How could vital Truth not be both exo and esoteric? Bob, Excellent post describing the absolutism of the people who show their hipocrisy with the statement "there are no absolutes".
It seems that with the recent political shift in power back to the nuanced suicidalists, Bush has fallen into a shame vortex reminicent of his hard drinking days, as evidenced by his demeanor lately. Hopefully he will be able to separate those things he should be ashamed of from those where he needs to find a pair and stand up for. The chips falling where they may.
For truth is one and liberty is a condition of knowing it: no liberty, no truth, no truth, no liberty; and there can be neither truth nor liberty unless it is principially absolute, like the Creator from which they flow.
I turn towards the west and bobble my head towards the thee. By the way, the title of my last post "The Falsehood of Absolute Truth" was in the context of those who use it only to then put across pairing it with 'relative truth' and so disembowel and discard the concept of truth altogether. Good post. I am always interested in how liberals and lefties -or relativists -insist on their absolute relativism.
Or the absoluteness of their undefined wishy-washy positions in the middle of the road. I think this is why we have the PC movement -since the English language is rather object oriented. If we say, "Bob ran to the store", we can talk about how fast Bob may have run, or what kind of store, but we typically don't ask, "Whats a Bob?
So this kind of concept forcing, means we have to redefine things in order to not reach an obvious conclusion about the relationship between Bob and the store. Other languages are different. Some would have a different word for store -although it is a noun, it would have a relationship shift when someone is related to it, and may have a different word for if someone is running towards it.
Nouns and verbs changing dynamically to convey meaning. I suspect this is why some have problems understanding truth. They misapprehend the objects in their relationships. This is something we can teach somewhat with critical thinking, to parse the information and seek meaning. I think the reason Jesus taught in parables so much, was to convey meanings -he that has an ear, let him hear. Whereas those who look at the words, and try to become mystical, have a problem -as they usually use the mystery to lead the non-critical thinking process.
In John Eadie's Greek Commentaries on the book of Collosians, there is an excellent passage regarding these things. He is breaking out what Paul wrote -so is of Paul and not John Eadie I believe it is around the 2nd chapter -where he is discussing the not to permit people to trap you by the moon, what you eat or the Sabbath. It is part of a whole envelope of thought Paul is discussing -the human penchant for wanting mystery where there is none.
Read: Stick to the truth. I can post it on my blog, provided I have time to type it all in, and someone is interested. In the meantime, coffee round II is about to commence! Perhaps I can locate him and we can have him make one of Bob? Just think Bob -you can sell them on the web with your book! A coonskin cap wearin' head-Bobbin' Bobblehead for desk or dashboard!
I love it! I'll run it by Bob at once. Now that the infamous books are almost gone, I need to find a way to generate some revenue anyway, or Bob's gonna let me go, I just know it. On a more serious note.. Bob, don't you think part of the relativity question has to do with the injection into western cultures of the eastern idealism?
As I recall in the west we tend to be realists and see objects in relationships with one another, whereas the easterns see not objects, but all relationships. This is difficult to convey to an object oriented frame of reference. So at least on the philosophy angle, it is interesting. On the definitions of reality as posed by leftists -its nonsense! Leftists notoriously "immamentize the eschaton," when in reality, being is logoistic, neither earthly nor ethereal, but earthereal , as Petey likes to say.
The Absolute is radically immament and transcendent at the same time -- which is not really a paradox but, when you think about it, a metaphysical necessity that cannot not be, given the nature of God. I see the esoteric thingy as radically different from the exoteric thingy. The Gospel writers may have had both esoteric and exoteric tendencies, but this just confuses me. Yes, I see the commonality in Plotinus, Shankara, and Jesus too, but to admit that is to entertain heresy according to Christians.
I also notice how difficult it is for the regular commenters, who seem to be mostly Bible-believing Christians, to integrate it as well, since they tend to try to steer the conversation back to their familiar faith-in-Jesus territory.
Well, to me it is the difference between 'natural' mysticism and religion, and 'revealed' mysticism and religion. As for the commonalities, I think many bible-believers see them too. For Jesus was not just I AM but also a great teacher. And so as I see it there ought to be a great similarity between great and true teachings. But, because of my background in scripture it may make a lot more sense to me. In other words, he who does not believe in anything, believes in everything.
Maybe I've heard Bob say this before? HV-- There is nothing remotely heretical in what I wrote, Christian fundamentalism -- a modern deviation from tradition -- notwithstanding. To quote Augustine, "that which is called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist from the beginning of the human race until Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed, began to be called Christianity.
