"Creation reflects the creator - male and female, both intrinsic parts of divinity - it is EVERYWHERE in nature. Therefore the image of the Godhead should reflect that reality"

-Oshun's signature


Thoughts?



Salaam...
Original Post
That's at least correct.

If we apply our conception of God through the lens of our Earthly experience, then since we are all born of a woman, shouldn't God be female? 15
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
That's at least correct.

If we apply our conception of God through the lens of our Earthly experience, then since we are all born of a woman, shouldn't God be female? 15


Using this logic, shouldn't the term used be 'Godess' instead of 'God'?...and Creatrix instead of Creator?...I had to add that...

Personally, I like balance, so I don't think eliminating the sacred masculine(expansive) quality of the divine isn't a good idea, because both are necessary.

But a minimized masculine image seems logical to demonstrate the feminine primacy(since we all come from womb-man, as you pointed out)....hhhhmmmm....looks like that already exists...

Last edited {1}
In "Thoughts on The Relationship Between Men & Women

Radio show "On the Black Side" with host David Jones 1982 (Minnesota)", my Sensei once said,

"The opening move of the Martial Arts is a "bow". One hand is a fist and one hand is opened. The hand that's opened supresses the fist and pushes it down. That means "I can fight", but I perfer not to. And its the same thing with people. When you get into the Martial Arts and you learn about life, you learn that you got half of you from your father; in the sense that you got your spirit from your father. But, you got your body from your mother. So, therefore, you have to accept the Yin in you; the ability for compassion; the ability for art; music and all of this. This is not a masculine trait as a lot of people think, this is a feminine trait.

Its this short; if you can accept your mother in you, that half of you that she contributed, then you're in good shape. Until you can accept that, you're too hard, you're trying to prove you're a man. Once you accept that you're a man, then you stop trying to prove it. Because you know it. This doesn't mean that you don't have insecurities, fears, anxioties; and what have you. It means that you've learned to deal with them.

In relation to men and women, I don't think that there's too many men and women around. I think there's alot of males and females. And that is the problem.

Women will never be liberated, until men are."


The woman does not carry both the X & Y chromosomes; the man carries them both. Therefore, (in correct balance) when one mentions "man", one is mentioning both sides of the nature of people. One who is not balanced sees the need to emphasize the singular sides of the one whole.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
That's at least correct.

If we apply our conception of God through the lens of our Earthly experience, then since we are all born of a woman, shouldn't God be female? 15


Using this logic, shouldn't the term used be 'Godess' instead of 'God'?...and Creatrix instead of Creator?...I had to add that...


But . . . if our conception of the divine being were, in fact, female - then the word "God" would naturally imply the feminine. Sort of the inverse of the assumption you just made! 16
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
That's at least correct.

If we apply our conception of God through the lens of our Earthly experience, then since we are all born of a woman, shouldn't God be female? 15


Using this logic, shouldn't the term used be 'Godess' instead of 'God'?...and Creatrix instead of Creator?...I had to add that...


But . . . if our conception of the divine being were, in fact, female - then the word "God" would naturally imply the feminine. Sort of the inverse of the assumption you just made! 16


I see what you are saying. But the masses of humanity have a 'father God' image deeply ingrained in their subconscious. So to counterbalance that masculine concept using the feminine version of the word would be more effective in bringing balance to the planets God/Godess concept.

Also the origin of the word itself causes a problem but I won't nit-pick...

God was actually Gott Germanic/tuetonic description of divinity...the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship...we also get 'goat from this word...

quote:
Originally posted by One:
....the ability for compassion; the ability for art; music and all of this. This is not a masculine trait as a lot of people think, this is a feminine trait.....

The woman does not carry both the X & Y chromosomes; the man carries them both. Therefore, (in correct balance) when one mentions "man", one is mentioning both sides of the nature of people. One who is not balanced sees the need to emphasize the singular sides of the one whole.


I have been doing some deep-thinking about this concept lately. I will frame my theory for myself as a man.

