, 2010 Share Posted September 29, 2010 Dear Derek, Believe me when I say I understand what you're saying. It's not that I agree, but I understand. Words are what we use when we wish to communicate what we wish to point to. In considering words, we must consider there's always a personality behind them that is doing the speaking. To even suggest that words have the capacity to actually point beyond themselves, is confusing at least, and deceptive at worst. - DavidK David, You must consider that which you must consider, be confused by that which confuses you, and be deceived, or not..... And leave behind whatever we may or may not mean, or point to, or consider, by the word "person". All the best Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted September 29, 2010 Share Posted September 29, 2010 Dear Bill, Thank YOU for the conversation. My last on this thread: God is the Creator; not the created. God is no respector of persons. It is each one of us who must choose to love God, or not. God speaks personally to whomever He chooses, which is everyone. Everyone is invited. It is each man who chooses whether he will listen or not; accept the invitation or not. God says He will bring those who listen and accept, home. Man has no authority to either criticize nor condemn the decisions and actions of the infinite and personal, creator God. Depend on man and global peace will never happen. The only thing that will save this world is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Do not be decieved. You must choose. - God's Grace to you, DavidK Added by Moderator..... Davidk, we have allowed you much latitude in your posts to this point but as your peers have indicated by their rating and in the opinion of this moderator, this post is unwarranted even in the debate section. You speak for yourself in this forum (not God) as do others for themselves. Preaching is not a function of this forum as you should know. Getting personal when you address a post to an individual such as this and telllng others "do not be deceived" implies they are and you are not which is an opinion best kept to yourself. You have said nothing in your posts that the person(s) addressed to hasn't heard before as preaching. All of your posts shall remain under moderation control for 1 month and then unless and or until you have publicly recognized this and apologized for behavior that you should know is unacceptable here, become permanent. JosephM(as Moderator and Admin) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted September 29, 2010 Share Posted September 29, 2010 Dear Bill, Everyone is invited. Man has no authority to either criticize nor condemn the decisions and actions of the infinite and personal, creator God. "Everyone is invited" "H'm" and one said speak to us of love and the preacher opened his mouth and the word God fell out so they tried again speak to us of God then but the preacher was silent reaching his arms out but the little children the ones with big bellies and bow legs that were like a razor shell were too weak to come (R.S.Thomas) As far as "man's" authority is concerned, "he" has the call of grace to criticise and condemn theologies that seem to "him" to be repugnant and unworthy of a loving creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted September 29, 2010 Share Posted September 29, 2010 Neon, I suppose I do owe you one last response, a least as it concerns your posts on the perfect island. The perfect island is a piece of land surrounded by water. Or are you concerned about no man being an island, or a kitchen island? If you have something more philosophical in mind, perhaps another thread. - As far as man's authority goes, we have been given the authority to choose for ourselves. We have been given our authority by the one whose authority we can never supercede- God. He has final authority concerning the final disposition of our choices. Ok- That's it this time. -- God's grace to y'all, DavidK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Man has no authority to either criticize nor condemn the decisions and actions of the infinite and personal, creator God. David posted the words above. David has said that he has withdrawn from this thread; also, a moderator has made comments regarding the whole post of which the above quote was a part. Nevertheless, I feel I have the right to continue on, relating "DECEPTION" to such an assertion. First, to me it is a fact that we experience ourselves as finite, and we are born into an ambiguous world. There are many "truth" claims, and more than one book that claims to be the word of God. Even with those who agree on exactly which book it is, the interpretation of it varies. And not just on peripherals, but on fundamentals such as salvation itself and what happens to the "lost". This is a fact, not an opinion. Conceding for the sake of the argument that the Divine would in fact choose to communicate via words in a book, the fact remains that we have no idea which book, nor which interpretation. We may well wish it was all "clear and precise",(yes, I am refering to the opinion expressed by David in a past thread) but such is NOT the case. Therefore, in a very real sense, the words quoted at the beginning have no relevance, given that finite human beings have absolutely no way of knowing for certain exactly what decisions and actions have been made by the Divine. Therefore, all "criticism" - of any theology or interpretation of any "holy" book - relates only to the attempt by human beings to understand. To assert otherwise, to my mind, would be a form of deception. A deception that would , in a way, seek to make "faith" sight. Surely the Divine would understand this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.