FredP Posted May 31, 2005 Author Share Posted May 31, 2005 After reading the thread on "Star Wars" it occurs to me that what I've written above sounds frighteningly like "The Force" depicted in the movie. Arghhh. Heh. I was going to reply in that thread, but it would have been cranky and I would have regretted it. I don't think the idea of the Force as depicted in Star Wars is a really great illustration of Christianity or Buddhism, but more like the articles are saying, a naive mismash of a bunch of different things. If you want a movie to pull your fundamental theology from, you'd do better to immerse yourself in the Matrix Trilogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted May 31, 2005 Share Posted May 31, 2005 If you want a movie to pull your fundamental theology from, you'd do better to immerse yourself in the Matrix Trilogy. Only the first one unfortunately. I hate to be a cliche, but it changed my life big time! The second and third ones ... . What were they thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted May 31, 2005 Author Share Posted May 31, 2005 Only the first one unfortunately. I hate to be a cliche, but it changed my life big time! The second and third ones ... . What were they thinking? Are you serious??!! Reloaded is the key to the entire story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted May 31, 2005 Author Share Posted May 31, 2005 I need to clear up some terminological sloppiness (mostly of my own making), which might be leading to some confusion over Good and Evil. I have been using "Good" and "Evil" naively to refer to the ontological positive/negative polarity. Partly this was motivated by my desire to pour the old privatio boni theory into new wineskins, and offer it (again) as a solution to the historic "Problem of Evil." But for a few technical reasons, I don't think they are quite the same thing.... So. Aletheia has done us the good service of providing us with the terms duality and polarity, where duality = either/or, and polarity = both/and -- and this is exactly the right way to frame the distinction. I would consider Evil to be that negativity which, by definition, desires not to harmonize with Good (polarity), but to destroy it (duality). Ontological positive and negative are, in the terminology both Aletheia and Lily have been using, a neutrality: they are partners, working together in the process of putting together and taking apart, to do the work of manifesting God's being in the natural realm. Evil, on the other hand, is not the partner of Good, it is its foe: it wants to annihilate the Good and set itself up as #1. So I distinguish, therefore, between the ontological negative of, say, the near destruction of Earth's biosphere 65 million years ago by a comet, and the attempt to destroy the Jews by Hitler in the 1940's. Historically, theology would have referred to the first as "natural evil," but I don't think it deserves the name evil at all. Hitler, on the other hand, wasn't trying to balance anything; he was trying to destroy. So with this clarification on hand, I would submit that ontological positive and negative do exist in God as a fundamental polarity, but Evil (as it does not, strictly speaking, constitute a polarity with anything) does not. It's "presence" is a mystery, providentially known and accepted -- and even made to work for Good -- but not willed by God. Of course, if Good turns around and tries to destroy it, it only inflames it at best... At worst, the Good itself becomes Evil in the process. Good can only "defeat" Evil by self-sacrifice. I think where the idea of the Force in Star Wars' has erred is in the idea of balance as an end in itself. This is incompatible with Christianity, which holds that Evil (as I define it above) is an aberration, and the articles posted were correct to point this out. Where they were perhaps off the mark in their criticism though, is in the recognition that when Evil does appear, battling it is of no ultimate avail, only sacrifice. Balance isn't an end in itself; it is the means to wholeness. These thoughts are somewhat random, so naturally I welcome any clarifications and criticisms.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted May 31, 2005 Author Share Posted May 31, 2005 Aletheia, I'm really genuinely surprised that Matrix 2 and 3 fell so flat for you! Reloaded completely shatters the nice black and white security of the first Matrix, and begins to reveal that everything is a polarity: human and machine, body and mind, choice and destiny, Neo and Smith... and then Revolutions makes it impossible to miss, that Neo and Smith are brothers, literally of the same mother and father, and that the only way forward is to stop fighting and become One. (Neo, of course, has to be the one who makes that choice to stop fighting, because he's the only one who can understand why he has to do it.) The whole thing is just sheer brilliance. I highly recommend picking up the new DVD set that came out last year. It includes a running commentary with Ken Wilber and Cornel West! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 (edited) Reloaded completely shatters the nice black and white security of the first Matrix ... LOL! I liked the first one so much BECAUSE it WASN'T a neat little black and white package. I liked that it was so ambiguous. Different people took completely different ideas away from the movie. The ending offered hope and freedom from lies and repression, but it left the viewer to "fill in the blank" of what repression was effecting their own lives, that perhaps they could be freed from, that perhaps would move them to take the red pill. The second and third ones attempted to wrap up all those ambiguous loose ends by taking the viewer down a very specific path, rather than letting the viewer intuit what he/she wanted. The neat little path that the movie started following was NOT what I got from the first movie and it bugged me. I took the red pill and left being a JW. I think I saw the movie every day for a week. I took the risk to find out "the real" which of course has lead me here. I just didn't like how the 2nd and 3rd movies took that ambiguousness away. "The Real" became something much more specific, something that the writers wanted "the real" to be. I suppose I should have known as soon as I heard that they were making a sequel that the Neo/Christ metaphor would be taken to its logical "Christian" conclusion and that Neo would have to die. Argh! I just don't like it. It's not what the first movie was about. It's funny, right after the first movie was made, there was an interview done with the writers (not even going to attempt to spell the names here). They basically said that they just wrote a sci fi film and named key characters various "profound sounding" names just for kicks. They never expected the movie to make people question their beliefs or become arm chair philosophers. I imagine they would say otherwise now. All that said, it's been a while since I saw the second and third movies. I'd be up for watching them again to watch for allusions to polarity and reality. I do find it intersting, in light of our current conversation, that Mr. Smith is Neo's brother and that they are ONE (dare I say yin/yang?) I owned all three for a while. Last year when I needed money I sold part two and three. I probably won't buy them again, but would rent the trilogy just to hear Ken Wilber. Edited June 1, 2005 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Oh the things you find with google ... Flash animation, about 5 minutes long. The Meatrix - Click Here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunninglily Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Aletheia, I'm really genuinely surprised that Matrix 2 and 3 fell so flat for you! Reloaded completely shatters the nice black and white security of the first Matrix, and begins to reveal that everything is a polarity: human and machine, body and mind, choice and destiny, Neo and Smith... and then Revolutions makes it impossible to miss, that Neo and Smith are brothers, literally of the same mother and father, and that the only way forward is to stop fighting and become One. (Neo, of course, has to be the one who makes that choice to stop fighting, because he's the only one who can understand why he has to do it.) The whole thing is just sheer brilliance. I highly recommend picking up the new DVD set that came out last year. It includes a running commentary with Ken Wilber and Cornel West! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As it so happens...Matrix Reloaded just showed on cinemax. I viewed it for the second time with an ear to our discussion. What interested me the most this time was the relationship between Fate and Choice. Everyone seemed only free to choose their Fate...there was no other Choice; whatever one chose one was Fated to choose and yet "Choice" was the chink in the machine as it were. But the only real choice was to be Aware or to Understand the inevitability of ones' choices. Pretty mind-boggling stuff. lily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I've been doing research over the past few days, trying to figure out what it is I'm trying to figure out in regards to this thread. It's confusing when so many different theologians have theodicies all called "The Free Will Defense", even when those theodicies are so contrary to one another (ie John Hick/Iranaeus and Plantinga/Augustine). I think I'll throw my vote in with CS Lewis who argued for the Intrinsic Impossibility of having a world (any world) with free will that doesn't have the possibility of evil. It's like having square circles. I guess if you don't think we have free will then the point is moot. Evil and the Power of God C.S. Lewis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Problem: If God is Omnipotent, then why does Human suffering occur? Asking the Question: “Why couldn’t God have made the world without it?” Presupposition of the view is that humans have free will. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lewis’s approach: Argues that it is possible to affirm both : Divine Omnipotence That it is impossible for God to create a world containing free beings that would also not allow for the possibility of evil. Such a world is intrinsically impossible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conditional and Intrinsic Impossibility: Conditionally impossible: The claim that a thing or act is impossible unless certain other conditions obtain. Intrinsically impossible: The claim that a thing or act is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds for all agents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intrinsic impossiblities: Square Circles Uncaused acts Free Will and an absence of evil? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The meaning of Omnipotence: “With God all things are possible” Does this mean: God can do anything? (Even the Intrinsically Impossible?) or - God can do that which is not Intrinsically Impossible Is it a limit of Omnipotence to not be able to do that which is not a thing? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possible vs. Impossible Worlds: If we can speak of the possible worlds God could have created, we can also talk of the impossible worlds which God could not create. Because they involve a contradiction - something which is intrinsically impossible A World without the possibility of Evil could not contain free beings. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evil is necessary if we are to be free: 1. Beings with free choice need things to choose from - some of these choices will be better than others, some worse. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evil is necessary if we are to be free: 2. The environment required for free choice must be one in which actions have predictable consequences. God cannot suspend the natural order for some, or the freedom of all is compromised. If God acted to prevent evil, then our brains would be incapable of thinking of it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evil is necessary if we are to be free: 3. In order for humans to relate, we must be physical. If we are physical, we must be capable of being hurt. In order to feel a caress, we must also be capable of being injured. In order to develop morally (a choice), we must have the possibility of Evil. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusions: God can still be thought of as omnipotent, but as incapable of doing that which is intrinsically impossible. As to why God would create a world of free beings (or any world at all), we have no way of knowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 Lots of good raw material here. I think I'll throw my vote in with CS Lewis who argued for the Intrinsic Impossibility of having a world (any world) with free will that doesn't have the possibility of evil. It's like having square circles. The possibility of evil, yes. But even though by design, evil is a structural possibility, we're still culpable when we commit it because we had the freedom to do otherwise. Not saying you're disagreeing with this, just pointing it out. I guess if you don't think we have free will then the point is moot. This is where the mind-bending idea in the Matrix comes in: that "choice" isn't open-endedness, but understanding why one must act as one does. I have to admit, I'm horribly enamored by this idea, as it plugs into the scientific notion of Lawfulness, the Greek notion of Fate, and the Christian notion of Providence. The idea is so simple, so elegant. Sure, at first glance, we resist it: the idea that all decisions that will ever be made have been made already seems a terrible affront to our "free will." ... And yet after I banged my head against it for a little while it hit me like a ton of bricks: the reason we resist it is that we have forgotten we are God. The decisions weren't made by someone else, they were made by us. We made our decisions already, in perfect freedom, in Eternity, in God. The physical universe is the theater of our choices. We can't change them now, but we can wake up and understand why we made them, and thus discover who we really are. Until we do that, we're bound to enact our fate in ignorance, in the dark, unable to see from one choice to the next. James Hillman and Thomas Moore have both given extended treatment to the Greek understanding of Fate, and it's a very worthwhile exploration. (As is the Matrix Trilogy. ) The idea really challenges our modern notion of freedom, but, I think, brings us around to a much deeper one. Some thoughts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 The meaning of Omnipotence:“With God all things are possible” Does this mean: God can do anything? (Even the Intrinsically Impossible?) or - God can do that which is not Intrinsically Impossible Is it a limit of Omnipotence to not be able to do that which is not a thing? Good point. I remember firing neurons over this for about a week as a philosophy undergrad. I think it must be asserted that God cannot do the intrinsically impossible. It's clear from statements like "God could make 2 + 2 = 5" or "God could draw a square circle" that what would be involved is changing the definitions of concepts or relations between concepts; when what is meant by omnipotence is clearly the power to perform some action or change the state of things in some way. A mathematical analogy helps here too. If there is no such thing as "making 2 + 2 = 5," then it is no diminishing of God's power to say that God couldn't perform it. Subtracting zero from God's power doesn't diminish it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunninglily Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 This is where the mind-bending idea in the Matrix comes in: that "choice" isn't open-endedness, but understanding why one must act as one does. I have to admit, I'm horribly enamored by this idea, as it plugs into the scientific notion of Lawfulness, the Greek notion of Fate, and the Christian notion of Providence. The idea is so simple, so