I see it that both masculine and feminine parts reside in man's mind/brain. The rational mind is the masculine and the emotional mind is the feminine. Both are necessary but one leads and one follows, one is dominant and one is supporting. The internal struggle is for the mind of reason to get the emotional mind under its control and regulation, using the resources of emotion appropriately. If the will of the emotional mind is not organized by the rational mind, irrationality and impulsiveness is the result.

My thinking is influenced by the subject of Emotional Intelligence that I'm currently studying.
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
...emotion and rationality are cooperative not hiearchial...


I agree....My initial contribution was about unbalance with a heavy emotional tilt; emotions out-of-control impede the intellect and should be brought back into line.

But likewise, emotion deficiency would be just as hindering. So I agree that the goal is for cooperation and sync between the two polarities.
quote:
I see what you are saying. But the masses of humanity have a 'father God' image deeply ingrained in their subconscious. So to counterbalance that masculine concept using the feminine version of the word would be more effective in bringing balance to the planets God/Godess concept.

Also the origin of the word itself causes a problem but I won't nit-pick...

God was actually Gott Germanic/tuetonic description of divinity...the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship...we also get 'goat from this word...


Preach, Sista, Preach! You all need to watch out for Oshun Auset before she turns this motha out! LOL
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
.... the masses of humanity have a 'father God' image deeply ingrained in their subconscious. So to counterbalance that masculine concept using the feminine version of the word would be more effective in bringing balance to the planets God/Godess concept.


I agree to some extent... to be truly accurate though shouldn't there be a genderless word to represent the original birth of both essences?
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
.... the masses of humanity have a 'father God' image deeply ingrained in their subconscious. So to counterbalance that masculine concept using the feminine version of the word would be more effective in bringing balance to the planets God/Godess concept.


I agree to some extent... to be truly accurate though shouldn't there be a genderless word to represent the original birth of both essences?


A genderless, or rather balanced word/symbol is ideal...hence in my first post I said...

"Personally, I like balance, so I don't think eliminating the sacred masculine(expansive) quality of the divine isn't a good idea, because both are necessary.

But a minimized masculine image seems logical to demonstrate the feminine primacy(since we all come from womb-man, as you pointed out)."

We must realize we live in a patriarchal dominated world. Therefore, if we use a genderless word/symbol, in an pre-existing imbalanced world/worldview, with an imbalanced god/goddess concept...We allow patriarchy(imbalance) to naturally override. Automatically, a patriarchal character/quality will be ascribed to a genderless God/Goddes-concept. In fact, we see this happen all the time. Pronouns like 'he' or 'him' are often applied to God/Godess-concepts that are already 'genderless' because of patriarchy. Words like 'God' rather than 'Godess' are preferred to describe/label the infinate and genderless source because of patriarchy...to the point that if you say 'she', 'her', or some other feminine description to many of the Abrahamic religions, like 'Godess' people assume one is a femanist or a 'pagan'. There is no actual 'counterbalance' to the already extremely patriarchal global "Father God" conceopt that now dominates by using a genderless word/symbol. It's too vague to counterbalance anything.

Hence, honestly I think single incarnation 'monotheism' is dangerous. I personally think the ancients were Pantheistic monotheists(mislabelled polytheists) for a reason. Pantheism allows one to have 'One source'/consciousness/energy with many manifestations. This allows for the mutliplicity of the devine to be 'overstood' in all of creation. It prevents a purely masculine or feminine concept from overriding(which is what patriarchy is, and is doing).
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Hence, honestly I think single incarnation 'monotheism' is dangerous. I personally think the ancients were Pantheistic monotheists(mislabelled polytheists) for a reason. Pantheism allows one to have 'One source'/consciousness/energy with many manifestations. This allows for the mutliplicity of the devine to be 'overstood' in all of creation. It prevents a purely masculine or feminine concept from overriding(which is what patriarchy is, and is doing).


Personally, I lean towards a strict materialist panentheistic viewpoint...
its not complicated its simple. Naturally how is a child produced. Whats the process, what does the man give and what does the woman give. Whats at the essence of these two?
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Hence, honestly I think single incarnation 'monotheism' is dangerous. I personally think the ancients were Pantheistic monotheists(mislabelled polytheists) for a reason. Pantheism allows one to have 'One source'/consciousness/energy with many manifestations. This allows for the mutliplicity of the devine to be 'overstood' in all of creation. It prevents a purely masculine or feminine concept from overriding(which is what patriarchy is, and is doing).


