A polite discourse on Syncretism

[chrisb]

ahimsaman72:

How odd it is that we are all from Baptist backgrounds and all are studying or have studied one or more of these Eastern philosophies/religions (chrisb, ahimsa and me).

And the stranger fact that we are all 3 on a Catholic forum discussing this!

Just thought I would perhaps bring a smile to someone’s face.

Peace to all…

In nomine Jesu I offer you all peace,

It is very interesting isn’t it.

See what happens when you Church doesn’t make you say “Creeds”!

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[GilKobrin]

chrisb:

Yes, it’s how people normally thing about things in a physical reality where their assertions can be tested and proven. Clearly, we are unable to do such proof-testing with that which is unknown personally or encounter personally. Prove your premise and you cease to conjecture. If no proof is possible, then conjecture is all you do. I caution is not toward the “use” of logic, it only makes sense that we are “reasonable” with our conjecture but we should not assume “our ways are God’s ways” if you follow me.

I agree, and believe this concept may be related in the following saying - “Let the fact follow reason, and let reason follow fact.” Conjecture must always be kept in check by corrolating it to reality; however things that have no physical counterpart or manifestation - like God - can only be treated with conjecture.

chrisb:

I agree with you here but I don’t think it is necessary to elaborate when we are in the dark. Eventhough I am not a Buddhist I respect the fact the Buddha refused to elaborate past that which he could prove personally through his own experience, that being the 4 Noble Truths.

I would differ from this sentiment only in that I believe it is possible to arrive at fact via logic, and that is not necessary to always experience something in order to accept its existence; with this premise in mind I have no trouble accepting Aristotle’s proof of the Prime Mover’s existence.

chrisb:

I agree with you here, although Gandhi spoke of this “God-given tool to perceive Truth” with:** There is an inmost center in us all, where truth abides in fullness. **I would posit that what you suggest here is what Gandhi was suggesting. Sure samatics and assertions are crafted to fit each individuals cultural outlook but the “kernel” of truth in each are the same, in my opinion.
Ah, you are familiar with the “Golden Rule” (i.e. what is found above is found below.) This is good because if it is true then Gandhi is valid in seeking within to understand without just as you are valid in seeking without to understand within. Ultimately, it is two paths that lead to the same source (i.e. universal truth).

In this light of understanding I agree with your assessment of Ghandi’s position. Thank you.

chrisb:

This is another very interesting point that you make and one that draws me back to discussions with Ahimsa and Ahimsaman72 concerning Nirvana and Buddha’s Teaching concerning the Five Aggregates which constitute “being”. The short of it is “as long as there is consciousness of “being-hood” we are unable to open to ultimate truth.”

It is a funny thing, with Man - he is able to fit objectivity into a subjective framework. As physical creations, we are unable to perceive the full nature of things; however, we can assign them objective qualities, relative to us.

chrisb:

Yes, I see your point. I would say that we share a likeness with our creator if not “in essense” through “intimate contact” or “familiarity”. In this there is no duality, neither deism or atheism, for deism means a belief in a God far away in the heavens, and atheism means being without belief in God. I believe in God. In which God? In the God from whom we have become separated, the God within us, at that center of truth, and yet outside us; as it is said in the Bible, we live and move and have our being in God.
PS: Are you Jewish? What is your practice?

I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of God. I do not believe we share anything in common with God - and thus can have no relationship with Him. God has instituted various systems of the natural and the supernatural, and we can relate to them - and through them to God - but God never relates back to us.

I am a traditional Jew.

Edit: Thank you for the article. I found it informative, although I find that I disagree with the offered position on God’s nature. The last question posed - that is, the one addressing the pantheistic nature of process theology - is indeed a valid question, in my eyes.

Shalom!

Gil

 

[ahimsaman72]

chrisb:

In nomine Jesu I offer you all peace,

It is very interesting isn’t it.

See what happens when you Church doesn’t make you say “Creeds”!

Peace, Love and Blessings,

:yup:

Indeed, indeed!

 

[chrisb]

GilKobrin:

I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of God. I do not believe we share anything in common with God - and thus can have no relationship with Him. God has instituted various systems of the natural and the supernatural, and we can relate to them - and through them to God - but God never relates back to us.

I am a traditional Jew.

Edit: Thank you for the article. I found it informative, although I find that I disagree with the offered position on God’s nature. The last question posed - that is, the one addressing the pantheistic nature of process theology - is indeed a valid question, in my eyes.

