neo-existentialism

[Kane Augustus]

we have talked about different aspects of theological method that allow us to discuss "the unknown."

I wasn't part of those discussions, as you know. So I'm not going to assume anything for anyone here; I'm simply going to work from what I currently understand to be the case.

The aspect of science being used as the gate keeper of all reality and kicking out anything that doesn't conform to the appellation "scientific knowledge" is just setting up preconceived categories that enshrine the subject/object dichotomy and that in itself is what Heidegger calls "metaphysics."

That's fine. You're making assumptions for me, however. I'm not enshrining science as the sole means of knowing. Scientism is just as flawed as positivism -- and along the same lines, too -- and Michael Polanyi did a commendable job of demonstrating as much. Art, music, abstract maths, these are all ways of knowing, too. As is intuition. The connection between these means of knowing, however, is that they have referrents in reality. Something that is transcendent of testable reality has no reference in reality. The fact that you can utilise a metaphor to describe what you assume may be the nature or 'likeness' of a transcendent thing does not make that metaphor a reality-based reference; it does make the metaphor an approximation of what is definitionally unknowable (i.e., the transcendent).

Science is a social construct.

Yes. As is theology, philosophy, sociology, psychology, et al. Stating as much doesn't accomplish anything. Whatever means we have to communicate what we percieve are ways of communication that people have come up with. Thus they are social constructs. But this observation is unhelpful. In a formal debate, unless you gave some further context to your thoughts on this matter, your likely response would be, "What's your point?"

The universe doesn't come with little labels on it, we should allow the phenomena to suggest it's own categories.

If we weren't labeling the universe via our "social constructs" what do you think the universe would communicate to us beyond its brute presence? People are noun-makers. The constituent parts of the universe are what are nounified (if I can make up a word for the fun of it) for the pleasure and purpose of the universe's inhabitants. Placing a noun on something that is simultaneously touted to be unknowable (i.e., transcendent), like 'God', communicates only that we we've given a noun to a contradiction: make something up, say it's unknowable, and then name it. Such manouevers are no more than verbal capering, a mental tripping of the light fantastic (to borrow from Chaucer). How much further would you or I be if I presented you with the thought, "I have contact with this thing I can't know because it's transcendent so I'll call it the All-Pervading Inclaca?"

[Kane Augustus]

Meta, great answer!! Thanks for doing that. U made it easy for me.

Meta's answer, as much as I appreciate his response, didn't accomplish anything. At least, not as far as I can tell.

I'm also not sure the 'offical pulpit' version of xianity should be blaniketly considered the 'official' one - assumed to hold the definite position of the faith - as our true founder, Christ, neither wrote any of the writs nor founded any of the institutions.

Did he inspire the writ? Did he inspire the institution that confesses him, the church? How far are you willing to regress your position?

Also, what both the 'writs' and the traditions say (about redemption/salvation/reconciliation or what-have-you) is far more complex than u suggest here, Kane. We've been arguing amounst ourselves about those kinds of things since the very beginning. ( And if I wasn't feeling so summery and lazy, I might even cut 'n paste some stuff to demonstrate that to you...)

Yes, I'm quite aware. I used to be a Lutheran minister. I still have my copy of the Book of Concord on my shelf; it's a good reference, though sadly out of favour with Catholics.

In any case, it really is that simple when it boils down to it: inclusivism, exclusivism, and universalism. You can toss neo-theistic conceptions in if you want to, or even preterist positions, too. In the end, they fit squarely into one of those three categories.

And like I mentioned to Metacrock, I wasn't part of those discussions, so I'm not going to assume anything about anyone's discussions here. Arguing that because you've had discussions around here about these sorts of things, therefore you can leave off explaining the position(s) you hold is not an argument, or even a helpful discussion tactic. It is dismissive. And I don't blame you for your dismissiveness, not at all. If I were feeling all summery and lazy, I would likely be dismissive, too.

[Metacrock]

we have talked about different aspects of theological method that allow us to discuss "the unknown."

I wasn't part of those discussions, as you know. So I'm not going to assume anything for anyone here; I'm simply going to work from what I currently understand to be the case.

fair nough

The aspect of science being used as the gate keeper of all reality and kicking out anything that doesn't conform to the appellation "scientific knowledge" is just setting up preconceived categories that enshrine the subject/object dichotomy and that in itself is what Heidegger calls "metaphysics."

That's fine. You're making assumptions for me, however. I'm not enshrining science as the sole means of knowing. Scientism is just as flawed as positivism -- and along the same lines, too -- and Michael Polanyi did a commendable job of demonstrating as much. Art, music, abstract maths, these are all ways of knowing, too. As is intuition. The connection between these means of knowing, however, is that they have referrents in reality.

good man!

Something that is transcendent of testable reality has no reference in reality.

that's an assumption not in evidence.

The fact that you can utilise a metaphor to describe what you assume may be the nature or 'likeness' of a transcendent thing does not make that metaphor a reality-based reference; it does make the metaphor an approximation of what is definitionally unknowable (i.e., the transcendent).

true. That's all we need. We don't need for transcendent things to be testable scientifically becuase they are not scientifically. They not made up we have reasons for believing in them, we can use metaphors to talk about them. That's all we need, other than experience of them.

we can experience them. The metaphor is just a means of talking about the experience.