Personally, I lean towards a strict materialist panentheistic viewpoint...


tfro rock
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
its not complicated its simple. Naturally how is a child produced. Whats the process, what does the man give and what does the woman give. Whats at the essence of these two?

Would you care to unpack this a bit? Particularly with respect to the analogy, and the necessity/naturalness of it appertaining to the nature of the divine.
As a group of faithful believers ... we are the bride of Christ. Pure, blameless, and without spot.

We honor God and the wisdom he teaches us as our mother, Wisdom.
quote:
Originally posted by DivineJoy:
As a group of faithful believers ... we are the bride of Christ. Pure, blameless, and without spot.

We honor God and the wisdom he teaches us as our mother, Wisdom.


The concept of the goddess is an actual woman or female deity...

not a man or group of people that take on the personification of the likeness of a divine woman... but a woman that carries divinity in her own right...
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
The concept of the goddess is an actual woman or female deity...

not a man or group of people that take on the personification of the likeness of a divine woman... but a woman that carries divinity in her own right...

Not in my world...
quote:
Originally posted by DivineJoy:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
The concept of the goddess is an actual woman or female deity...

not a man or group of people that take on the personification of the likeness of a divine woman... but a woman that carries divinity in her own right...

Not in my world...


This much is obvious... your world is definitely discordant to what exists in the rational reasonable minds of the rest of the constituents participating in this dialogue...


much peace and sanity to you beloved...

I bid you adieu..
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
"Creation reflects the creator - male and female, both intrinsic parts of divinity - it is EVERYWHERE in nature. Therefore the image of the Godhead should reflect that reality"

-Oshun's signature


Thoughts?



Salaam...


In a nutshell, I embrace the motherfather god concept. I see balance in it as I believe there is balance in the universe and that we are a part of that universe. Or to bring it even closer to home -a balance in nature.

When I refer to god like, "he", it's do to my have being conditioned with regard to someone's concept of divinity. As a result, I've worked on self reconditioning for sometime and it's getting better.

I'm working on making it a habit of refering to "god" as [the] creative forces in the universe (or cosmos -which ever comes to mind) or motherfathergod.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
That's at least correct.

If we apply our conception of God through the lens of our Earthly experience, then since we are all born of a woman, shouldn't God be female? 15


Sometimes I wonder if we're going down a slippery slope of trying to determine the gender of the Supreme Being. Just suppose (being devil's advocate-no pun intended), if God is a woman, is it possible that Satan can be a woman also? I'm just curious that those who describe God as a female, somehow (whether accidentally or intentionally) describe the devil as male, unless there was no other option. If Satan is evil, is he evil because he defied God or is he evil because he's male?

I could be horrendously wrong, but it seems we're trying to portray spiritual beings as guests on the Maury Povich show, (i.e. making God as female, but yet leaving Satan as male, therefore making him the evil "deadbeat dad/baby daddy" of the universe).
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
That's at least correct.

If we apply our conception of God through the lens of our Earthly experience, then since we are all born of a woman, shouldn't God be female? 15


Sometimes I wonder if we're going down a slippery slope of trying to determine the gender of the Supreme Being. Just suppose (being devil's advocate-no pun intended), if God is a woman, is it possible that Satan can be a woman also? I'm just curious that those who describe God as a female, somehow (whether accidentally or intentionally) describe the devil as male, unless there was no other option. If Satan is evil, is he evil because he defied God or is he evil because he's male?

I could be horrendously wrong, but it seems we're trying to portray spiritual beings as guests on the Maury Povich show, (i.e. making God as female, but yet leaving Satan as male, therefore making him the evil "deadbeat dad/baby daddy" of the universe).


Well, for me, a non-X-tian I have no personified 'devil' concept. God is not 'personified' to me either. Masculine and feminine energy...contractive/expansive energy/consciousness... destructive/creative forces... in nature(creation) is SYMBOLIZED by giving aspects and manifestations of nature as male/female... Energy/consciousness that permeates all of nature is a totally different concept than the literal man/womb-man 'being' that you are referring to.
For me, God personified himself (the use of "him" for purposes of me being too lazy to type him/her but paranoid enough to type allathis explanation! lol!)

