|
|
Post by dan on Jan 13, 2012 20:41:01 GMT -7
RPM,
Thank you for pointing to these questions.... I had not noticed them previously and/or the SfA subsection has been modified considerably in the last couple of months.
Faith is Jesus....? Jesus is a logically essential part of the BPW. Does belief in the BPW require faith? It only requires the understanding that an incoherent world is no world at all. To be is to relate. To relate is to cohere. It is just that simple. This is neither rocket science nor brain surgery!
I am the way, the truth and the light.....?
Love is the way, the truth and the light.... God so loved the world.....
It is impossible to imagine a world without God's love, expressed in the flesh. Does Islam imagine such a world? No it doesn't. In Islam imagination has not reached a fruition. It has been truncated, most peculiarly.
Evolution and the big-bang....?
That they conflict with the Bible is not my concern. That they conflict with the possibility of a loving Creator is true, and is my only concern.
Does the 'appearance' of the big-bang and evolution conflict with a loving Creator? No, it does not. A truly loving God must be both Self-concealing and Self-revealing. Self-concealment is not possible outside of a 'natural' setting. Ours is the best possible such setting.
Are there reasonable/rational answers.....?
Peter....Peter...... Reason is nothing if not coherent. To suppose that reason can be analyzed is to concede reality to the materialists/reductionists. Make that one little concession, and you give up everything!!
Are we meat machines? Are we atoms swerving in the dark? Is life an absurdity in a meaningless universe? Reason has absolutely no purchase therein! History is then a tale as told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. No human need ever concede such. No human can ever concede such, and remain human. This is not rocket science. It is not brain surgery. No?
(cont.)
|
|
rpm
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by rpm on Jan 14, 2012 7:17:47 GMT -7
I'm going to respond and try to clarify some of the points you contend with, it is not my impression that we are in disagreement, but that I was not careful with terms.
I agree that Jesus is a logically essential part of the BPW, the fulcrum between mortal and divine, the means by which relation and thus coherence is achieved. However, I meant to establish that Faith in Jesus as not 'purely' rational (more on this later), in that it cannot be demonstrated by pure logic, hence the reference to resonance. That is not to say that the logical implications of Jesus with respect to the BPW ought to be ignored. Faith in Jesus serves an an axiom, I guess.
If we move from the general (BPW) to the specific (Jesus), then yes Jesus is essential logically. But from the specific to the general, Jesus serves as a lens or filter, shaping our impressions and leads one to the BPW.
I take your point regarding the conflict between a loving creator and bigbang/evolution, in that the latter is understood as random chance, which is in opposition to the former. Your distinction between the reality of bigbang/evolution and their appearance is closer to my own impression, and the reason I posited that their conflict is merely an artifact of our current age and its perception.
The last point though, reasonable/rational answers, I think I have fallen victim to a personal discernment that may not be shared by others. Rationality, in my mind, is the realm of calculation. It is purely quantitative. Reasonability, on the other hand, is qualitative, but not purely so. Reason is coherent, but it is not analyzable. I have no desire to concede anything to the materialists and reductionists.
I believe that we are reasonable creatures, but not rational. Reason is the realm in which our feelings can be taken into account, why one can speak of resonances within. Rationality is not. We may weigh our desires and fears through reason, but not rationality. Beauty and Horror can be perceived reasonably, but not rationally.
A computer can perform rational acts, it is simply a matter of programming and runtime. But even the colours displayed on a screen, derived from rational calculations predicated on em wavelength values striking the retina, are not the colours which are actually perceived. The qualia is present and coherent through the imago dei. Our world is a synchrony of qualia, orchestrated by the will of God. Monads and memes are the lego of reason, but since our inward selves, our minds, are constructed out of such lego, our grasp of them is imperfect, and thus unanalyzable.
Reason is served by rationality, but rationality must not be served by reason. Otherwise we are left with your meat machines and atoms swerving in the dark.
The western world, since the enlightenment, has become enamoured with rationality as its highest value when in truth, it is merely a function of the much grander reason which is itself an aspect of the image of God.
It's not rocket science or brain surgery, true. The stakes are higher.
I hope I am providing useful fodder.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 14, 2012 17:42:43 GMT -7
12/14/12 enroute from Costa Rica to Miami.
RPM,
This might be the first philosophical dialog I've had, believe it or not, and despite the fact that I fancy myself philosophical.
But I have a very simple philosophy/ontology...... Only one thing is real... eternal love. Everything else is an illusion, designed to entertain and distract us from the ultimate reality. Wisdom is only about coherence and simplicity.
