O crooked, winding wooded lane,
So mean a portal to another sphere!
Would that I by walking gain
That world which to be near does feign,
But by my seeing slips away,
Retreating to a place more pure.
Art thou what appearance would try
To render thee, my eyesight its device?
Art thou, in truth, a road so high,
Or is this portal but mine eye,
This sphere but within me lay,
And psychology suffice?
O nature, whom wouldst thou befriend?
Which sphere will have thee, in the end?
© micah carpenter
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I began this with the intention of expressing some musings on philosophy and theology, and that is the form it will probably continue to take, although it may be somewhat sporadic, maleable, and apt to reflect whatever might randomly be on my mind when I happen to be in a blogging mood. As the name suggests, I hope it that it remains a central goal to work towards intellectual honesty.
2 comments:
Discussion continued...
As you've described, different belief systems have different terms for this kind of spiritual experience. I believe the Scholastic philosophers refered to is as sensus divintus. I believe that it can be experienced in many different ways. I think we might have previously meantioned such things as moral conscience, the beauty we see in nature, love, etc, as forms of divine revelation. I'm not really sure what is meant by a 'higher state of consciousness', but I know that glimmers of the divine can be seen or felt through many things. But maybe this description presupposes my own world view.
I was thinking more about the relationship between ideas and matter, and about how we cannot create anything new in the material sense; we create new ideas by which we reorganize material to conform to them. This really ties in with my philosophical concept of God as well: I believe that He transcends the material existence we know, so that He can create material purely from idea, but that He also must in sense have a material component to His existence, perhaps a higher order of material existence, so that his ideas can be active, not just potential. Does this make any sense? Sorry if I'm presupposing my worldview again. maybe I've just spent too much time reading Aquinas.
Your "bunch of cheesiness" about my universe and your universe being directed by our personal decisions sounds very existencialist. In some ways, I think of myself as a Christian existencialist, so I found this interesting. And don't worry about cheesiness, I suspect that much of metaphysics is that by nature.
"Perhaps God would send [self-conscious and self-reflective life forms on other planets] their own ambassador?"
Yes, I certainly believe this is reasonable. If they exist, we don't really know anything about their situation, but if they are like us, it seems likely that God would appear to them in a similar manifestation. Like I said before, the possibility of life elsewhere doesn't change the game, but makes the playing field bigger.
Now, about my denomination and beliefs here: I've grown up in a fairly conservative Evangelical church, with whom I would not, I expect, have a large amount of theological differences with. (Although I honestly don't really know what most of them would say to you about this issue.) I believe that God has given all peoples signs within their own cultures (including moral awareness) that point to Him. (As an asside, Don Richardson has written a fascinating book about this called Eternity in Their Hearts.) I believe that all people who earnestly seek God in their hearts through these signs truly find Him. (Matthew 7:7-8) Because this is internal by nature, between God and the individual, I don't think we can ever truly know that someone is or isn't saved (or goes to heaven, or is reconciled with God, whatever term you want to use.) I think that it's really a good thing that we aren't given this knowledge. Therefore, whoever told you to expect hellfire was speaking about something he could know nothing about, on top of being offensive. Yet I would assert if anyone is saved, it must be through what Christ has done. Whether or not they must be personally aware of Christ to be saved through Him is a theological matter that I'm not completely certain about. Like I said, all religions provide some explanation as to how to be morally right with God. Christianity is unique: rather than simply giving moral teaching on what we should or shouldn't do, it addresses the fact that none of us can measure up perfectly; no one can, by his own moral efforts, by deserving of salvation before God. That's what is unique about Christ: many can teach moral truth, but only God in the flesh can satisfy God's perfect righteousness on our behalf. Again, I believe it is certainly possible that people can be saved even if they haven't heard of Christ: (or Christ by that name) I don't think were told that, but it was Christ who made it possible before God. This, I think explains my view of this question within my worldview. God can (I believe has) revealed certain truths to all people, and if anyone seeks Him truly, He can save them through Christ.
"I think you would need to make unreasonable assumptions to begin to question something like [water being wet], when disbelief in knowlege is more unreasonable than making assumptions.'
I would agree with this completely. In fact, it leads me to believe that we've mostly been playing word games and missing each other's meaning here. I like the term "reasonably justified knowledge"; I think it applies to what I've meant by faith. The word "faith" to me has some other connotations on top of this, such as that is something we've chosen to act upon, and also may not be immediately visible: I know that electrons exist, even though I haven't directly seen one.
By the way, I just have to say thanks for this discussion. I know very few people with whom I can discuss these kinds of things, and those who I do know mostly share my beliefs, which means I can't learn nearly as much
Long post? It's fine. It actually annoys when some people assume that any idea or aurgument can be suffiently summed up in a brief statement or cute little cliche.
I'm glad that you find my theology of salvation pleasing. Many of my faith would certainly disagree with me here; however, I believe that I have taken my ideas from a firm respect for what the Bible actually says, as well as where my reasoning brings me. What saddens me is how many Christians (Calvinists mainly) are actually offended by the idea that Jesus died for all people, and not just a select few. (A "few" which includes them, of course.) This idea, along with the type of thinking that leads people push the message "If you haven't heard the gospel, it's straight to hell with you", falls under the same category as that which Paul accused of a group of Jews who persecuted Christians in the name of God: "They have zeal, but it is without knowledge." In many ways, it seems as though some regard their fundamentalism as a higher authority than the real message of Scripture. I would, however, technically disagree that we can be saved without knowing Christ: to be saved IS to know Christ. We might not know His name, or have heard about Him, but in seeking God through the way He has provided, I believe His message of salvation is revealed. When we have been saved, we have known the salvation of God, ergo, Christ.
About 1 John 5:13: John is discussing whether personal awareness of one's own salvation, not what other people can know. I believe my faith in my own salvation is well founded, because I am aware of my relationship with God that has been restored by Jesus Christ. To say the same for other would require looking into his or her mind, or the mind of God.
And a clarification on calling myself a Christian existentialist: there are many ways in which I am not an existentialist it all. I don't believe that we can truly create meaning or values; these are indelible and eternal qualities of the universal system in which we exist. I do regard human free will as being of very high value, and agree with kieregaard's emphasis on the individual relation to the absolute. Meaning, while not at all to be created by the individual, can ultimately be recognized, understood, and chosen within the individual consciousness. This in turn requires a response that transcends this sphere, and recognizes obligations to others, society, and God. With reference to my previous statement that we have an ultimate duty to WHAT we are as beings, all such duties are to God, being that which created us for a purpose. However, DUTY can only exist in respect to that very consideration of what we were made to be; i.e., what we are. This sums up much of my theistic philosophy.
Now, about conscious energy: I am truly very interested in these ideas here. I was happy to find that you have your own blog about that. How about if I post something there? That seems like a better spot for that particular discussion. Thanks.
Post a Comment