The absolutely relative is absurd because it would not be capable of being known. It would exist completely detached and separate from the rest of creation. Knowledge is only possible in the light of the Absolute that subtends knower and known. River - I think the division between the exo and esoteric goes far beyond the difference between the "deeply theological and directly physically active. As Bob was getting at in his post, the difference is between mere "belief" exo and gnosis eso. Actually, I don't merely think this, I can state it with certainty.
It is, in fact, a gate of exit out of mere animality -- indeed, out of the relative cosmos itself. Humans are a "hole" in creation that allows them to know the whole of creation I think that the eco-fascists, who in some ways I regard as the most wild-eyed, hate-filled, vengeance-minded of leftist groups, actually do acknowledge that humans are indeed the "hole" in creation, something far beyond the extension of the Darwinian state.
Of course, they place a hideous reverse spin on the concept, claiming that we humans are essentially unnatural creatures who the earth would do much better without. For what it's worth, the remnants of the Manson family, those who the cops didn't have enough on to indict, all became rabid eco-fascists. RC, I think you have put your finger on a key distinguishing feature of Christianity - the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Vedantists would not see Jesus as unique.
This is one of the things I have a hard time reconciling. It is not only Vedantins. With regard to anything that takes place in the relative, the metaphysician from any tradition -- including Christianity e.
Gagdad, I don't think anything you wrote is heretical either. But would any of the churches, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, or non-denominational, accept a vedantist, let's say Ramana to use a contemporary example, as an officially sanctioned theologian? In practice it becomes even more difficult to reconcile these things, since the things vedantist teachers say are important in practice are different from the things Christian teachers say are important.
A vedantist teacher would not say that receiving Holy Communion is necessary for eternal life, for example, or that belief in Jesus Christ as your personal savior is necessary for salvation. It is not the task of dogma to reconcile these things, which can only be reconciled "from above," not below. Dogma is critical, but it is not all. Will said " I think that the eco-fascists, who in some ways I regard as the most wild-eyed, hate-filled, vengeance-minded of leftist groups According to Bob, "It is not the task of dogma to reconcile these things, which can only be reconciled "from above," not below.
Obviously He could. But did He? If He did, then His Truth is available to everyone -- people can always take it or leave it.
Some of those who heard it were amazed and believed; while others explained it away saying that the apostles were drunk. Today, many believe the Bible to be the Truth — and many explain it away for a million reasons. For what it's worth. Nomo said " I will post this weekend,I will post this weekend,I will post this Musing here Could the confusion be linguistic?
I guess it's heresy to say different. I've had them go bananas when I say "don't care much for James, too Works oriented, seems to be missing the Core Message.
Tozer has written very clearly on this object-switch. I have it around here someplace, in a "collected works", and can locate the essay, if anyone is interested. I've also played the child's game "telephone" enough to know what happens when phrases are passed along.
I have no problem with "the Inerrent Logos of God", certainly it is contained in the Book, but also elsewhere. Bob, I am happily stuck on Jesus Christ who said "No man cometh to the Father except by me" and "I am the way the truth and the life".
The rest of those fellas were thoughtful folks but they have no propitiation power in them so I can't hook my wagon to their engine. If we take it literally then it means that everyone should be a Christian, which basically invalidates literal interpretation, imo. If we take it metaphorically it could mean a few different things, which depends upon what is meant by "Christ.
Or is it a spiritual consciousness that is accessible to all? I take the latter view: "Christ consciousness" is possible for anyone and related to the Buddhist ideal of the Bodhisattva.
This doesn't mean that the historical personage was not a remarkable being, even an avatar. But I tend to jive with the teachings of Rudolf Steiner on this, who talks about the "Mystery of Golgotha" as being a cosmic event of the utmost importance which allowed Christ to be accessible to all, but within --not through submission to a specific religion, Church, dogma or doctrine.
I agree, Bob, "absolute relativity" is absurd, as evidenced by the performative contradiction of "everything is relative. I do agree that we can "know" Absolute truth, but we should be very careful not to equate this to a set of laws or finite truths, which leads to, ah, dogma.
Absolute truth is trans-verbal--as soon as you bring it "down" into words it becomes relative, perspectival. Thus it becomes not a matter of Truth vs. Falsehood, but of perspectives that hold varying degrees of truth, that sometimes hold truth within different domains and contexts. I've been wondering: Is Joel Osteen made of plastic? On the other hand, I was channel surfing the other day and I ran across him talking about the importance of eating organic foods; I appreciated that he was bringing this to a demographic that normally might not know about organic foods.