The illusions and complications of Creation are designed mainly to promote Self-love or egoism. This is how God gets to know herself.... through the infinite recombinations of our interactions, as very slightly exemplified in the illusion of recombinant DNA.
Everything else is window dressing wrt to our souls. KIM that there is only one Soul, of which we are all time sharing.
I've not yet had a chance to read your sermon. My problem is that I can only give this one sermon, and so folks get quickly bored.
The Coherence Theory of Truth (CTT) is the same as Relationalism, wherein to be is to relate, and love is the ultimate state of relatedness. That is the universal light, everything else is the shadow of that light. Jesus is the nearest human proximity to that light, and so is our divine portal.
In as much as you or I succeed in evangelizing that portal, so do we incarnate the spirit of truth and/or the Second Coming. God is like Archimedes.... give me a fulcrum, and I'll move the world. The MoAPS requires the mother of all fulcrums. I doubt that there was intended to be any competition wrt to this fulcrum.
(cont.)
|
|
rpm
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by rpm on Jan 15, 2012 5:32:50 GMT -7
Well, I thank you then. That quite a compliment seeing as you've been at this for as long as I've been alive.
I have in the past maintained that love is the gravity of consciousness, but your CTT is giving me pause to reconsider that somewhat. I had imagined love and consciousness weakly analogous to the operation of the newtonian heavens, bodies in motion, ever drawn together. The question of relatedness, it seems to me, urges a shift toward perhaps a more einsteinian conception. But I have to be careful, I think in analogy often and analogies are imperfect. Useful, but not isometric and thus imperfect.
As for sermons, for me, its a new one each week. It is a pleasure and a joy to be fulfilling one's call. But there must be something said for the drive to get across one message, and only that message. I wont say I envy you, but if I didn't think it wasn't worth saying, I wouldn't be here.
Hope home found you well and rested.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 15, 2012 7:21:29 GMT -7
And it's off to church we go....... I'll be back here in the pm......
2:10-------
Ravens 17 - Houston 13
Meanwhile, back at GFC, it is almost as if nothing had happened. Yes, I am being studiously ignored, except in the SfA meeting, where my few questions are being politely answered, as before. No opportunity was allowed for me to discuss the meeting, coming on Wed.
My lead-in, if I'm allowed it, will be important. Otherwise, I'll merely be reacting......
Me: My mission is to obviate the need for a Tribulation......
Danny: Should we suppose that the Tribulation might be imminent?
M: There are both positive and negative reasons to suppose so..... The four horsemen of the apocalypse are at our door, as never before. And, the MoAPS beckons, as never before. The former is the stick, the latter is the carrot.
While I'll be trying to set the agenda, I'll also be trying to determine if GFC has received any feedback, concerning R&D. I suspect they have. I would be interested to further ground these suspicions. Do I have a need to know? I have some need to know.
Basically, we all have a need to know where we stand..... Do we hold 'em, or do we fold 'em.
WWGD? How much rope do we give to chicken little? Enough to tip the scale, or enough for him to hang himself? My late guru, Bob Clark, stated this very succinctly when he likened me to the core of a nuclear reactor, wherein my various inputs are similar to the control rods of a reactor.
IOW, I'm the canary in the mine shaft. Yet another bird-name. Ergo, both GFC and CL, are guinea hens, in this Endtimes experiment.
Who's on first? I may have to continue to labor under the impression that I'm on first. Yes, there are three bases, and they are loaded. Or am I at the plate? It feels rather more like the latter. No? Who is the pitcher? If it ultimately is not the the ol' man, then I may be in the wrong game and/or the wrong ballpark.
How do I convey these possibilities to Danny and Rusty, without sounding like an idiot, or without scaring the sh*t out of them?
How easily do they scare? This is one of the several items that is up for grabs in this meeting, and is why I continue to focus on it. The entire cruise is likely to be less critical. BTW, said cruise is now set for March. Said cruise is now the joker. It could be the setup for 12^3.
Just got the call..... Heading back south, but not to CR......
4:12------ ravens 20.....!!
.
|
|
rpm
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by rpm on Jan 15, 2012 14:27:14 GMT -7
Scripture holds that the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, wrt the BPW, would Love not be its end, wisdom's culmination?
At least this is how I am coming to grips with any sort of introduction to your message. I keenly appreciate your difficulty with the carrot and the stick/4 horsemen and MoaPs. The scylla and charbydis of being dismissed as an idiot or screaming 'fire' in a theatre.
I'm leaning towards fear, but only because I grew up in the 'warm fuzzy' era of Christology. For the same reason, Psalm 34:11 always brings a smile to my face 'come children, let me teach you the fear of the Lord'. It sounds dreadfully threatening, but its intent is the dissemination of sacred truths to precious little ones. Not cheerful lies like Santa, intended to be discarded, but wisdom they shall carry for all of their years.
