Having Answers?

[JosephM]

As we measure, we are measured, as we forgive, we are forgiven, as you do other others you have done unto God. So are the teachings of Jesus in Christianity. Why? Because we are not separate sentient beings as we suppose and as it may seem.

[thormas]

Burl, as you said water and I assume fish are not sentient beings, so we really can't compare and contrast.

 

Well, I guess we differ on this but I don't follow you because this idea of oneness is rampant in Christianity: in a marriage ceremony, the two become one, in the eucharist, one symbolically and really takes God/Christ into themselves, God and the Father are one and we are to be as Christ and then there is the Kingdom. Also, one could suggest that increased presence is at its utmost when two are united or one: the presence of God can't be mere 'nearness' as proximity ranks low on the 'presence' scale. Further, if as John said, God is Love and we are to love or, to become loving, then this is incarnation: divinity/Love becoming 'Flesh' in man; Love lives in man and/or man becomes Love. Can't get closer that this, this is one-ness. In all this, I do not believe that we, individually or together, become God - that is pantheism.

 

I did lose you though, are you saying oblivion or hell is becoming one with God? That's like the philosopher who says, hell is other people. And where is this belief, as stated, found in Christianity?

 

However, I completely agree with your comment on co-creators. But how does this work, how does the Creator enable us to create and any explanation has to resonate or it make sense to a modern person or it falls on deal ears and is useless.

 

 

Geez Burl, "a self generated series of reflections in the mental echo chamber that creates loopy, useless thought leading to nothing driven by this natural drive to seek and know God." First, just out of curiosity, can you say that 3 times fast without looking? If not, it doesn't count. Second, is this kind of response (even when another approaches you with respect) the real you or just your internet persona? But on a serious note, the idea of oneness is seen throughout the history of Christianity, so are all these great thinkers and 'saints' involved in loopy, useless thought? Plus, the "natural drive to seek and know God" takes place in thought and it is expressed in language, including the language of philosophy: not all such thought and language is accurate or equal but the effort itself is not loopy and useless, rather it is a seeking after God/Wisdom and all would probably be better off if more engaged in it. Finally, your statement is a bit harsh, smacks of anti-intellectualism (as Aquinas is not the only Christian to use the philosophy of his day to 'explain' Christianity) and seems a bit unchristian.

Edited December 29, 2016 by thormas

[soma]

"One God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all....." Ephesians 4:6 NRSV

 

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things."Romans 11:36 BBE

 

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou has sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." John 17: 21 -23

 

Jesus and the Bible talk of oneness creates loopy, useless thought leading to nothing driven by this natural drive to seek and know God, according to Burl it is Hell. Just kidding.......................The fish is in the ocean and the ocean is in the fish, may be the fish is not aware of it, but when it dies it becomes the ocean.

[romansh]

Awareness of the environment is the definition of sentience.

 

We are not patterns or eddies. Life is not an illusion. We are entirely seperate puddles and ponds, rivers and streams. Everyone is a unique individual.

 

We end up playing a tortuous philosophical and semantic game here Burl. What is awareness? Does awareness require sentience?

 

Oh we are patterns ... you and I keep repeating ourselves (for example).

Life is what it seems for you? Fair enough. but if you do a little bit of research ... especially on xenobiology and what astronomers might want to look the definitions become a little tenuous. Wiki definition is also interesting. The second paragraph begins with ...The definition of life is controversial.

 

That you think of yourself as entirely separate, beggars belief ... at least mine.

[SteveS55]

She should have died hereafter;

There would have been a time for such a word.

 

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

 

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing. - Macbeth

 

Shakespeare was certainly on to something!

 

Steve

[thormas]

Nice quotes Soma and helpful.

 

So if I understand correctly, sentience encompasses consciousness and man, is also conscious of self - something that we 'assume' that no others are.

 

'Entirely separate' beggars both scientific and theological belief.

[thormas]

And then there is Milton: "Death is the golden key that opens the palace of eternity."

[romansh]

"We are of the cosmos." Man is indeed of the cosmos but at the same time it does seem that man transcends the cosmos.

 

I am afraid I increasingly find transcend is one of those none words. It means different things to different people. It is like emergent that scientists use.

 

Regardless, returning to monism (the 'many' are of the one reality and this one is (ontologically) prior to all), it seems to me that, by definition, the 'one' cannot be the cosmos, because the cosmos is the many, so it (the many) is not the one that is ontologically prior to the many. Not can the Big Bang be the 'one' because in its 'first' moment, there are the many - or at least a 'few' of the many. We could say that the 'one' prior to the BB, prior to the cosmos, was nothing...however, nothing could not be ontologically prior to anything, because it is nothing - and nothing is not (sounds like the beginning of an Abbott and Costello routine). So I go back to being as that 'one' which is ontologically prior in time (so to speak), ontologically prior as the possibility that anything can be: if something is, it has being, or conversely, if there is being, then something is (if there is not first being, there is nothing) : "we are all of being."