The human form is the latest manifestation of God's Will...

and is thus inherently manifest through both genders... his Will is known through our actions...
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
Sometimes I wonder if we're going down a slippery slope of trying to determine the gender of the Supreme Being.


We've already gone down the slope since the big 3 [religions] were co-opted and colonized by the thoughs bent on controlling the masses. Symbolism was the rave back then. The meaning is far greater than merely what's between an individual's legs.

As for satan, well, I've heard it said the god is devil in reverse. I heard that and instantly the thought about the yin and the yang. Even still, I interpret it to personify "balance" in nature and in the universe which I dig as well.

With all that said this wouldn't be a big issue if throughout history, and presently, folks wouldn't try to impose and force their god-concept onto others who were doing quite well with their own brand of belief.

We are [in the present] witnessing a spiritual withdraw/side effect from all the religious/spiritual force feeding that has taken place for a couple of a thousand years, at least.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Well, for me, a non-X-tian I have no personified 'devil' concept. God is not 'personified' to me either. Masculine and feminine energy...contractive/expansive energy/consciousness... destructive/creative forces... in nature(creation) is SYMBOLIZED by giving aspects and manifestations of nature as male/female... Energy/consciousness that permeates all of nature is a totally different concept than the literal man/womb-man 'being' that you are referring to.

Well, for me, a Christian, I also have not personified 'devil' or Satan concept. Likewise, I am aware that any personification that I might have of the divine is a subject to the limitations and ambiguities of language and thus, IMHO, should be interpreted as metaphor. I believe that it is first order or naive religion that tries to affix gender to the divine. I believe that this is the phenomenon of projection. I am a proponent of second order approaches that is able to appreciate the myths and legends for the truths that they might be able to impart, without being subject to any forms of literalism.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
Well, for me, a Christian, I also have not personified 'devil' or Satan concept. Likewise, I am aware that any personification that I might have of the divine is a subject to the limitations and ambiguities of language and thus, IMHO, should be interpreted as metaphor. I believe that it is first order or naive religion that tries to affix gender to the divine. I believe that this is the phenomenon of projection. I am a proponent of second order approaches that is able to appreciate the myths and legends for the truths that they might be able to impart, without being subject to any forms of literalism.


And that's one of the many reasons I respect you Kresge... I would personally refer to you as an 'enlightened' X-tian in my everyday speach, not to say that you can't/shouldn't identify as you like, I just choose to designate your ilk's 'difference' from the typical(and IMO majority) 'Father-Godists' that go by the X-tian title also...
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Well, for me, a non-X-tian I have no personified 'devil' concept. God is not 'personified' to me either. Masculine and feminine energy...contractive/expansive energy/consciousness... destructive/creative forces... in nature(creation) is SYMBOLIZED by giving aspects and manifestations of nature as male/female... Energy/consciousness that permeates all of nature is a totally different concept than the literal man/womb-man 'being' that you are referring to.

Well, for me, a Christian, I also have not personified 'devil' or Satan concept. Likewise, I am aware that any personification that I might have of the divine is a subject to the limitations and ambiguities of language and thus, IMHO, should be interpreted as metaphor. I believe that it is first order or naive religion that tries to affix gender to the divine. I believe that this is the phenomenon of projection. I am a proponent of second order approaches that is able to appreciate the myths and legends for the truths that they might be able to impart, without being subject to any forms of literalism.


Brother Kresge...

I am inclined to agree with your assessment.... and if I may, would like to add what I see as a third view... It is neither a first or second order spiritual analysis but one of a higher order...

Some Christian thinkers have come to similar conclusions regarding the connection between God and Man.... This prism, which may not be termed literalist does share common characteristics of the type of thinking you have coined literalist... and that is that material forms, characterized distinctly by their animation, are manifestations of spiritual forces...