elegant. Sure, at first glance, we resist it: the idea that all decisions that will ever be made have been made already seems a terrible affront to our "free will." ... And yet after I banged my head against it for a little while it hit me like a ton of bricks: the reason we resist it is that we have forgotten we are God. The decisions weren't made by someone else, they were made by us. We made our decisions already, in perfect freedom, in Eternity, in God. The physical universe is the theater of our choices. We can't change them now, but we can wake up and understand why we made them, and thus discover who we really are. Until we do that, we're bound to enact our fate in ignorance, in the dark, unable to see from one choice to the next. James Hillman and Thomas Moore have both given extended treatment to the Greek understanding of Fate, and it's a very worthwhile exploration. (As is the Matrix Trilogy. ) The idea really challenges our modern notion of freedom, but, I think, brings us around to a much deeper one. Some thoughts... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am also enamored by this idea. There is something altogether "sound" in it. Yet I am not sure that I subscribe to the understanding that all our choices were made in eternity by us as God...and I know Fred that you probably mean this in an entirely paradoxical way that can only be said as you've said it, as a tensive symbol perhaps and not a steno symbol...I am rather exploring the idea that there is Something prior to God that we may call Fate...which leads to the assumption that God too acts within Her Web. In other places I have called this Something the Source and suggested that this is the "Ultimate" Reality in which God too has His Being. But this is not something that I am settled in at all. I am settled, more or less, in an understanding that what we call "free will" is an illusion. But actually living in the light of this understanding is still something I am struggling to flesh out, as well as reconcile with a distinctly Christian theology. ...wish I had more time this morning, lily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 I took the red pill and left being a JW. I think I saw the movie every day for a week. I took the risk to find out "the real" which of course has lead me here. I just didn't like how the 2nd and 3rd movies took that ambiguousness away. "The Real" became something much more specific, something that the writers wanted "the real" to be. Wow, that's great! A Matrix conversion experience! I saw the movie in the theater, I think 9 times. I've completely lost count of how many times I've seen the DVD. I don't disagree, it was an absolutely phenomenal film. It just came out of nowhere, sleek, sexy, and smart. As a self-contained unit, it definitely stands on its own the best of the three. I spent (was it 4?) years imagining where they could possibly go from there... trying to extend the Christian symbolism of Neo in my mind... thinking that the virgin birth (no human parent on either side, in fact), rebirth, crucifixion, and resurrection had already occured... Then Reloaded came along, and it was absolutely nothing like I thought it would be, and better than I could have ever imagined. I guess it's funny how differently we see it; I thought Reloaded introduced tons of ambiguity. I wasn't even sure who the good guy was anymore, or if there was a "good guy." It made me doubt everything. The online community was reeling with the possibility of a Matrix-within-a-Matrix. I didn't sleep for days. It didn't help that, as a philosophy geek, the Neo-Architect conversation was probably the coolest, most bizarre, thing I'd ever heard in a movie. I was unpacking the number symbolism in it for weeks. Especially 6 and 23. Any theories? Should we move this to another thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 I am rather exploring the idea that there is Something prior to God that we may call Fate...which leads to the assumption that God too acts within Her Web. In other places I have called this Something the Source and suggested that this is the "Ultimate" Reality in which God too has His Being. You must have expected that I was going to take issue with this. I must, since my working axiom is that, by definition, God is Fundamental Reality. I understand the motivation for this, but I think it's equally compelling to say that God's Being is precisely the Source you're seeking -- that Freedom and Destiny are perfectly harmonized in God's Being. God is neither erratic nor conditioned, but perfectly self-determined. That's my view anyway, you can do with it as you choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I can tell right now that I'm not going to get any work done today. Aletheia wrote: I think I'll throw my vote in with CS Lewis who argued for the Intrinsic Impossibility of having a world (any world) with free will that doesn't have the possibility of evil. It's like having square circles. Fred responded: The possibility of evil, yes. But even though by design, evil is a structural possibility, we're still culpable when we commit it because we had the freedom to do otherwise. Not saying you're disagreeing with this, just pointing it out. I'm so glad that you added on the "not saying you're disagreeing with this" part or I'd have been mighty confused Mr Devil's Advocate. This whole