I like to make boxes, but life is outside of them.Do you really mean that or would you really like to create the most satisfying and secure box?
I like to make boxes, but life is outside of them.Do you really mean that or would you really like to create the most satisfying and secure box?
The Incarnation has nothing to do with evolution, which itself suggests a temporal process. The Incarnation is an atemporal event in that sense. Nor can one say that from anthropomorphic to theomorphic is an evolutionary step ... as it is not the product of a natural process, but a supernatural one.
"It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures." Simone Weil
I agree. The process concerns the vertical line of being of the Cross. the horizontal line indicates linear time while the vertical line refers to the quality of now. Vertical time is really the repetition of a moment. Repetition gives it its body.The Incarnation has nothing to do with evolution, which itself suggests a temporal process. The Incarnation is an atemporal event in that sense. Nor can one say that from anthropomorphic to theomorphic is an evolutionary step ... as it is not the product of a natural process, but a supernatural one.
Again, Arius posited that the world was not created by God, but by a divine agent ... what no-one seems to realise is that when the likes of Alexander, Athanasius and Hilary stood up to Arius, they were defending the idea of Union with the Divine ... if Arius had his way, 'God the Father' would remain forever inaccessible, unknowable, unapproachable ... the gulf between creature and creator would be absolute.
"The course of heaven is outside time--and yet time comes from its movements. Nothing hinders the soul's knowledge of God as much as time and space, for time and space are fragments, whereas God is one! And therefore, if the soul is to know God, it must know him above time and outside of space; for God is neither this nor that, as are these manifold things. God is one!"
From the Catholic as well, yours is a much more precise definition ... thank you.From an Orthodox perspective, the Incarnation was completely temporal. It is the Begetting that is atemporal.
Music to mine ears.That is to say, while there was never a time when the Son did not exist, there was a time when the Incarnation had not happened.
I hope so ...Your assessment of the Patristic vs. the Arian syntheses regarding the relationship of God to humanity is pretty much within my own Church's teachings.
Oh, I was not offering a refutation of Arianism, per se, just making a point. If I was doing that, I'd be much more precise.You misunderstand Arianism quite substantially.
Whoa! Given what? Could you give me the citation upon which you base this assertion?... given the Arian belief in reincarnation,
Nope ... Arius states that the Son is God ... not adopted, nor promoted, nor elevated, nor enlightened ... and again how can man aspire to be equal in moral rectitude to God, who alone is perfect?even the 'demiurge' was not necessary in the very long term because everyone had that opportunity to perfect themselves to the moral level of Jesus and be taken to God because of that.
The Church wasn't necessary, Jesus wasn't necessary and the Emperor was just another guy.Well Arius wouldn't agree with the first two assertions, would he — that would mean saying God wasn't necessary. And he was a churchman, after all ... so either he's a hypocrite, or you've got it wrong.
I think you're letting your own opinions hold sway here?
Well let's get that right.Arianism was a threat to the bishops because it denied the Trinity and therefore, in their view, the Mystery of God.
Arius doesn't deny the Trinity, does he? He states that the Father is God, and the Son is God, so there's two, and I've never read anything on him denying the Holy Spirit. How he sees the Trinity is wrong, but he hasn't denied it.
No ... read him again ... he states explicitly that the Son is God. Created ... but God.As Arius himself said in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate." He saw God as One without another. Christ was viewed as the most perfect creature in the material world, whose moral integrity led him to be "adopted" by God as a son but who nevertheless remained a secondary deity, or Logos substantially unlike the eternal, uncreated Father and subordinate to his will.
This meant, as I indicated above, especially considering the Arius also supported reincarnation, that others, in fact, everyone, could eventually rise to a high enough level of moral integrity to also be ‘adopted’ by God. They may not attain God status but they certainly could attain Jesus status.
Curious then ... that no Council has ever condemned reincarnation (they have condemned 'the Origenist theory' posed by some, not naming or condemning Origen himself, of the transmigration of the soul of an individual person — and who indeed is arguably innocent of the accusation, see Julian Edwards "Origen against Plato"); no Pope has ever condemned a reincarnationist heresy ... when on the other hand we have affirmed more scandalous and apparently fantastic and outrageous doctrines ... and no Doctor, Saint, Father or Mystic has ever taken to task a Christian who claims reincarnationist theory.Arianism was a threat to both the Emperor and the Church because it supported reincarnation... The bishops were threatened because with reincarnation, one did not need them to come eventually to God. The Emperor was threatened because every one was divine under Arianism and equal to, if not more equal than him.