 

The're various flavours of monism ... Mine is quite simple ... all is connected through cause and effect despite Burl's protestations. I understood "Who's on first", the above paragraph I did not.

 

Of course this is, more or less, a logical argument and I do not believe that being or, at least, being as Holy can be arrived at logically, plus it's all so circular, I feel like eddy.

 

Personally I don't feel this oneness. Just logically if cause and effect are true it must be that way. I feel like an individual (so I have some sympathy for Burl's belief) but I am old enough to recognize at least some of the influences in my illusory life. I also recognize there are many influences that are totally subliminal. Also I understand well enough that the underlying chemistry that constitutes "I" is really not controlled per se.

 

Regarding the sun, I think we have some time and the stars await for man to transcend his environment.

 

Again I don't have a clue what you mean by transcends ... the universe is unfolding. Man is of the environment. Evolution will continue [we will no longer be homo sapiens] . The Sun will expire. In the mean time enjoy the ride.

Edited December 29, 2016 by romansh

[Burl]

 

 

"One God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all....." Ephesians 4:6 NRSV

 

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things."Romans 11:36 BBE

 

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou has sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." John 17: 21 -23

 

Jesus and the Bible talk of oneness creates loopy, useless thought leading to nothing driven by this natural drive to seek and know God, according to Burl it is Hell. Just kidding.......................The fish is in the ocean and the ocean is in the fish, may be the fish is not aware of it, but when it dies it becomes the ocean.

 

We live within God, but we are not God. Those scriptures affirm the seperateness of mankind and God.

[thormas]

Rom,

 

Hard to dialogue if someone unilaterally decides that certain words in the language are 'none words.' BTW, I don't think 'none words' is a thing, but it is an easy out. And now we have 'flavors' of monism. You must be fun at cards, always changing the rules when it is your turn

 

Also, transcends in the my last sentence, simply means get in a space ship and 'get beyond, rise above or just get off (or some other none word meaning)' the earthly environment well before the sun expires. Our descendants will surely enjoy this ride given the alternative.

 

And Burl: you referenced the biblical quotes above, is anyone saying we are God? Look at what the scriptures affirm in the quotes: through all and in all; of him and through him; that they (too) may be one.

Nuance my friend, nuance: more than separate, one or united is some 'real' way, yet still not pantheism.

Edited December 29, 2016 by thormas

[romansh]

So if I understand correctly, sentience encompasses consciousness and man, is also conscious of self - something that we 'assume' that no others are.

 

I posted this essay before it did not get any traction.

Am I conscious now?

 

It was obtained by deep meditation and introspection ... so it must be right ...

[romansh]

Rom,

 

Hard to dialogue if someone unilaterally decides that certain words in the language are 'none words.' BTW, I don't think 'none words' is a thing, but it is an easy out. And now we have 'flavors' of monism. You must be fun at cards, always changing the rules when it is your turn

 

On the old Joseph Campbell forum the definition of transcendent that was commonly used was ... beyond all categories of thought.

 

What is yours? But if what you mean is beyond all categories of thought then ... it does become a little meaningless, does it not.

[romansh]

We live within God, but we are not God. Those scriptures affirm the seperateness of mankind and God.

 

Try

John 10:30 ..

[Burl]

Burl, as you said water and I assume fish are not sentient beings, so we really can't compare and contrast.

 

Well, I guess we differ on this but I don't follow you because this idea of oneness is rampant in Christianity: in a marriage ceremony, the two become one, in the eucharist, one symbolically and really takes God/Christ into themselves, God and the Father are one and we are to be as Christ and then there is the Kingdom. Also, one could suggest that increased presence is at its utmost when two are united or one: the presence of God can't be mere 'nearness' as proximity ranks low on the 'presence' scale. Further, if as John said, God is Love and we are to love or, to become loving, then this is incarnation: divinity/Love becoming 'Flesh' in man; Love lives in man and/or man becomes Love. Can't get closer that this, this is one-ness. In all this, I do not believe that we, individually or together, become God - that is pantheism.

 

I did lose you though, are you saying oblivion or hell is becoming one with God? That's like the philosopher who says, hell is other people. And where is this belief, as stated, found in Christianity?