time I've only been talking about the logical necessity of "evil" IF we have free will. And yes, we are culpable for our choices. It's funny that all the counter attacks to the free will theodicies that I read yesterday were "But, how can you hold children accountable for ... " My first thought was "We're not children" and the second thought was "What do you mean by 'held accountable.'" This is where the mind-bending idea in the Matrix comes in: that "choice" isn't open-endedness, but understanding why one must act as one does. I have to admit, I'm horribly enamored by this idea, as it plugs into the scientific notion of Lawfulness, the Greek notion of Fate, and the Christian notion of Providence. We do live in a deterministic universe. However, free will is not at odds with determinism, so I can affirm both to some degree. My "gut" tells me that God didn't just create the universe in order to manifest himself so as to amuse himself or "learn" something. I think God created the universe 1) To share life and 2) To enter into relationship with creatures that freely choose to enter that relationship as well. And yet after I banged my head against it for a little while it hit me like a ton of bricks: the reason we resist it is that we have forgotten we are God. Hmmm. I know how I want to interpret this statement - as a "Hinduish Thou Art That, life is Maya, wake up and remember you are God" idea. It goes to what I said above, I don't think we are God manifest (pantheism). I know you've hinted at this in the past but haven't really said if that is an idea your are REALLY entertaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 James Hillman and Thomas Moore have both given extended treatment to the Greek understanding of Fate ... I will have to look into that as I LOVE Thomas Moore. "The Soul's Religion" is one of my all time favorite books EVER! Can you recommend where I might find his discussion of Fate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 (edited) I am also enamored by this idea. There is something altogether "sound" in it. Yet I am not sure that I subscribe to the understanding that all our choices were made in eternity by us as God...and I know Fred that you probably mean this in an entirely paradoxical way that can only be said as you've said it, as a tensive symbol perhaps and not a steno symbol... I'm hoping he goes into this a little bit more as well. In other places I have called this Something the Source and suggested that this is the "Ultimate" Reality in which God too has His Being. But this is not something that I am settled in at all. I'm pretty settled in what you just said as well. Only difference is I call this Ultimate Reality or Source - God. I am settled, more or less, in an understanding that what we call "free will" is an illusion. But actually living in the light of this understanding is still something I am struggling to flesh out, as well as reconcile with a distinctly Christian theology. Free will probably is a paradox that will never be solved only because even if we have free will, HOW WOULD WE KNOW? However my amateur philosophical gut tells me free will is true. Ontologically, as a reason for something existing rather than nothing, it makes sense. I have to step back, away from scripture and everything I've ever been told and taught and ask "Why are we here? Why did God create?" I come up with two answers: 1) We are God. God (for some reason) manifested himself as the universe, as matter. To learn? To "have fun"? Reality is pantheistic/monistic, there is no good or evil in that everything that happens is just God, well, experiencing. 2) God created life in order to RELATE. Relationship only means something, love only means something, if it's freely given. LOL! Aletheia's "Raison D'etre" (spelling?) in a nutshell. Edited June 1, 2005 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 I will have to look into that as I LOVE Thomas Moore. "The Soul's Religion" is one of my all time favorite books EVER! Have you read the Care of the Soul trilogy? (CotS, Soul Mates, The Soul of Sex) His newer Dark Nights of the Soul probably gets into it too, though I haven't read that one yet. I read Hillman's The Soul's Code: In Search of Character and Calling about a year ago, and it really made me think a lot. I don't know if I agree with him across the board, but it just plunged me into a very different way of thinking about who we are and why we're here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I do have and read Care of the Soul, but it's been since about 1998. I'll have to re-read it. I'll look into Hillman as well. I'm not familiar with him at all. I just bought "God, a Guide for the Perplexed" by Keith Ward. Do you know his stuff at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 I do have and read Care of the Soul, but it's been since about 1998. I'll have to re-read it. I'll look into Hillman as well. I'm not familiar with him at all. I don't think Moore gets into the destiny thing as much as Hillman does. I found The Soul's Code at a super cool independent bookstore in Traverse City, Michigan (http://www.horizonbooks.com), on vacation a couple years ago. I picked it up because of the Thomas Moore endorsement on the back. Apparently Hillman was a teacher of Moore's at some point, and is a fairly well-known Jungian psychologist. I just bought "God, a Guide for the Perplexed" by Keith Ward. Do you know his stuff at all? I thought he was exclusively a theology/science writer, but that appears to be only the one book I have (God, Faith, and the New Millennium, which I've not read). Can't really comment on where he's coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 It goes to what I said above, I don't think we are God manifest (pantheism). 