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace GilKobrin,

Well, we have at least resolved our understandings of Gandhi’s statements in the piece that I offered for reflection. Let us move on to discuss more about God and what we do or don’t share in common.

As a Contemplative I seldom desire to “define” God. Clearly there are few words in our vocabulary which even approach the divine qualities of God so let us then focus on what our traditions say about our nature and our relationship with God through that nature. Perhap we can find clues there that will answer these mysterious questions.

Angela of Foligno once said: “those persons who best know God are those who least presume to speak for him.” I think she was refering to the mystical interpreation of this line is the Psalms which states:

11 Be still and see [know] that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth. - Psalm 46:11

If you are knowledgable of “The Cloud of Unknowing” we find this quote: “Although we cannot have knowledge of God, we can love him: by love he may be touched and embraced, by thought, never.”

Again St. Thomas Aquinas is quoted: “God alone knows the depth and the riches of His Godhead, and divine wisdom alone can declare His secrets.”

St. Augustine of Hippo once wrote: “Let me know myself, O God, that I may know thee.”

There is a tradition within Catholic Christianity that suggests man is unique of all God’s creatures for he is both Spirit and Body. We stand at the crossroads between the seen and the unseen as no other creature does. It has been taught that this “uniqueness” is caused by the special attention given us by God, himself, in our creation. The Breath of Life from the lips of God has touched us and given us existence. Now we may debate exactly what this meant in the Scriptures but it is my hope that we might come to agreement, that whatever it’s literal meaning, we can both agree it confers a certain level of intimacy and sharing of “that” something which was expressed as the “very” breath of God. That image and likeness.

We are, as Scripture states, endowed with a soul, a spirit which gives us existence beyond the body as angels whom are greater than us and ultimately God whom through all things have taken their being, both physically and spiritually.

26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. 27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. 29 And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: 30 And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. - Genesis 1:26-30

I would very much like to here you insights into these matters.

Also, on a side note. I have looked at several translations of the Torah with commentary. I would very much like your advice on purchasing the most authoritative English translation with commentaries, if you would be so kind. I would like to learn Jewish understanding of the Scriptures as well.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[GilKobrin]

chrisb:

Well, we have at least resolved our understandings of Gandhi’s statements in the piece that I offered for reflection. Let us move on to discuss more about God and what we do or don’t share in common.

Excellent! I look forward to it.

chrisb:

As a Contemplative I seldom desire to “define” God. Clearly there are few words in our vocabulary which even approach the divine qualities of God so let us then focus on what our traditions say about our nature and our relationship with God through that nature. Perhap we can find clues there that will answer these mysterious questions.

I agree with you whole-heartedly in this regard, that it is impossible for Man to know knowledge of God directly, and that we can only gain knowledge through His “actions” and through His words to His prophets. Furthermore, the knowledge that we gain of Him can only be negative knowledge, never positive knowledge.

Were I to say that X is a cube, I would be asserting positive knowledge about it. What are the implications of my assertion? That X is not a pyramid, nor a cone. I have defined its nature as that of a cube. However, were I to say that X is not a pyramid, I would be asserting negative knowledge about it. What are the implications of my assertion? There are none - aside from the outright assertion that X is a pyramid. X might be a cube or it might be a cone; I have not defined its nature. Thus, you see that negative knowledge is not simply the converse of positive negative knowledge, and vice-versa.

chrisb:

Angela of Foligno once said: “those persons who best know God are those who least presume to speak for him.” I think she was refering to the mystical interpreation of this line is the Psalms which states:
11 Be still and see [know] that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, and I will be exalted in the earth. - Psalm 46:11

I respectfully disagree with this interpretation of the Psalm; what the Psalmist meant - I believe - is that regardless of Man’s actions (“be still” - even without action), God is the supreme omnipotent ruler over all.

chrisb:

If you are knowledgable of “The Cloud of Unknowing” we find this quote: “Although we cannot have knowledge of God, we can love him: by love he may be touched and embraced, by thought, never.”