 

However, I completely agree with your comment on co-creators. But how does this work, how does the Creator enable us to create and any explanation has to resonate or it make sense to a modern person or it falls on deal ears and is useless.

 

 

Geez Burl, "a self generated series of reflections in the mental echo chamber that creates loopy, useless thought leading to nothing driven by this natural drive to seek and know God." First, just out of curiosity, can you say that 3 times fast without looking? If not, it doesn't count. Second, is this kind of response (even when another approaches you with respect) the real you or just your internet persona? But on a serious note, the idea of oneness is seen throughout the history of Christianity, so are all these great thinkers and 'saints' involved in loopy, useless thought? Plus, the "natural drive to seek and know God" takes place in thought and it is expressed in language, including the language of philosophy: not all such thought and language is accurate or equal but the effort itself is not loopy and useless, rather it is a seeking after God/Wisdom and all would probably be better off if more engaged in it. Finally, your statement is a bit harsh, smacks of anti-intellectualism (as Aquinas is not the only Christian to use the philosophy of his day to 'explain' Christianity) and seems a bit unchristian.

The idea of oneness in Christianity is conceptual and based in dogma. In any case, a metaphor of mutual attachment or symbiosis are more accurate than a complete lack of individual distinction.

 

All religion is primarily an attempt to artificially amalgamate individuals into a society. Individuality is never lost.

[Burl]

Try

John 10:30 ..

Holy cow! I not only got Rom reading his bible but also quoting mysteries as supportive arguments!

 

I bet some nun emails me a holy card!

[romansh]

All religion is primarily an attempt to artificially amalgamate individuals into a society. Individuality is never lost.

 

You know this how Burl?

[Burl]

You know this how Burl?

Sociology. The functions of religion in society are a well established area of study.

[thormas]

As an adjective, used with reference to God or Being; used to suggest that there is something 'more' that is Present in/to existence.

As a verb, used to state that man is 'more.' It goes to the idea of existence over essence: that man, the existential being, is 'more' - his existence is before him (open), he creates it; he is more and becomes more. In theology, goes to the discussion of unity, oneness and divinity.

 

Not meaningless at all - unless one arbitrarily calls it a 'none word.'

[romansh]

Sociology. The functions of religion in society are a well established area of study.

 

Two questions immediately arise:

 

1) How do you know this is not some atheist dogma?

2) How did you as an entirely separate individual divine this bit of knowledge?

[romansh]

As an adjective, used with reference to God or Being; used to suggest that there is something 'more' that is Present in/to existence.

As a verb, used to state that man is 'more.' It goes to the idea of existence over essence: that man, the existential being, is 'more' - his existence is before him (open), he creates it; he is more and becomes more. In theology, goes to the discussion of unity, oneness and divinity.

 

Not meaningless at all - unless one arbitrarily calls it a 'none word.'

 

What is this God/Being? What is this more? What is Present?

 

Is there something more than the cosmos?

[thormas]

The idea of oneness in Christianity is conceptual and based in dogma. In any case, a metaphor of mutual attachment or symbiosis are more accurate than a complete lack of individual distinction.

 

All religion is primarily an attempt to artificially amalgamate individuals into a society. Individuality is never lost.

Great, we're getting somewhere: I did not say nor do I believe in a "complete lack of individual distinction."

 

However, it seems that 'mutual attachment or symbiosis' falls short and does not do justice or reveal the true intimacy of God and man. So it is not complete separateness (how could it be if there is love?) and the individual is not lost (for what true father would allow for the complete end of his son or daughter?,) but it must be more than mutual attachment - that sounds like the equivalent of the girl you love saying she just wants to be friends. The guy wants more, wants love - so too, I think humanity wants more than mutual attachment with God, sounds too lukewarm.

 

So it is a true unity, perhaps even One-ness that overcomes separation, allows for individual distinction and of course, God is still God. The initiative, the first moment is always God and then man responds. So it is just a question of trying to 'capture' and do justice to what by faith, we hope is the case. Not an easy task, but fun.

Edited December 29, 2016 by thormas

[romansh]

... nor do I believe in a "complete lack of individual distinction."

 

Personally I am more aligned with complete arbitrary individual distinction.

[thormas]

 

I posted this essay before it did not get any traction.

Am I conscious now?

 

It was obtained by deep meditation and introspection ... so it must be right ...

 

Say what?

[thormas]

 

Personally I am more aligned with complete arbitrary individual distinction.

Again, say what?

[thormas]

Holy cow! I not only got Rom reading his bible but also quoting mysteries as supportive arguments!

 

I bet some nun emails me a holy card!

 

I do like humor.