As long as one accepts that the 'knowing' is relative and provisional. To know something assumes the knower is equal or greater than the thing known, and man is not that in relation to God.Do you agree then Thomas that we as humans can know "who" God is?
So we can know God as much as God reveals Himself to us.
If we cannot say 'what', then we can hardly say 'who' with any accuracy.It is my experience that we can. We can know "who", but, we cannot know exactly "what".
In the Abrahamic Traditions, God comes to us as us, that is God communicates to the person as a person, or more accurately God communicates to the person as Person — that is, as the Principle of Being — but we should always be mindful that God is not a person (therefore not a who) and God is not a thing (therefore not a what), as we know persons and things to be.
Agreed, for that, and many other forms, are natural forms of worship. I would call it worship on the horizontal plane. A saying of the Fathers goes: 'Love God, and love thy neighbour, for where thy neighbour is, there God is'It was in my experience that a nice form of worship is to walk down the street on a nice sunny day, and, simply look all around, and wave, saying Hi Mom, Hi Dad, Hi Sun, Love ya.
Then there is prayer, which is the highest form of worship man can aspire to.
Then there is the Divine Liturgy.
So if and when the sun burns out, God burns out too?Truly I say, the only begotten Sun of God is the Sun. That is the extent of any "trinity".
It's a matter of seeing beyond the veils. People assume that Christianity 'took over' pagan traditions as a means of subverting the people, this is wrong. It's not a case of subversion, it's a case of seeing the truth symbolised (or occluded) by the forms.
The sun is the source of life-giving light in this system, and for the Christian, the analogy to God is immediate and obvious, but the Christian does not worship the sun.
In that sense however, all creation is an eikon, every offering a Eucharist, if the heart is in the right place.
Well, I would say that creation is the movement from nothing to something, from nothing to the essence, from essence to substance ... so the process begins in the dark and emerges into the light.Which brings me to a question. Why do you suppose that every single day of creation in Genesis 1 ends with the passage "and the evening and the morning were the days". All of them. Why do you suppose that is?"
He did:Why also do you suppose that the only day that God did not "see it as good", was day 2.
"And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. God also said:... "
so we are still in the second day,
"... God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good." (v 6-10)
If you check the text, God sees what He has made and sees it as good seven times, the seventh being 'very good'.
God bless,
Thomas