Ignosticism

[romansh]

20 hours ago, thormas said:

Do you think cancer is loving or, conversely, that love is cancer? I must disagree with you there??.

Not at all; but it is in or of creation.

So at very best Love is acting in some bits of creation at some moments of time. Where is the Love of/for some mote of dust on the far side of the moon.

Quote

the woman you hold the door for

For me it is generally second nature and not limited to women. Love? I don't think so.

Edited August 2, 2017 by romansh

[thormas]

Actually, although second nature for me also, it was an act of caring or concern taught to me, by example and in word, from when I was very young. Love in Christian circles is defined as 'compassionate concern' for the other: so indeed it is love - I know so.

[thormas]

1

Edited August 2, 2017 by thormas

[JosephM]

That certainly sounds true to me also Thomas . However, acceptance does not exclude action.  i would add that it seems to me that wiser actions come out only after acceptance of what is. Resistance to what is  (non acceptance or resistance) in my experience does not provide clarity of mind.

[thormas]

Joseph,

 

If by acceptance you mean faith, i.e. the human response/acceptance to the self-giving God/Ultimate Reality and the resulting compassionate concern, I agree.

However, sometimes it is precisely refusing to accept that is the essential action. For example, refusing to accept a culture of intimidation or the bullying of the group that you might have belonged to as a kid.

So, acceptance of what? If it is 'what is' then, for you, what is?

 

[JosephM]

Thomas,

To do something about bullying or any other similar example, it seems to me one must first accept its reality. Acceptance to me is not agreement with a thing as right or wrong, From a spiritual point of view, it is more an internal space or vantage point of peace from which action can emanate without internal resistance, anger, malice, judgmentalism or any other negative states of consciousness associated with the mind. It seems to me, from that vantage point of acceptance one can more easily act out of compassion and wisdom.

I admit the word acceptance to many does have an implication of  non-action or agreement or consent but that is of course not the lntended spirit that i am  using it in.

[thormas]

Okay, seem like a difference over word preference. I would say recognize, not accept, bullying and then act against it. But I get your line of thought and although I don't talk about internal space or vantage point, again I follow your line of thinking. For me, faith understood as a response to Being/Love results in wisdom and compassion. 

At some point you'll have to give your take on what is.

Thanks

[JosephM]

 

10 hours ago, thormas said:

At some point you'll have to give your take on what is.

Thanks

"What is" is simply that which is now.  Some people like to say... "it is what it is" ...... Some use the word " suchness "   It is not forever, it is reality right now. To many , it is nonsense. 

[romansh]

For me:

Acceptance:   Understanding things could not be otherwise, despite the many alternatives we can imagine for the past, present and future.

[romansh]

23 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually, although second nature for me also, it was an act of caring or concern taught to me, by example and in word, from when I was very young. Love in Christian circles is defined as 'compassionate concern' for the other: so indeed it is love - I know so.

Do I take this God [as Love] simply becomes a very limited. Love created this universe? Really? I must admit I am struggling with this definition of God being Love and in all creation.

My take on Joseph's view is that his God  is close to being a pantheistic God. The universe and what we might not have observed is God. No separation between the universe and God so to speak.

[thormas]

Why would God become very limited? 

Christianity believes that God is the Creator of all that is. Although this is theistic language, another approach is that God is 'I AM' - Being - and as Paul writes, we live, move and have our being in God/Being. Some theologians also use philosophical language to further 'define' Being as 'letting be' i.e. empowering/enabling all to be - in other words, creation. Christianity also believes that God is Love, thus Christians believe, not only that the universe (and all) is created out of love, they believe Love created it (God is what he does). Thus we have God/Love creating and in all creation. 

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by thormas

[romansh]

7 hours ago, thormas said:

Why would God become very limited? 

Christianity believes that God is the Creator of all that is. Although this is theistic language, another approach is that God is 'I AM' - Being - and as Paul writes, we live, move and have our being in God/Being. Some theologians also use philosophical language to further 'define' Being as 'letting be' i.e. empowering/enabling all to be - in other words, creation. Christianity also believes that God is Love, thus Christians believe, not only that the universe (and all) is created out of love, they believe Love created it (God is what he does). Thus we have God/Love creating and in all creation. 

 

OK I am talkin definitions here rather than Christian beliefs.

The universe was created out of Love so cancer was created out of Love as well ... in that Love is acting in all creation all the time. There is Love acting on a speck of dust between galaxies: really?

 

[thormas]

Then talking definitions: if for the Christian, Love is 'letting be' - then that speck of dust is acted upon. Creation is not a once and done, it is on-going and sustained.  Such 'letting be' or compassionate concern is evidenced in holding the door for another (it images God), that is why it is a loving act.

Of course, although Christianity is not deistic, theism (or panentheism) allows that the ever-present God does not coerce men and women or interfere in nature or natural law. Of course such a view, doesn't leave much room for miracles but, from my perspective, that is fine.