Integralist said: "I've been wondering: Is Joel Osteen made of plastic? True and True. Tozer has written very clearly on this I think it comes down to what words do, and don't do, and what the 'story', or parable, or I will get to this this weekend. I will, I will, I wi Well, in not too long from now, Saddam will assume room temperature for the duration. Gee, thats too bad. Hows that for reality? But I tend to jive with the teachings of Rudolf Steiner on this, who talks about the "Mystery of Golgotha" as being a cosmic event of the utmost importance which allowed Christ to be accessible to all, but within--not through submission to a specific religion, Church, dogma or doctrine.
The old axim "when everybody's special, no one is" rings fairly true here, I think. He claimed to BE GOD, which I think is something to set him apart from all of those other thinkers, especially if we're to take his claim seriously. If Jesus is in fact God part of God, whatever , then we must take his words much more seriously than anybody else's. While Eckhart or Augustine or whoever may get a lot of truth into their writings, they are still men, and as such subject to fallability.
Jesus - as God - embodies truth "I am the way, the truth, the light" , and so his words and actions are things we should pay close attention to, strive to imitate. My point is, you can read what a thousand others have said about the Bible, or you can read the Bible and see what it says for itself. Start at the source and work outward -- that's my recommendation. Strangely, the time I spend here with Bob and all has only further whetted my appetite for God's Word.
Why is that? I'm not sure, but it's a very good thing. If you study the Scriptures in a language other than your native tongue, you come to see the tenuous grip on meaning that is conveyed by mere words. A long-favored passage is rendered almost ridiculous when it has been filtered down a different "family tree".
Each language goes back to the scholars of the Bible, but translate according to the sense of their own "logos". Wycliffe Bible Translators found the the folks in Papua New Guinea had no word for the idea of "receiving Christ into your heart", since there was no concept of "heart" or "soul" for that matter. The primitives could only understand their stomach, and so scripts were translated accodingly.
Yeah, go ahead and preach that one from the pulpit! Those who would fasten a bit too tightly to the phantom of the written logos may just miss the still, small voice in the whirlwind. I like that we never are allowed to know what that Voice said. It was obviously beyond words. That glorious and unspeakable, inutterable Truth of Presence.
I've always thought and expressed to others that speak of Heaven, that when I get there, I won't have any questions for God. I can't explain it any better than just the idea that one glimpse of that Face, and I would know. Yes, the Truth speaks through the words -- it is not the words. That is the magic of dwelling in scripture. To borrow a metaphor from Polanyi, it is like a probe extended into the dark -- like the cane of a blind person -- that conveys real information about what is beyond the immediate senses.
Van: Found it online. Ximese you clever girl you.. For those that love to argue the Bible was translated so many times it must have great error -go read the first portion of the first volume of Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" -he adresses this and puts it to rest.
Now, as for people objectifying the book and worshipping it in place of God -thats all over the place. And they don't even get it.
As I said before, we seem to have a predisposition for mystical things. When things are not mystical, we want to reengineer them into the mystical. This is rather unevolved phobic behavior as far as Luke me not the Doctor is concerned. And speaking of dogma, I really can't stand all the present day "dogma" hmm, blogma? Thats right, says, not means. As it seems to be a symptom of those who don't think much -but want to dig in and entrench on literal interpretations of what they know little of to begin with.
Now, as for the idea of Christ worshipping. I find this to be rather odd as well in a way. That is to say, Jesus was the propitiation -the price paid, and the propitiatory -the place where it was paid.
He is the mercy seat on the arc -protecting us like a holy sheild from the righteousness of God -represented by the law inside the arc. Because of what Jesus did -recall, the veil in the temple was torn in two -top to bottom how cool is that breaking through the veil between God and man.
Christ's payment gave access to God. He gave us access to the source directly. Why then do some of us seem to leave out the obvious object of our communication -known in scriptures as "the Father" -by only saying we talk to Jesus -and well he is God -so thats okay.
In a sense, this is how some Catholics treat Mary. To place Mary in the middle, is well, a long story! The whole symbolism of the OT points right at gaining access directly to God due to what Christ did for us.
No thank you, not time for a trinity discussion. The point is -the objectification of Jesus or the book, in lieu of the big picture, seems to me to be a bit narrow in viewpoint. But this is not surprising, as people tend towards scalp hunting for Jesus -getting people "saved" and not teaching them a whit about what is really going on in the Bible or in their lives.
The feel good types have taken over much of the Church -followed by the endless parade of pop psychological self-help spiritual books. Ole AWT's remark, "The same business on the other side of the street. Rather than get off our collective spiritual butts -we prefer to have it be like something familiar. Far too easy to go down the warped path of "goodness" and call it Christianity.
