D
Detales
Guest
fhansen~Aristotle’s purpose was that of “trying to fortify an unsustainable belief”. Sorry, wasn’t thinking necessarily of Aristotle.
~*arrived at a position that it was reasonable that a transcendent creator-god would exist-and I agree. * I like that you said “arrived at a position.” That is distinct from “Proved.” My contention, though, is that however “reasonable” such a position might be, it is inadequate as a tool for discernment.
~and while reason alone certainly is inadequate for that purpose- it’s nonetheless a part of the human make-up and without it we wouldn’t have the means to even ask the right questions or begin the quest. Yes, I agree with that. What concerns me, though, is that while reason, and with it, religious thought, which is “reason” based on belief as distinct from fact, those both being useful scaffolding, the edifice of scaffolding is mistaken for actual insight.
~OTOH you maintain that people have always had access to God directly but I don’t know how accurate this is-even if it seems that it should be so You even now have this ability beyond your thoughts about God as codified in your religious thought. Try it, discover, and then decide.
~The fall and mans subsequent devolution into sin as described in the OT could be a description of mans state or disposition of a voluntary journeying away from direct realization of God, preferring that separation. It’s not necessarily religion that’s the enemy-we can be our own worst enemy. The “fall” of man is vastly misinterpreted. We might have talked about this before. as well as the dynamic that you state follows, which again is a superimposition of christianist interpretation on the map aspect of that story. And though religion may not completely be the enemy, the Abrahamic religions are enough of a side track to be dangerous and potentially deadly, despite the ability some had to see through them, eg, Aquinas near the end.
~while our faith teaches us to ask, seek, and knock, many prefer beer and football. Yes, and that is fine. But some seek sincerely, and have only the exoteric aspect of the Church to “aid” them. Such was my case, but fortunately I discovered what it was that the popularization the Church promotes came from. I’m only advocating that there be clearer guideposts for those ready for more, without the commensurate and usual blockages.
~you seem to think it’s not even within the realm of possibilities. I see her as a vessel holding a treasure we must reach out and grab and you seem to see her as having little or nothing positive to offer-or of misrepresenting herself as the treasure itself. Of course it is within the realm of possibility. Just not the realm of probability. And yes, jhansen, she is a vessel holding treasure, but she is wearing a chastity belt. There are far easier and more direct approaches that circumvent the historicizations and conjecturings the Church offers as teaching. I prefer to go direct. Had I stayed in the Church, I surely would have drowned. I can only speak for myself, but many factors indicate to me that life would be simpler if the Church copped to what she actually knows and what she actually is.
~“I found thee not, O Lord, without, because I erred in seeking thee without that wert within.” Blessed straight. But the Church is fundamentally invested in its public teaching in adoring, worshiping, and seeking a God without, even in the guise of looking within. The Church objectifies God and Jesus, thus making understanding impossible. Augustine got through that.
But here is a trick of insight. I could in some instances say word for word what a devout religionist might say, and have a radically different intent or understanding of those words. (look up the root meaning of “radical,”
)
~*arrived at a position that it was reasonable that a transcendent creator-god would exist-and I agree. * I like that you said “arrived at a position.” That is distinct from “Proved.” My contention, though, is that however “reasonable” such a position might be, it is inadequate as a tool for discernment.
~and while reason alone certainly is inadequate for that purpose- it’s nonetheless a part of the human make-up and without it we wouldn’t have the means to even ask the right questions or begin the quest. Yes, I agree with that. What concerns me, though, is that while reason, and with it, religious thought, which is “reason” based on belief as distinct from fact, those both being useful scaffolding, the edifice of scaffolding is mistaken for actual insight.
~OTOH you maintain that people have always had access to God directly but I don’t know how accurate this is-even if it seems that it should be so You even now have this ability beyond your thoughts about God as codified in your religious thought. Try it, discover, and then decide.
~The fall and mans subsequent devolution into sin as described in the OT could be a description of mans state or disposition of a voluntary journeying away from direct realization of God, preferring that separation. It’s not necessarily religion that’s the enemy-we can be our own worst enemy. The “fall” of man is vastly misinterpreted. We might have talked about this before. as well as the dynamic that you state follows, which again is a superimposition of christianist interpretation on the map aspect of that story. And though religion may not completely be the enemy, the Abrahamic religions are enough of a side track to be dangerous and potentially deadly, despite the ability some had to see through them, eg, Aquinas near the end.
~while our faith teaches us to ask, seek, and knock, many prefer beer and football. Yes, and that is fine. But some seek sincerely, and have only the exoteric aspect of the Church to “aid” them. Such was my case, but fortunately I discovered what it was that the popularization the Church promotes came from. I’m only advocating that there be clearer guideposts for those ready for more, without the commensurate and usual blockages.
~you seem to think it’s not even within the realm of possibilities. I see her as a vessel holding a treasure we must reach out and grab and you seem to see her as having little or nothing positive to offer-or of misrepresenting herself as the treasure itself. Of course it is within the realm of possibility. Just not the realm of probability. And yes, jhansen, she is a vessel holding treasure, but she is wearing a chastity belt. There are far easier and more direct approaches that circumvent the historicizations and conjecturings the Church offers as teaching. I prefer to go direct. Had I stayed in the Church, I surely would have drowned. I can only speak for myself, but many factors indicate to me that life would be simpler if the Church copped to what she actually knows and what she actually is.
~“I found thee not, O Lord, without, because I erred in seeking thee without that wert within.” Blessed straight. But the Church is fundamentally invested in its public teaching in adoring, worshiping, and seeking a God without, even in the guise of looking within. The Church objectifies God and Jesus, thus making understanding impossible. Augustine got through that.
But here is a trick of insight. I could in some instances say word for word what a devout religionist might say, and have a radically different intent or understanding of those words. (look up the root meaning of “radical,”
)