"Should we suppose that the Tribulation might be imminent?"
It could be they are wondering how fearful they ought to be already.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 16, 2012 8:47:28 GMT -7
Psalm 34:11.... Come, you children, listen to me;
I will teach you the fear of the LORD.
Thank you, rpm! Very apropos of our imminent tribulation.
Aliyah is making a button for my meeting with Danny O', simpler than those index cards that I taped to my shirt, just before Christmas...., (( Tough times ahead...... Are we ready? ))
We seem to be shipshape for the cruise, early in March. Besides the buttons, there will also be T-shirts..... men's, women's and toddlers'.
How would folks of different beliefs, or non-beliefs, respond to this message & question? It would seem to be very contrary to the escapist mentality of the cruising public. No?
Too much like the guy on the street corner..... The End is Near!
One implication is that we do need to think outside the box/book, and in order to do so, we do need to be open and relaxed. But is not necessity the mother of invention? It is true that there are few atheists in the foxholes, but a foxhole is generally not conducive to philosophy or metaphysics.
So this will be my stage prop for the meeting on Wed. It will be my agenda. I went over the agenda with John C, on the way down to R&A, last evening. No, John has not suffered a change of heart, but, bless his heart, he listens and responds cogently, although consistently negative. That'll be all I'll need, until the very last minute.
I doubt that Danny will be quite as negative as John. John's very good point was that the SfA does not serve at the behest of GFC, but, rather, function only under the umbrella, thereof. I do not wish or need even that much consideration.
After all, I was born in the shadow of the nuclear umbra, and the umbra of the 4-fold apocalypse that only grows deeper as we approach the dawn of the final messianic Kingdom.
Danny's flock is not expecting to be challenged in the End. They expect only to be recognized as being faithful, to the end. It might seem that I come to quiz them, rather than save them. Aren't I the whiz kid?
Where are my white robe and flying saucer? Didn't I forget a couple of props?
I recognize everyone who has ever suffered doubt. I have heard of neither an atheist, pantheist nor theist who has never struggled with doubt. That is the human struggle. Because I show up on Danny's doorstep, that does not mean the struggle is over, but only that the End is in sight.
Should we not also doubt the End? No. The only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. Faint consolation? The paradigm pendulum is set to swing toward faith and hope, as soon as we are ready to allow it to so swing.
Do I imply that GFC is lacking in either faith or hope?
Yes, lord, I do so imply. All of humanity shrinks from the glory of At-One-Ment. We still cannot believe that Love conquers All. Love conquers the dung-beetle and the dung.....
To be mortal is to doubt love. To be immortal is to know love. That's all she wrote......
1:40--------
What then do I ask of Danny......?
I aim for the eschatological paradigm shift. I need a sounding board. GFC and the Internet are my two best options. Going after known intellectuals or theologians is best accomplished by reading their relevant work. In person, they would only be flabbergasted, at best. I've been there and done that. I aim only to be at the top of my Paraclete/Comforter form, for if and when I next get back on the radio, or such. The Lord could arrange that, at the drop of a hat. Even Ron could do that.
Would I benefit from an audience at Reasons to Believe or at Rerasonable Faith, for instance? Probably no more than at GFC, so long as I have to be put upon them. They could be no more than polite, as can anybody, until the fullness of time.
So what is so important about meeting Danny? As with most such meetings, the importance is a symbolic one. I could have requested a meeting on day one. It is better to have been 'patient'.
Might I lay the immaterialism on him? It would be a stretch. In the end, this meeting is only my checking in, belatedly. It's not about my being checked out, in any fashion. It is merely a mutual acknowledgement..... live and let live.
God has promised to provide for our material needs, but he never promised perpetual provision. Do we wish to overstay our welcome? Is God foreclosing on us?
He has told us not to worry about the future. But he has also given us the gift of reason and foresight. These gifts cannot and should not be denied. He has even provided access to WMD. Why, for heaven's sake? Well, just off the top, it forces us to be our brother's keeper. It forces us to seek a mutual solution. It forces us to wonder if any such solution can be anything short of a salvation. Based on history, it seems unlikely, does it not? Is not foreclosure written on that wall? Is the R&D show not the product thereof? It may not be. But, by the same token, do we truly need or wish to look this gift horse in the mouth, as if that were even possible?
Is salvation supposed to be a no-brainer? It should be neither rocket science nor brain surgery, but that is not to say a no-brainer. Are we not homosapiens, after all?