If we align ourselves with thinkers such as Rene Descartes (whose analysis would not be categorized among "first order" thinkers...) we find that he describes human beings as being dual in nature.... Part flesh and part spirit... with the flesh carrying the spiritual force of God of which he euphemastically refers to as the "Ghost in a machine"....

Though Descartes ponderings do not ascribe anthropormorphic qualities to God himself, he does affirm the concept of God's existence through human flesh and allows us to recognize our animation is more than automatic response... but is a chosen vehicle for God's Will; God is understood through manifestation through the flesh....

Many Christian philosophers such as Aquinas while arguing for the indivisibility of the essence of God, speak in defense of God's expression through the trinity.... and with his assessment of Jesus, in particular, being more than merely a vessel of God's Will... but that in Jesus' absorption of God's Will through overcoming the flesh... He became a perfect manifestation of God... not a vessel filled with... but a human being imbued with..


I suppose my point here is that whether an empty vessel poured into with the spirit... or whether a person imbued with the spirit... the fact is that the connection between the concept of God and Man is not simply a naive undertaking by primitives of some sort... Roll Eyes some of Christianity's recognized greats... have acknowledged that on some level God is not disconnected from Man.... the question is to what extent... some would argue that it is at the point where the human ceased thinking of himself as divine is where the real break down in higher order thinking began and not the reverse...

Consequently and interestingly enough... this element of nodding recognition in the direction of man's embodiment of the spirit of God.... or man's divine potential... did not transfer to their understanding of the woman.... who remained on the sidelines as spiritual cheerleader, or steadfast sidekick....


Salaam....
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Well, for me, a non-X-tian I have no personified 'devil' concept. God is not 'personified' to me either. Masculine and feminine energy...contractive/expansive energy/consciousness... destructive/creative forces... in nature(creation) is SYMBOLIZED by giving aspects and manifestations of nature as male/female... Energy/consciousness that permeates all of nature is a totally different concept than the literal man/womb-man 'being' that you are referring to.

Well, for me, a Christian, I also have not personified 'devil' or Satan concept. Likewise, I am aware that any personification that I might have of the divine is a subject to the limitations and ambiguities of language and thus, IMHO, should be interpreted as metaphor. I believe that it is first order or naive religion that tries to affix gender to the divine. I believe that this is the phenomenon of projection. I am a proponent of second order approaches that is able to appreciate the myths and legends for the truths that they might be able to impart, without being subject to any forms of literalism.


Brother Kresge...

I am inclined to agree with your assessment.... and if I may, would like to add what I see as a third view... It is neither a first or second order spiritual analysis but one of a higher order...

Some Christian thinkers have come to similar conclusions regarding the connection between God and Man.... This prism, which may not be termed literalist does share common characteristics of the type of thinking you have coined literalist... and that is that material forms, characterized distinctly by their animation, are manifestations of spiritual forces...

If we align ourselves with thinkers such as Rene Descartes (whose analysis would not be categorized among "first order" thinkers...) we find that he describes human beings as being dual in nature.... Part flesh and part spirit... with the flesh carrying the spiritual force of God of which he euphemastically refers to as the "Ghost in a machine"....

Though Descartes ponderings do not ascribe anthropormorphic qualities to God himself, he does affirm the concept of God's existence through human flesh and allows us to recognize our animation is more than automatic response... but is a chosen vehicle for God's Will; God is understood through manifestation through the flesh....

Many Christian philosophers such as Aquinas while arguing for the indivisibility of the essence of God, speak in defense of God's expression through the trinity.... and with his assessment of Jesus, in particular, being more than merely a vessel of God's Will... but that in Jesus' absorption of God's Will through overcoming the flesh... He became a perfect manifestation of God... not a vessel filled with... but a human being imbued with..


I suppose my point here is that whether an empty vessel poured into with the spirit... or whether a person imbued with the spirit... the fact is that the connection between the concept of God and Man is not simply a naive undertaking by primitives of some sort... Roll Eyes some of Christianity's recognized greats... have acknowledged that on some level God is not disconnected from Man.... the question is to what extent... some would argue that it is at the point where the human ceased thinking of himself as divine is where the real break down in higher order thinking began and not the reverse...

