It isn’t a matter of rejecting other dimensions as such but I have very little interest in that frankly. But given the choice between believing the something more many of us feel is interacting with us by way of a shared existence in consciousness or in some hypothetical alternative place apart from our space/time I’m going to go with the one that presents the fewer challenges, such as whether or not such places exist at all, whether or not any kind of being we know of where we are can actually exist there, and if they can, how do they give rise to those experiences in us. I find the consciousness hypothesis more elegant. You disparaged my saying something works for me but you haven’t said anything cogent about why what works for you is better apart from the fact many more people agree with you - which means nothing to me.
I have cited objective evidence for God’s providential interventions. You didn’t seem to have as much of a problem here (it acquired your ‘like’, anyway):
Where have I said anything like that, that ‘many more people agree’? That would be your nothing.
ETA:
Ah, maybe there. But that was many multiple others having objective evidence of God’s providential interventions, not just opinion, feeling or surmised elegant woo about collective consciousness.
Okay, I’ll let you have the last and only disparaging swipes but there is no way I’m wasting more time with you.
You can’t see how that is disparaging of the real God and is offensive to those of us who know him, in effect saying it is just our imagination, even when you have been given direct evidence of his interventions.
And you accused me of an ad populum fallacy.
Try and see the irony in that, in light of objective evidence.
Nor would I want to push that. I think I’ve heard it called the “Gaia hypothesis” or something vaguely Asimovian like that (think Foundation series if you’ve read those.) All that may bear some resemblance to or even be pantheism, though I doubt the proponents of such would associate themselves with anything that has “-theism” in the name.
No worries whatsoever (on my account anyway) I can’t help that others here will get you pigeonholed as a personal mission of theirs - or … I guess I can help that as a moderator, but always prefer to see your admirable patience on display rather than our own heavyhandedness.
Please … keep good questions flowing no matter how heretical some will inevitably take any questions to be.
I don’t take them as heretical, I expect that. But he needs to be sensitive to offense too, I should think, and maybe more reasonable than he thinks he is being.
Suits me. Ideally moderators shouldn’t have to do a thing, but when you do I prefer how you do it by engaging the ideas. I know where the ignore button is but I also know how to ignore posts without its help.
So basically everyone should put on their big boy undies or find a conversation they like better. Maybe I should post “potential heresy trigger” warnings on some posts so that those feeling more in need of reassurance than challenge that day can choose accordingly.
I’m gonna have to get me one, too. Speaking of which–most of us most likely will!
I love the adventurous spirit. I think whatever it is on the other side of the darkened glass likes it too.
Got it. Graciousness personified… and completely reasonable about the evidence.
I admire Rich Stearns’ adventurous spirit, submitting to his Father’s guidance (albeit reluctantly at first) and following where the objective evidence led him.
I am catching up just with your replies (and some of Mervin’s, because topics have been overlapping) in this segment of the thread, after a busy week. There’s a lot, and it deserves a serious read. I have decided that the Forum would best be served at a field of tables in my yard (it’s pretty big), with a buffet of good snacks and nice things to drink. I give all of you, who are regulars in serious discussions a salute for your ability to keep it all straight as well as deal with the formatting issues that go along with this “venue.” Applause to you all.
Thanks for including the link to the wikipedia page on panentheism. I was not familiar with the term, much less the concept.
What I see as positive about that is that, as a community, you have a common book of source stories whose meaning you can debate. What I find disappointing is that so many think these distill into a pile of settled facts which almost make their narrative origins irrelevant.
Ouch. Point taken. It’s so easy to get stuck arguing. Arguing is not the point of having common “source stories.” We (Christians) do plenty of it, though. Ideally, for Christians, at least, our “common source stories” are there to help guide those impulses to god belief into a right understanding and worship of the God we believe reveals himself more clearly through those “common source stories.” But I’m sure you are already more than aware of the main content of Christian belief and our view of our “common source stories.” We Christians, though, need to use our time and energy better.