Science is a social construct.

Yes. As is theology, philosophy, sociology, psychology, et al. Stating as much doesn't accomplish anything.

O I think it accomplishes a couple of things. Since you agree that all of the above is a construct then we don't need the kind of precision in dealing with it that we do in scinece.

Recognizing the socially constructed nature of science exposes the pretensions of "umpire of reality" that people attach to science.

Whatever means we have to communicate what we percieve are ways of communication that people have come up with. Thus they are social constructs. But this observation is unhelpful. In a formal debate, unless you gave some further context to your thoughts on this matter, your likely response would be, "What's your point?"

we are not in a formal debate. On the other hand, if we argue about the results of having had an experience of the transcendent that is falsifiable. It's just a matter of what one wishes to discuss.

The universe doesn't come with little labels on it, we should allow the phenomena to suggest it's own categories.

If we weren't labeling the universe via our "social constructs" what do you think the universe would communicate to us beyond its brute presence?

no. that's my point. we stick the labels on stuff, they are not there to find.

People are noun-makers. The constituent parts of the universe are what are nounified (if I can make up a word for the fun of it) for the pleasure and purpose of the universe's inhabitants. Placing a noun on something that is simultaneously touted to be unknowable (i.e., transcendent), like 'God', communicates only that we we've given a noun to a contradiction: make something up, say it's unknowable, and then name it. Such manouevers are no more than verbal capering, a mental tripping of the light fantastic (to borrow from Chaucer). How much further would you or I be if I presented you with the thought, "I have contact with this thing I can't know because it's transcendent so I'll call it the All-Pervading Inclaca?"

That's not really in contradiction to my point.

[Metacrock]

And like I mentioned to Metacrock, I wasn't part of those discussions, so I'm not going to assume anything about anyone's discussions here. Arguing that because you've had discussions around here about these sorts of things, therefore you can leave off explaining the position(s) you hold is not an argument, or even a helpful discussion tactic. It is dismissive. And I don't blame you for your dismissiveness, not at all. If I were feeling all summery and lazy, I would likely be dismissive, too.

Hey Kane glad you are here. It did two things. I think I have a real point to make. That would be that we don't the kind of precision to babel to falsify transcendence that we have with scientific questions. Glad to see you taking part. I hope you stick and really get into it.

[met]

met wrote:Also, what both the 'writs' and the traditions say (about redemption/salvation/reconciliation or what-have-you) is far more complex than u suggest here, Kane. We've been arguing amounst ourselves about those kinds of things since the very beginning. ( And if I wasn't feeling so summery and lazy, I might even cut 'n paste some stuff to demonstrate that to you...)

....

And like I mentioned to Metacrock, I wasn't part of those discussions, so I'm not going to assume anything about anyone's discussions here. Arguing that because you've had discussions around here about these sorts of things, therefore you can leave off explaining the position(s) you hold is not an argument, or even a helpful discussion tactic. It is dismissive. And I don't blame you for your dismissiveness, not at all. If I were feeling all summery and lazy, I would likely be dismissive, too.

LOL. No, I meant xians in general have been arguing amoungst ourselves, not us on this board. So I could have quoted stuff (like Matt 25 or whateve)r that suggest salvation is by works. For a start. But felt too lazy. Good thing too, since u used to be a lutheran minister and are aware of all this stuff.... *whew!*

[sgttomas]

there is no god but God; the ever-living, self-sufficient fount of all being.

[Kane Augustus]

there is no god but God; the ever-living, self-sufficient fount of all being.

Demonstrate this to be true. Don't simply assert it; show it. If what you claim is true, you would do well to show it to be so.

[sgttomas]

Did he inspire the writ? Did he inspire the institution that confesses him, the church? How far are you willing to regress your position?

as far as the holy spirit guides them.

Yes, I'm quite aware. I used to be a Lutheran minister. I still have my copy of the Book of Concord on my shelf; it's a good reference, though sadly out of favour with Catholics.

ex-lutherans make good Muslims
-sgtt

[met]

Kane Augustus wrote:Did he inspire the writ? Did he inspire the institution that confesses him, the church? How far are you willing to regress your position?


as far as the holy spirit guides them.

That's right!!!! .... we're willing to regress exactly that far..... but, are u speaking for us now????

[mdsimpson92]

Everyone forgets the orthodox church. From what I have read there is a somewhat universalist tendency in that church.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles7 ... vation.php

I didn't forget the Orthodox church. I purposefully included the dominant Western traditions because I'm not very familiar with the Eastern Orthodox church. I do know that, like you suggested, the EOC tends toward universalism, which is expressed through their concept of the divination of humanity. As a non-Christian, I can say that that concept is far more appealing than what is taught in the other denominations I listed.

Fair enough. I guess also that those western traditions would be those which the rest of us (as far as you knew) are more familiar with. What is that concept called, theosis?