Consequently and interestingly enough... this element of nodding recognition in the direction of man's embodiment of the spirit of God.... or man's divine potential... did not transfer to their understanding of the woman.... who remained on the sidelines as spiritual cheerleader, or steadfast sidekick....


Salaam....

Wow, cool response.
I must take exception with you, however, on Descartes. Descartes thinking, in my opinion, is highly problematic and seriously flawed. Dualism is a dead end, IMHO. The problem that results is the problem of solipsism, what if any is the relationship between the material world and the spiritual (which is synonymous for Descartes with thought or consciousness). The only way that he can make them connect is by positing a certain kind of deity, which violates his initial methodology of radical doubt. Note, he does try to prove the existence of God, using his own version of the ontological argument, but most philosophers have come to reject it.

I would also assert that Descartes does have an anthropomorphic view of God. For Descartes, God is both perfect and infinite, and God's perfections are consistent extrapolations of human attributes (particularly in terms of intellect/reason). This is what Feuerbach will point out a couple of centuries later.

Descartes dualism, however, comes under attack sooner in Leibniz and especially Spinoza. Leibniz posits his notion of panpsychism which basically argues that we are solipsistic, that we are things called monads that have no direct interaction with the world, but that basically our consciousness is simply watching a movie on a screen of what is going on out in the world. The world that does exist outside of us, runs smoothly due to a divine pre-established harmony. Roll Eyes

As far as logical consistency, however, I do like Spinoza. He is the great pantheistic monist. There is only one substance, that is God or Nature. It has an infinite number of moods, of which we are aware of only thought and extension. It is in many respects similar to traditional forms of Buddhism.

As for Aquinas, I think the incarnation language has to be navigated very carefully, and as I said in my 20 questions piece, we are working with an archaic metaphysics. We have one essence (ousia) in the godhead, but three persons. In Jesus Christ, we have one person, but two distinct natures (human and divine). It is important to note that in orthodox Christianity firstly that the human and divine natures coexist in one body, but that they are distinct. More important is that for orthodox Christians, Jesus is unique. You and I have one nature, human. There has been, is, and will forever be only one God-man.

Again, I do believe that there is a connection between God and humanity, but I always want to be cognizant of the limitations and ambiguity of language as well as human finitude. In some respects, to the extent that I feel comfortable with theological discourse, it is negative theology (as in via negativa - or professing what the divine is not as opposed to what the divine is.) I like to associate this with a posture of humility before the infinite/the real.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Well, for me, a non-X-tian I have no personified 'devil' concept. God is not 'personified' to me either. Masculine and feminine energy...contractive/expansive energy/consciousness... destructive/creative forces... in nature(creation) is SYMBOLIZED by giving aspects and manifestations of nature as male/female... Energy/consciousness that permeates all of nature is a totally different concept than the literal man/womb-man 'being' that you are referring to.

Well, for me, a Christian, I also have not personified 'devil' or Satan concept. Likewise, I am aware that any personification that I might have of the divine is a subject to the limitations and ambiguities of language and thus, IMHO, should be interpreted as metaphor. I believe that it is first order or naive religion that tries to affix gender to the divine. I believe that this is the phenomenon of projection. I am a proponent of second order approaches that is able to appreciate the myths and legends for the truths that they might be able to impart, without being subject to any forms of literalism.


Brother Kresge...

I am inclined to agree with your assessment.... and if I may, would like to add what I see as a third view... It is neither a first or second order spiritual analysis but one of a higher order...

Some Christian thinkers have come to similar conclusions regarding the connection between God and Man.... This prism, which may not be termed literalist does share common characteristics of the type of thinking you have coined literalist... and that is that material forms, characterized distinctly by their animation, are manifestations of spiritual forces...

If we align ourselves with thinkers such as Rene Descartes (whose analysis would not be categorized among "first order" thinkers...) we find that he describes human beings as being dual in nature.... Part flesh and part spirit... with the flesh carrying the spiritual force of God of which he euphemastically refers to as the "Ghost in a machine"....

Though Descartes ponderings do not ascribe anthropormorphic qualities to God himself, he does affirm the concept of God's existence through human flesh and allows us to recognize our animation is more than automatic response... but is a chosen vehicle for God's Will; God is understood through manifestation through the flesh....

