Originally posted by FreakyKBHI really don’t have a problem with talking about the ineffable—except, of course, for talking about it.
[b] “I think I’ll whack it over there, and I know he’ll toss it back here...”
Too true, too true. It's almost as if we both know the words to the other's favorite song.
Another thought occured while de-analogizing my efforts. The very thing you touched on, 'the oneness of the all,' as it were, the singularity that tel and LJ cannot reach beyond: ...[text shortened]... ageless, boundary-less) beyond the known (time, age, boundary). Just a thumbnail thought.[/b]
If someone says something like, “You know, I like to think of it this way...”, and then proceeds to describe a particular religious or philosophical paradigm, I don’t really have a problem. Of course, if that’s posted here in a debate forum, I might take a crack at something that seems out-of-whack to me, and they are free to whack back. Lucifershammer, for example, has thumped me as much as anybody in terms of challenging the basic assumptions of non-dualism. I like that: it forces me to think.
Even LJ has cautioned me about rejecting what I have come to call the “supernatural category” outright. And I try to me more careful about how I phrase that—i.e., even in the face of the ineffable, I see no good reason to admit the supernatural category.
You and I have discussed before the “paradigm clash.” I have recently come to understand just how much that limits discourse. I am a non-dualist, you are a dualist—even when we use the same language, we are not talking about the same thing, because our axiomatic base is so different. I am—for lack of a better phrase—a “strong hermeneutist.” You think that one can arrive at the correct, objective interpretation. Exegetically, I think you are doing midrash; you think you are simply discovering the truth.
We can have wonderful discussions (and we have), but we are at impasse at the get-go. I used to think there must be some way around that; I no longer do.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAll action and thought of which we are aware occur in the space-time surrounding us.
[b]Can you explain "beyond space" and "outside time" without the use of an analogy?
"Beyond space" and "outside time" are pretty straight forward. All action and thought of which we are aware occur in the space-time surrounding us. Inexplicably, this space-time is held together and has been since inception. "Inexplicably" because no one can explain ...[text shortened]... something[/i] outside of this space-time is responsible for holding the same together.[/b]
If this were so, then it would follow that God must be in the space time surrounding us. Christians claim to be aware of God's actions and thoughts; at least some of them.
from the smallest of scales to the largest, disorder should hold sway, yet instead we see order. While it is possible that man may yet discover the glue, to date he has not.
I don't understand. Entropy and localized order are quite well understood. What do you think is not known?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungChristians claim to be aware of God's actions and thoughts; at least some of them.
All action and thought of which we are aware occur in the space-time surrounding us.
If this were so, then it would follow that God must be in the space time surrounding us. Christians claim to be aware of God's actions and thoughts; at least some of them.
from the smallest of scales to the largest, disorder should hold sway, yet instea ...[text shortened]... tand. Entropy and localized order are quite well understood. What do you think is not known?
And some of what is said is true: we are aware of at least some of God's actions and throughts... those which He has revealed to us in this space/time. Perhaps I wasn't as concise as intended. The comment was not meant to be all-inclusive, i.e., to encompass all thought and action; only that of man and his surroundings. That which comes from God--- while scrutable in the main--- is inscrutable with regards to method. Specifically, how He gets that message to man is the mystery. We know it comes from the Holy Spirit; we're just not sure how.
Entropy and localized order are quite well understood.
I was speaking more to what holds the atom together, for example.
Originally posted by vistesdI am a non-dualist, you are a dualist...
I really don’t have a problem with talking about the ineffable—except, of course, for talking about it.
If someone says something like, “You know, I like to think of it this way...”, and then proceeds to describe a particular religious or philosophical paradigm, I don’t really have a problem. Of course, if that’s posted here in a debate forum, I ...[text shortened]... at impasse at the get-go. I used to think there must be some way around that; I no longer do.
Not in the classical or broadest sense of the term (unless, of course, you're meaning something here other than what I am understanding!). My study of Scripture informs my view of the world. That study is best characterized as systematic--- if not wholly Spinoza-influenced, certainly heavily impacted by the same. There's also the spices of Schleiermacher, Wolf, and Dilthey scattered about; again, no whole reliance on any one of their systems.
Exegetically, I think you are doing midrash; you think you are simply discovering the truth.
It may appear to be simply commentary based upon unknown methods of interpretation, but the reality is most of what I do comment on are the application of principles. A good example of such commentary is the recent discussion of personal versus impersonal love. As conceded, there is not one specific verse which utilizes the personal/impersonal designation.
Rather, throughout the whole of Scripture, we see the principle made excrutiatingly clear by virtue of known principles relative to the nature of God and the nature of man.
That commentary doesn't just seem to be insupportable by verse: it is wholly insupportable... by individual verse. However, when verse is compared to verse, passage to passage, known to known, the mosaic of the principles make themselves revealed. Living a life based upon the superficial truth of solitary verses can yield salvation (as long one has the right response to the right verse, of course). Such a life, however, will never yield maturity or wisdom.