Thanks for the quote from Taylor about the larger consciousness. Honestly, though, I don’t know what she means. The more I mull it over, the less I get it. Sorry. I read some of your and Mervin’s discussion related to consciousness as well. It’s a way of talking about these things that is completely foreign to me. You tried. Thank you.
You mentioned subjectivity,
We are too close to it be objective. Why not admit the necessity of proceeding subjectively? After all we are subjects. That needn’t mean anything goes. Not every poem, song, novel or piece of art is of equal value. I think we have an innate capacity to recognize what is better even in subjective realms. However I don’t think we improve that capacity by trying to objectify the process.
Yes, there is a good deal of subjectivity involved here. However, that is why the idea of (existance of) revelation from God is so essential in Christianity. One of the postmodern theorists I read many, many years ago talked about the imposibility of recognizing God, if indeed, there were such a thing. To that claim, I thought , ”Bingo. Thus the need for revelation.” Which, I understand opens an entirely different set of questions/debates/arguments, etc.
There are probably more valuable points you made that I should have paid more attention to. Hard to keep track of it all, though. Too many distractions in my life.
I think those distractions probably include a lot of key stuff that anchors your life. Their claim on your time trumps these discussions and, minus the pandemic and being retired, I’d probably have a few more of those myself.
Also don’t confuse anything I say here with a well thought out position that deserve close attention. I think @Christy described herself here once as finding out what she thinks regarding some ideas through these discussions. That is true for me too. Sometimes someone’s question or comment will lead to my noticing things I hadn’t considered before which I mostly appreciate, at least when I have the time to explore. I imagine I’ll be “in process” until I expire.
I believe you’d written something shorter here earlier as a place holder. As a result I didn’t get any notification that you’d come back to elaborate more but somehow I noticed it any way. So now I’m going to have to do the same and come back to see what else I can respond to in this post of yours when I don’t need more sleep.
Yes. I suppose that revelation (assuming there is any) will be a selling point for some but extraneous for others. What is the ideal proportion of revelation to faith? Who knows?
What a nice idea to have us all over for a picnic. We’re so socially deprived that we have to make do with imagining such things. Likewise I’ll imagine having you and all the regulars here to tea in my garden some day when the pandemic lightens up. Here to spur your imagination is a photo from last July when we had friends for tea. Not a young crowd but all the ladies are artists and all the gents are married to one.
n
How about objective evidence.
I read the article “Rethinking How We Think About the Evangelical Mind and the Local Church” from Modern Reformation the other day. This section particularly stood out to me, largely because the author perfectly described the ersatz to “thinking christianly” that I see has overtaken the corner of the Church where I exist. It’s disheartening.
There certainly are many Christians who have demonstrated the ability to think well and to think Christianly. For this, I remain grateful.
At the same time, my optimism is checked by a growing sense that significant blind spots and limitations remain. In an increasingly polarized society, where “populist” and “cosmopolitan” evangelicals and Christians of all traditions generally self-sort along lines of education and affluence (to name only a few), bringing Christian scholarship and the instinct to think Christianly about all of life to bear on the church as a whole—and not the church in a few affluent, well-educated parts—does not happen haphazardly. It takes intentional, Spirit-led effort to cross boundaries, to invest with kingdom sensibilities rather than market-driven metrics alone.
The reality is that from where I sit in rural America, I don’t see much of this.
This is part of the problem with our discussions about an “evangelical mind” and any discussion about helping evangelically inclined Protestants think Christianly about all of life. A vast majority of American Christians live in communities relatively untouched—and largely unsought—by the ministries and individuals who possess the resources that could truly help folks think Christianly. Instead, it is “experts” like Ken Ham, David Barton, and other celebrity communicators channeled through Christian radio, cable television, and mass market content ministries, who seek an audience in small towns like mine and thousands of other overlooked rural and urban communities across the country.
The original article can be found here:
“Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regard to matters requiring thought: the less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgment upon anything new.”
― Galileo Galilei