I contest this belief, and by means of the following demonstration hope to convey my reasoning:

I, right now, am holding something in my hand. You do not know what it is. Now, I want you to love it. Can you do such a thing?

chrisb:

Again St. Thomas Aquinas is quoted: “God alone knows the depth and the riches of His Godhead, and divine wisdom alone can declare His secrets.”
St. Augustine of Hippo once wrote: “Let me know myself, O God, that I may know thee.”
There is a tradition within Catholic Christianity that suggests man is unique of all God’s creatures for he is both Spirit and Body. We stand at the crossroads between the seen and the unseen as no other creature does. It has been taught that this “uniqueness” is caused by the special attention given us by God, himself, in our creation. The Breath of Life from the lips of God has touched us and given us existence. Now we may debate exactly what this meant in the Scriptures but it is my hope that we might come to agreement, that whatever it’s literal meaning, we can both agree it confers a certain level of intimacy and sharing of “that” something which was expressed as the “very” breath of God. That image and likeness.

I profess that even were your understanding correct, the passages you mention could not support the idea of a continuing personal relationship with God; for they refer to a particular moment - the moment of Man’s creation - and not to anything past that point. I will continue this idea and respond to the rest of your post shortly; I must regretfully go for a short while. I’ll be back!

Shalom!

Gil

 

[chrisb]

GilKobrin:

Excellent! I look forward to it.

I agree with you whole-heartedly in this regard, that it is impossible for Man to know knowledge of God directly, and that we can only gain knowledge through His “actions” and through His words to His prophets. Furthermore, the knowledge that we gain of Him can only be negative knowledge, never positive knowledge.

Were I to say that X is a cube, I would be asserting positive knowledge about it. What are the implications of my assertion? That X is not a pyramid, nor a cone. I have defined its nature as that of a cube. However, were I to say that X is not a pyramid, I would be asserting negative knowledge about it. What are the implications of my assertion? There are none - aside from the outright assertion that X is a pyramid. X might be a cube or it might be a cone; I have not defined its nature. Thus, you see that negative knowledge is not simply the converse of positive negative knowledge, and vice-versa.

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace GilKobrin,

Ah yes, the Orthodox Christian are very good at practicing this “negative” knowledge method of describing God. I find it informing that Jews also practice this. Thank you.

I respectfully disagree with this interpretation of the Psalm; what the Psalmist meant - I believe - is that regardless of Man’s actions (“be still” - even without action), God is the supreme omnipotent ruler over all.

I will not refute your interpretation, but I would assert that Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Muslims, and many Christians sit in silent prayer (meditation or reflection) on sacred scripture and are informed to deeper and sometimes more personal understandings of them. I would assert that these deeper and more personal understandings are valid means of communication with the divine, be through God directly or simply through the eternal power of His Words or possibly through messengers, such as angels. My own personal “test” of such revelations would be to apply them to my own life and determine if they hold within them “true” wisdom. If so I conclude that they are truly a Gift of God and that God’s presense is among them either through it’s eternal presense where one finds His Words or through the generation or manifestation of calm, peace and love, which are both Gifts of God.

I contest this belief, and by means of the following demonstration hope to convey my reasoning:

I, right now, am holding something in my hand. You do not know what it is. Now, I want you to love it. Can you do such a thing?

If we were speaking about a rock or another object besides God, I would agree with you claim but it is my belief that sincerity illicit a response from the divine. Christians derive this belief from the words of Jesus Christ but I would also assert that one who practices such also experiences, within the depth of one’s being, in that region that is filled with unspeakable of the subconscious, we touch the divine. It is my assertion that God communication with us are mere “words” per say but also emotions, experiences, realities which remain unspeakable or unintelligible but never-the-less leave there intended impact (or mark) on the psyche of the one who encounters them. Clearly, God is experienced in the subtleties of life and it is those are have developed keen insights to these subtleties who recognize His works.

I profess that even were your understanding correct, the passages you mention could not support the idea of a continuing personal relationship with God; for they refer to a particular moment - the moment of Man’s creation - and not to anything past that point. I will continue this idea and respond to the rest of your post shortly; I must regretfully go for a short while. I’ll be back!

Words are merely pointing to thoughts or ideas or objects. Until they renew their latent energies within the mind of the reader, they are nothing but once they release there meaning into the hearts and minds of the reader they are alive and transfer renewed meaning that takes holds and effects change. It is my belief that Holy Scripture and it’s meanings, properly read and understood open up lines of communication with the heart and mind of the writer. If they are truly inspired by God, then we through them find direct living communion with Him.

This is the old understanding of the written word and it does us credit to reflect on it even now in our modern lives.

Peace, Love and Blessings,