In short, we never mentioned it, because it was never an issue.
May I ask — are you a follower of the Theosophical Association? I only ask because they seem obsessed with insisting, in the face of every evidence to the contrary, that Christianity taught reincarnation.
Thomas
I like to make boxes, but life is outside of them.
I'm not sure how you determine 'governed by consciousness' —As I understand it, the universe is governed by consciousness and mechanical laws.
In Patristic metaphysics, they speak of the Son as Principle (Gk: Logos and/or Arche) and the Father as Principle without Principle (Arche Anarchos).The son deals with the possible while the father initiates creation which is impossible from within creation.
Indeed. Is not the infinite always 'NOW', whereas the finite is 'NOW' only momentarily, being fixed as it appears, and thus becomes history and in that sense 'written' ... ?The finite is within what we call the infinite but that doesn't deny the greater context of "NOW" itself within which the infinite exists.
Precisely. The created is not its creator.It would seem that as long as creation exists there must be a distinction between creator and creature.
Yes to the latter bit — the body is just the material form of the soul, it's not other than the soul in that aspect. But then, in the reports of beatific and even bliss experience, people record fragrances, sounds, colours, sensations, all consonant with the order of their experience. This is how the body knows God.Meister Eckhart seems to accept God being outside time and space and it is only the soul that can know God.
It does, but I must decline. I'm doing a degree course (BA Divinity), and plan to go on beyond that, so I cannot commit to such a project. Good luck with it.As an aside ... Does such a project interest you?
real christians stick to what the bible REALLY teaches . now where is my scotch glassHey, 'real' Christians don't drink......scotch.
I did wonder. Had it not been you, I would have prepared myself for another round of Church-bashing.Thomas metanoia was in a sense what I have in mind when I think about going outside the box-the box of the mind-heart.
Therein lies the problem as I would see it? How can one conceptualise beyond the conceptual? Or think beyond the thinkable, without the risk of going off into pure fantasy ... or madness?It is beyond any conceputalizing per se.
I think there is an element of inarguable common sense in there somewhere ... It seems to me that if you're a Christian, the Tradition sets the parameters, if you're a Buddhist, the Tradition, etc., etc.Now you do seem to propose that one needs to stay within a particular box of practice to achieve metanoia and that I do not necessarily disagree with. Earl
no bashing, "said the soldier to the priest"...I did wonder. Had it not been you, I would have prepared myself for another round of Church-bashing.
I appreciate that Q. My attempts to push at the margins of any box are not meant as any form of bashing. Just simply trying to look at things from pehaps unexpected angles. earlno bashing, "said the soldier to the priest"...
I don't think Earl is the type anyway. He just plays a good game of chess, and likes to discuss things during the game. I personally like that.
Hmm, as steel sharpens steel...I appreciate that Q. My attempts to push at the margins of any box are not meant as any form of bashing. Just simply trying to look at things from pehaps unexpected angles. earl
When one considers that Revelation, by its nature, unveils that which is inaccessible to the human faculty, then 'thinking outside the box' is shown for what it actually is, an attempt to bring everything into one's zone of comfort.
Actually Kiwi, it's both. It speaks of the past, and warns of the future, should man continue on the path he is on...that my friend, is thinking outside of the box.That is, of course, only IF you accept that Revelation is a prophetic book. It is not, it is apocalyptic, it's contents refer almost entirely to the early Christian period and the various persecutions suffered by the Christian community then.
That is, of course, only IF you accept that Revelation is a prophetic book. It is not, it is apocalyptic, it's contents refer almost entirely to the early Christian period and the various persecutions suffered by the Christian community then.
And yet I agree ... but then for us, full metanoia is a gift of the Holy Spirit — the 'meta' aspect is beyond the human into the divine — by adoption or as we say, filiation, although I prefer the Orthodox term theosis. So we don't work metanoia, it is worked in us ... by our incorporation into a greater nature than our own.Full metanoia to me is nothing less than a radical opening of one's heart-mind which one cannot think themselves to-i.e., it's not simply an affirmation of beliefs which is why I said you cannot think your way to it. take care, earl