That Church occurs on "stage" also does not assist some. This creates what we call in peforming arts "the fourth wall" -so Christianity can become a spectator sport.
One is a good Christian if their Church is growing -even if they do not participate. It is okay, because they are there to watch the "show". Another mistaking of symbols for referents.
Regarding James: Yes, James had some good things to say. For example, "Submit to God, resist the Devil and he will flee from you. My only thought on this is since Paul was so well educated, he was able to slice and dice the message into usable parts. James, being a bit more down to earth, looked laterally and tried a basic definition -that if you have faith you must have works, and he truncated it into "show me your works and I'll show you faith" Luke paraphrase but I think I am being generous to him.
Recall though, James was of the group that thought Christians should be an adjunct to Judaism. So getting circumcised to show you were a Christian was on his list. James was not included in the Canon of scripture until around the fifth century as I recall. This was also a time historically when doing "good works" was useful to the institutionalised Church. All the better to have the "Bible" back this up for you, huh? Bible test approaching An example of a mis-apprehended remark in English is when James says, "..
It is not. Betcha lots of people are out "remembering the poor" in some kind of street ministry due to that scripture. I think the hardest thing about Christianity is that it is so simple.
You get in by grace and faith, and you stay in the same way. Hard part: It is up to you, you are center stage with Christ as his hands and feet and eyes to the world -his human interface to the rest of us. The gnosticism or the overthinking, or as Jesus said to Peter, "doublethinking" is all crap.
Okay, enough for now! Well, Luke Blogwalker seems to have the religion thing dialed in the best, as far as I can judge. There's not much I can pick a fight over in this post or in the comments; I'll have to wait and see what comes up tommorrow. I like to think that all Bobbleheads and I do want to buy the dashboard version to throw darts at are comforted in knowing that hostile eyes are reading everything that is written here. I am verrrry patient.
I really think you should get out a bit more petmoonbat. What happens if some of it starts rubbing off on you? Heh, what a loser. On Dec. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case, Dobbs v. If the court allows the law to remain in effect, the decision will effectively hollow out Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that established a constitutional right to an abortion before fetal viability.
Five years ago, this moment was unthinkable. But the landscape has shifted rapidly. Over the past year, GOP-controlled state legislatures have passed a record-breaking abortion restrictions, including a Texas statute that bans nearly all abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy.
Dobbs v. Anti-abortion activists are energized. Brewer herself has become a lightning rod. She exchanges words with the driver, then rolls her eyes and flashes a nod of assurance to her staff.
Nothing to worry about. That began to change in the s, Ziegler explains, when a cadre of GOP strategists seized on abortion as a way to animate the religious right and win over voters who might otherwise lean left.
That legal strategy was supercharged by a Supreme Court decision, Planned Parenthood v. In the three decades since, the number of laws restricting abortion multiplied. The plan worked.
In , there were 2, abortion providers in the U. In , the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 1, Mississippi has been the tip of the spear in this strategy. By , JWHO was the only clinic in the state left standing. For the patients at the Jackson clinic, navigating all of these hurdles is becoming increasingly impossible.
They must take time off work, scrape together money for the procedure, which cannot be covered by Medicaid or Affordable Care Act marketplace plans in most cases in Mississippi, find money to travel to the clinic or to one out of state, pay for a hotel and potentially for childcare. His daughter Marta, who moved with him to the U. In he suffered a minor stroke which affected his eyesight. In , they were published by Matica hrvatska in Zagreb. Once his remains had arrived in Yugoslavia, however, the authorities reneged and did not allow this to take place.
He also served as an ambassador in the Foreign Ministry. His sculptural strengths are manifested in the lyrical and dramatic expression of the human body. Critics in Europe and the United States ranked him highly in the first half of the 20th century. He is one of the most prominent Croatian artists whose work has at times gained worldwide recognition.
Professor Miljenko Jurkovic of the University of Zagreb states he:. He wrote: "It is therefore singularly significant that he is almost unanimously revered by American sculptors of all schools as one of the greatest living sculptors. Uploaded by vbera on April 23, Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo. Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass. User icon An illustration of a person's head and chest. Sign up Log in. Web icon An illustration of a computer application window Wayback Machine Texts icon An illustration of an open book.
Books Video icon An illustration of two cells of a film strip. Video Audio icon An illustration of an audio speaker. Audio Software icon An illustration of a 3. Software Images icon An illustration of two photographs.
0コメント