1) We are God. God (for some reason) manifested himself as the universe, as matter. Did you mistype something? Or am I taking something out of context? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunninglily Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I don't think Moore gets into the destiny thing as much as Hillman does. I found The Soul's Code at a super cool independent bookstore in Traverse City, Michigan (http://www.horizonbooks.com), on vacation a couple years ago. I picked it up because of the Thomas Moore endorsement on the back. Apparently Hillman was a teacher of Moore's at some point, and is a fairly well-known Jungian psychologist. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hillman I love. He co-wrote a fantastic book (the book is here somewhere, but as i live with an English/History scholar-type and there are books everywhere and I can't remember the name of the co-writer...actually the guy whose name I can't remember *interviewed* or dialogued with Hillman and it became a book) entitled, "We've Had One Hundred Years of Psychotherapy and The World is Getting Worse". Honest. That's the title. The first time I read it I was throwing my pencil in the air in glee. I also found "The Souls Code" an important book. Thomas Moore has also written some less well known books on the Renaissance Magicians and one on sex that discusses the Marquis de Sade. Neither became popular books but are well worth looking into. I found my copies through interlibrary loan. You guys have no idea how cool it is to find others interested in this type of reading and in Christianity too! Wow. Fred...I did expect you to take exception to the theory that there is an ultimate source or reality that gave birth to God. In Kabbalah this is called the Ain Soph in which nothing can be known or said about it. It is akin to the Pleroma of the Greeks. Like I said, I'm exploring it, but it is an alien concept to me as a Christian too.The sense is that we can know God but we can not know the Ain Soph...this is unknowable. anyway...you guys are the coolest, lily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 Fred...I did expect you to take exception to the theory that there is an ultimate source or reality that gave birth to God. In Kabbalah this is called the Ain Soph in which nothing can be known or said about it. It is akin to the Pleroma of the Greeks. Like I said, I'm exploring it, but it is an alien concept to me as a Christian too.The sense is that we can know God but we can not know the Ain Soph...this is unknowable. God is ineffable for both Judaism and Christianity (I suppose I should say "classical" J & C, as some modern theologies don't hold this), but chooses to manifest in ways that we can, to some degree, comprehend. Colossians 1:15 refers to Christ as "the image of the invisible God," which I think is a beautiful and paradoxical way of saying this. Where Christianity is perhaps unique (in the West) on this point is in asserting that the visible and invisible God are not two, but One. Anyway, unknowability is a very firmly rooted Christian idea. anyway...you guys are the coolest, You too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 (edited) It goes to what I said above, I don't think we are God manifest (pantheism). 1) We are God. God (for some reason) manifested himself as the universe, as matter. Did you mistype something? Or am I taking something out of context? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Out of context. Actually, I didn't really finish my thought to Lily so well. I was saying that my musings have led me to two possible conclusions, of which I do not accept one (the pantheism one). When I wrote the post it seemed like that was obvious in my wording, but now that I reread it, I see that it wasn't. LOL. Sorry about the confusion. I seem to do that a lot. Edited June 1, 2005 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted June 7, 2005 Author Share Posted June 7, 2005 Looks like things have been hibernating for a few days. 2) God created life in order to RELATE. Relationship only means something, love only means something, if it's freely given. As romantic as this sounds, the implication is that God must have been lonely or something, and needed (or at least very badly desired) beings with whom to relate and have friendship. In other words, God was lacking something. In a unitary view of God, yes, there would be no possibility for relationship within God's being; but I suggested that the trinitarian view of God includes relationship as a fundamental characteristic of God's nature. My $.02 is that God didn't create us in order to relate, but in order to manifest and express the relationship that is already complete within the Divine Being itself. We don't relate to God the way we relate to anything or anyone else, because God isn't one being among others. How do you relate to your own self-expression? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.