Many Christian philosophers such as Aquinas while arguing for the indivisibility of the essence of God, speak in defense of God's expression through the trinity.... and with his assessment of Jesus, in particular, being more than merely a vessel of God's Will... but that in Jesus' absorption of God's Will through overcoming the flesh... He became a perfect manifestation of God... not a vessel filled with... but a human being imbued with..


I suppose my point here is that whether an empty vessel poured into with the spirit... or whether a person imbued with the spirit... the fact is that the connection between the concept of God and Man is not simply a naive undertaking by primitives of some sort... Roll Eyes some of Christianity's recognized greats... have acknowledged that on some level God is not disconnected from Man.... the question is to what extent... some would argue that it is at the point where the human ceased thinking of himself as divine is where the real break down in higher order thinking began and not the reverse...

Consequently and interestingly enough... this element of nodding recognition in the direction of man's embodiment of the spirit of God.... or man's divine potential... did not transfer to their understanding of the woman.... who remained on the sidelines as spiritual cheerleader, or steadfast sidekick....


Salaam....

Wow, cool response.
I must take exception with you, however, on Descartes. Descartes thinking, in my opinion, is highly problematic and seriously flawed. Dualism is a dead end, IMHO. The problem that results is the problem of solipsism, what if any is the relationship between the material world and the spiritual (which is synonymous for Descartes with thought or consciousness). The only way that he can make them connect is by positing a certain kind of deity, which violates his initial methodology of radical doubt. Note, he does try to prove the existence of God, using his own version of the ontological argument, but most philosophers have come to reject it.


Brother Kresge...

I fail to understand how it is necessary that a dualistic mind must lead towards solipsism.... Dualism does not necessarily imply solipsism...

quote:
As for Aquinas, I think the incarnation language has to be navigated very carefully, and as I said in my 20 questions piece, we are working with an archaic metaphysics. We have one essence (ousia) in the godhead, but three persons. In Jesus Christ, we have one person, but two distinct natures (human and divine). It is important to note that in orthodox Christianity firstly that the human and divine natures coexist in one body, but that they are distinct. More important is that for orthodox Christians, Jesus is unique. You and I have one nature, human. There has been, is, and will forever be only one God-man.


What of the verse that speaks of the Kingdom of God residing within...? Does divinity only belong to Jesus? Or is it simply a matter of method...

Jesus= genetically inherited divinity...

Christians= a pledge of faith induced divinity



Salaam....
Khalliqa,
Solipsism results from Descartes' dualism, because he because of how he understands the human being as a "thinking thing". The human for him is essentially mind, consciousness, Geist in the german. Yet he posits in reality that there are two substances, res cogitans (mind) and res extensa (matter/extended bodies). But what does one have to do with the other. As substance, for Descartes, they are completely sufficient, necessary, and noncontingent. Thus mind is completely separate from the physical world. This results in the problem of how one knows that there is a physical world, or even other res cogitans (thinking things such as human beings). Descartes himself wrestles with this in the Meditations. He raises the question, how do I know that what I believe to be the world is nothing more than a kind of dream. This is the solipsistic problem.

Descartes attempts to get out of it through offering a proof for the existence of God. He then states that sense God is perfect, that God must be good, and if God is good, then he would not have given us minds that deceive us, so the physical world exists. But this is a rather weak and flawed argument. What is interesting is that earlier in the Meditations, he posits the existence of a evil god, intent on fooling his mind, and it is in response to this that he says that he might be deceived about what he thinks, but not that he thinks, hence "cogito ergo sum" (which everyone assumes is in the Meditations, but is only in the Discourse on Method.)

As to the reference of the "Kingdom of God is within you", I do not know of a Christian tradition that interprets this to mean that human beings are divine, or possess divinity. The closest perhaps to this notion is that of the Eastern Orthodox church who speak in terms of the incarnation as "God becoming like us in order that we might become like Him [sic]." If that is to be interpreted as divinity, even here it is in a teleological sense, i.e., at some time in the future. It is not the status of human beings or Christians now.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×