[romansh]

My head is beginning to spin here Thormas.

Letting be is love or God? Now in effect, I cannot do anything about that speck of dust. If by letting be you mean Joseph's acceptance then I sort of get it. But letting be a starving child in Africa that I have and never will meet, that is Love?

What is the point of a panentheist god that lets be does not interfere, apparently Loves and Lets Be?

Edited August 5, 2017 by romansh

[thormas]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Letting be is love or God

We come at this from seemingly very different perspectives, so I am not surprised it doesn't speak to you.  

Not sure how it matches with the notion of acceptance because I think Joseph is talking about accepting 'such as it is' - what (already) is, while I was trying to say something about that which allows what is to 'be' in the first place. Simply, and for lack of a better descriptor (and pardon the caps), it is Being that empowers all that is to be (this is letting be). And letting be can be named love because it is a gracious (gift) and compassionate act that gives, accepts and enhances the life of the other. 

In Christian understanding, we are to image Love/God: If letting be or love, properly understood, empowers another to be, or to have a truly human life, then it begins to become obvious what the Christian or truly Human response must be to starvation or any human suffering. 'Letting be' the starving child is not the same as 'letting it be'  or leaving it alone - it is not passive or dismissive (BTW, I am not suggesting this is your stance). 

Panentheism suggests that God is (already) in creation (but is not identical with creation): there is no need to interfere if one is already present. The human experience of love is that is comes from beyond oneself, i.e., it comes from another (mother, father, friend, lover, stranger, etc.) and yet the love given is here and it has an impact here and now. Traditionally, God is understood to be both transcendent (beyond) and immanent (here and now).  God is 'present' in and through us; God's power is love but like all real love, it is persuasive (not coercive). God is therefore 'limited' for his creation: limited by the freedom of man and by the ways of nature.

This is theodicy: the question of not only the goodness of God, but the very existence of God in the face of evil and suffering.

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by thormas

[romansh]

For me

• faith: a thought that is held as true despite scant evidence for or even the evidence is against the held truth.
• belief: a thought that held as true, but is incompletely substantiated with evidence and data but likely can be substantiated.
• knowledge: a collectively accepted position that is backed by a wealth of evidence but may be subject to revision.
• know: philosophically to be absolutely certain, in the vernacular to be able to recall or understand, and believe either are accurate.
• data: observations, often formal, of our universe: can have various formats, not necessarily limited to narratives, pictures, numerical descriptions, recordings etc.
• evidence: is data in support of a particular proposition, hypothesis, theory or perhaps even a speculation.

My first crack at these words.

Edited August 8, 2017 by romansh

[romansh]

• illusion: something is not as it seems, I accept there are other senses ... ie it can be synonymous with delusion.

[romansh]

Before we go to far ... immanence what does it mean?

• immanence ... it is a bit non word for me apparently something similar to inherent

[romansh]

I don't have a clue what Love is in the way thormas is using the word.

• Love - ???

Can someone help please?

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

I don't have a clue what Love is in the way thormas is using the word.

• Love - ???

Can someone help please?

Sorry, not my strong suite.

[romansh]

Quote

Transcendent: God beyond or, non spatially speaking, 'more' than the world (i.e. not the world). Yet, immanent: the God who is 'more' is 'in and with" man in the ordinary, everyday, life of man. Further, the mode of God is incarnation: present - here, now - in and through humanity. Or conversely, the we live, move and are - in God.

Anyone for a translation?

I take thormas's definitions to be:

• Transcendent: beyond or, non spatially speaking, 'more' than the world
• Immanent:  is 'more' is 'in and with" man in the ordinary, everyday, life of man

 

[thormas]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

Anyone for a translation?

I take thormas's definitions to be:

• Transcendent: beyond or, non spatially speaking, 'more' than the world
• Immanent:  is 'more' is 'in and with" man in the ordinary, everyday, life of man

 

Let me help you:

Theism holds that God is not identical with creation and/or that creation does not become God.

traditionally, many thought of transcendence as a spatial separation of God from man: God was in his supernatural world, man in his natural world and miracles were the primary means by which God entered into man's world. A more contemporary understanding of transcendence (God beyond, not identical with creation) is not that God is separate (spatial), but that God is 'more' than (non spatial) creation; God 'transcends' creation.

traditionally, many accepted that God was (also) immanent: in/with creation. However, classical theism had an overemphasis on transcendence that seemed to overshadow the immanence of God.  Not so in contemporary theology: immanence means that God, even though not identical with the world/creation, is present and active 'in' (and 'with') it. God is not only (or not at all) in the miraculous moments but in the 'ordinary, the everyday life of the world/man.' 

The God who transcends creation is in creation.

Not my imagination my friend as I first learned the concept in college (70s) philosophy classes (metaphysics and ontology) and later (early 80s) in theology and it has been a constant, found in the works of many major theologians - up to and including today. I'll let you do your own research. 