(cont.)
|
|
rpm
Full Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by rpm on Jan 16, 2012 12:09:38 GMT -7
I like the button message/question. An iteration of 'Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand' adjusted for current sentiment/language.
I have to admit that I have trouble with much of the current Christian (particularly 'evangelical') movement's position that you describe. The end times are seen as a vindication rather than a challenge, or tribulation, if you will. It is, in my opinion, particularly troubling when it is tied into a too tight focus on conversion/born again understanding of faith. It is not my intent to dismiss that experience, but it leaves out what happens next. It's as though one is saying 'well, the first step on a journey is the hardest (true) then the rest of the way, including the end are of no consequence, I've already started, finishing is a forgone conclusion.
I _am_ coming out of a reformed/calvinist background, so predestination and total depravity are givens in my thinking, and perhaps they are making it harder for me to grasp how you can reconcile a belief in Christ with facing the eschaton without doubt. As I see it, the Grace of Christ, the redemption offered is perfect, you (and I) aren't. Where is the conceptual 'weight' in God's love if you already deserve it and are just waiting for your deserved recognition. That's not grace, that's a transaction.
I am glad you liked the Psalm verse. I was fortunate enough to be able to study more of the poetry and wisdom of the Old Testament than the prophecies during seminary. There is one other verse I'll offer, but it gets translated in a couple of different ways by differing traditions.
In my churches' pew bibles (nrsv) Psalm 62:11 reads "Once God has spoken; twice I have heard this: that power belongs to God," but in the Oxford Jewish study Bible (used as course text in the poetry and wisdom course), Psalm 62:12 (minor difference in verse notation) it reads the more fascinating "One thing God has spoken; two things I have heard: that might belongs to God"
I prefer the sense expressed in the latter, where God is understood to be able to say two things in one utterance. Does that not coincide with BPW's dismissal of reductionism?
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 16, 2012 14:09:41 GMT -7
Universalism.....? Where's the 'fun' in that.....?! Well, I think it rather goes with the BPWH. In the BPW, even Hitler is saved. Salvation is something like meat packing..... Everything gets used, even our squeals. Salvation is not necessarily for the squeamish. God hardly seems such! Universalism, wherein I was, admittedly, raised, has little appeal for most Christians, to be sure. But Salvation is not about works... it is about Grace. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. God looks after fools. With a modicum of hindsight, the cruelest of dictators can hardly be more than buffoons, strutting on the stage, or malarial mosquitos, buzzing in our ears. Speaking of which, be sure to read this review...... www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/books/review/hope-a-tragedy-by-shalom-auslander-book-review.html?scp=3&sq=holocaust&st=cse. (cont.) |
|
|
|
Post by Jake Reason on Jan 16, 2012 14:22:53 GMT -7
Hi Dan, welcome back from your trip.
Q: Would God want OMF to be saved too?
Q: Would it's resurrection be helpful?
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 16, 2012 14:47:40 GMT -7
Jake,
OMF......?
Frankly, I'm still reveling in the lightness of this new being..... Kill them all, and let God sort them out. --------------- Do you suggest a re-count?
My concern lies mainly with Bren. He deserves better than what he got from the young Turks of TOP. Yes?
con't
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Reason on Jan 16, 2012 15:41:31 GMT -7
Oh my  I'm sorry Dan, I clicked " modify" instead of " quote". I haven't had Moderator functions for over two years. Silly me  Please amend your post to your original, and I'll re-post my reply |
|
|
|
Post by Jake Reason on Jan 16, 2012 15:43:56 GMT -7
Oh, that's disconcerting. But perhaps this in only because I watched Valkyrie again last night. I simply ponder if a resurrection would be helpful. Yes/No? I will help Bren however I can. BTW, he recently posted you a kind service over at; openmindsforum.proboards.com/Turks? Well, my memory with them was more akin to Good Samaritans. I am trusting they never meant the baby to be tossed out with the bath water. Is "for Posterity sake", a worthy cause? |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jan 16, 2012 15:46:31 GMT -7
Jake,
Thanks, yes, I have already responded positively to his offer.
Baby vs bathwater? It is not at all clear to me how that distinction is being made. I am not won't to draw lines in the sand, except to defend the defenseless.
Resurrection of OMF..?
I don't presently see that as possible. If TOP wishes it, then fine. I'm not aware that they do so wish.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake Reason on Jan 16, 2012 15:52:56 GMT -7
Jake, Thanks, yes, I have already responded positively to his offer. Baby vs bathwater? It is not at all clear to me how that distinction is being made. I am not won't to draw lines in the sand, except to defend the defenseless. (cont.) Bathwater - whatever their private issues were between them. Baby - the forum |
|