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by thormas

[romansh]

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎04 at 6:19 PM, thormas said:

Theism holds that God is not identical with creation and/or that creation does not become God.

I agree with you, if we take the (a) narrower definition of theism. But it is certainly not true for the word pantheism.

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎04 at 6:19 PM, thormas said:

Not my imagination my friend as I first learned the concept in college (70s) philosophy classes (metaphysics and ontology) and later (early 80s) in theology and it has been a constant, found in the works of many major theologians - up to and including today. I'll let you do your own research. 

I am a little amused by this thormas. If I were to accuse of having no imagination then you would also be affronted. 

Lets assume for the moment the "more" in transcendence does not exist or is very different from what you have imagined that more to be. So in this sense by definition the transcendence is imagined. A similar argument could placed for immanence ie an "in dwelling". You can't point to that "in dwelling" without some imagination. Also even if your hypothesis is true you can only imagine what this transcendence or immanence is.

Of course you will argue transcendence and immanence exist in the sense of conceptions. Much in the same way unicorns exist as conceptions or imaginings. With the added bonus we can have fluffy dolls to bolster our imaginings. These concepts exist on paper or a lecturer's brain where he transmits the concepts via air vibrations or maybe to a chalk board (in the 70s) to your brain where your brain imagines it has received the concept.

A far more profane example is the red London double decker bus. We think of it as red. But if you paid attention in classes that the redness was due to some wavelengths of light being adsorbed by the surface and some reflected. the light then being focused on the three types of cones in your retina where photochemical reactions occur and allow the "red" signals are transmitted as charge ions and compounds down your optic nerve to the brain. Where the signals are interpreted and imagined as red.

[thormas]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

I agree with you, if we take the (a) narrower definition of theism. But it is certainly not true for the word pantheism.

Not a narrow definition but you do show some imagination with your response.

I am a little amused by this thormas. If I were to accuse of having no imagination then you would also be affronted. 

Perhaps I imagined it.

Lets assume for the moment the "more" in transcendence does not exist or is very different from what you have imagined that more to be. So in this sense by definition the transcendence is imagined. A similar argument could placed for immanence ie an "in dwelling". You can't point to that "in dwelling" without some imagination. Also even if your hypothesis is true you can only imagine what this transcendence or immanence is.

If I assume what you suggest then I would not believe what I do, yet I do believe so I don't assume what you believe. Nor do I ask you to assume what you do not believe. I hope that's clear. After all, you asked for and I gave explanations (of these two words) that have theological roots and I am fine with them. They are associated with particular isms.  As previously stated, it is your right to believe what you choose and I have no problem with that. You simply believe something different than I do.

Of course you will argue transcendence and immanence exist in the sense of conceptions. Much in the same way unicorns exist as conceptions or imaginings. With the added bonus we can have fluffy dolls to bolster our imaginings. These concepts exist on paper or a lecturer's brain where he transmits the concepts via air vibrations or maybe to a chalk board (in the 70s) to your brain where your brain imagines it has received the concept.

Agree, they are concepts - good for you. However, you do have serious problems with people who believe something different than you. But if you like to imagine unicorns and have little dolls, I'm happy for you - and it shows you indeed have some imagination.

A far more profane example is the red London double decker bus. We think of it as red. But if you paid attention in classes that the redness was due to some wavelengths of light being adsorbed by the surface and some reflected. the light then being focused on the three types of cones in your retina where photochemical reactions occur and allow the "red" signals are transmitted as charge ions and compounds down your optic nerve to the brain. Where the signals are interpreted and imagined as red. .......believed to be red.

Oh, I always paid attention, thanks for mentioning it. 

So as you said, there is Light (it exists and is not imagined) and there is man that the light is focused on (who you also indicated exists and is not therefore imagined) and man is able to receive, experience (something real) and interpret the Light according to the needs/limitations particular to his bodily existence in the world. So it's not that the red is not real, it is, as you said, man's interpretation of that which is real. This is a piece with the theological position that God in Himself is unknowable and, therefore, the Word (or Light) of God must be presented in such a way (that is particular to the man as he is in the world) so man can hear, experience and interpret what Is Real. Did science get this from Theology? Well done.

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by thormas

[romansh]

23 hours ago, thormas said:

If I assume what you suggest then I would not believe what I do, yet I do believe so I don't assume what you believe. Nor do I ask you to assume what you do not believe. I hope that's clear. After all, you asked for and I gave explanations (of these two words) that have theological roots and I am fine with them. They are associated with particular isms.  As previously stated, it is your right to believe what you choose and I have no problem with that. You simply believe something different than I do.

Not necessarily.

You seemed to have missed my point completely.

Let us assume you believe in something "more" and yet that something "more: does not exist. Then that something "more" is imagined ... however vaguely (and believed).