quote:

---

Do (our) metaphysics apply to God?

---

quote:

---

My take.

Do (our) metaphysics apply to God?

Whitehead sure thought so. Seriously though, I would say yes for the following reasons:

1) When we say God "IS", in using that word we are assuming SOME type of ontology...which falls under metaphysics.

2) In discussing the God/world relation, it makes a BIG DEAL what metaphysic that we are using. Surely, the supernaturalism vs non-interventionism debate should show us this.

3) In many religions, the notion of God is analogous to "the ultimate reality" What better place to discuss such than metaphysics?


If not, then confessional theology and dialectical* epistemology seem to be the most adequate means of faith seeking understanding.

If so, then naturalistic theology and analogical** epistemology seem to be the most adequate means of faith seeking understanding.

I say that both ideas here come into play. For the sake of a belief system's SELF-UNDERSTANDING and distinctiveness, confessionalism is key. It's like Modes said a long time ago. Though we may disagree on HOW the things we say work out, we can agree somewhat on WHAT SHOULD be said, given certain tenets/dogmas of the faith. For the sake of a belief system's ADEQUACY TO understood truths about the world and COMPARATIVE "common ground" with other religions, naturalistic theology would be something useful. Actually, I think the whole process/openness dialogue has the crux of their issues on the subjects mentioned here.

I would note that a person of faith can be immersed MUCH MORE in the former than the latter (and this happens very often). To me, this is when you get people who could give a damn how things work out philosophically or even theologically. Give the the tenets of the faith and that's all they need to get along. Their weakness is drowning happily in a sea of "mystery" that never really gets probed. To everyone else, it may look like inconsistent mush.

Someone could be immersed MUCH MORE in the latter than the former. This is when you have people who are less religious, but more "spiritual" (as David Ray Griffin uses the term) They are more than willing to sacrifice certain tenets of the faith that may seem inconsistent to have a adequate view to the world. They have no problem pushing the envelope a bit.

My advice: We need to operate in a balance between these positions.

Just a lil' somethin',


PS: I agree completely with Miss E. I think her restated question is a good one

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - mephi2K on 01/29/2002 4:32:50 PM

---

Thanks Meph. So you would see the two approaches in terms of a continuum, and that the ends of the continuum are less helpful extremes. We need both.

I would like to agree. But I have run into some pretty hard-core dialectians (word?) who shudder at the thought. Barth wrote a great big diatribe against general revelation. The title was short and sweet: NEIN!!!

And here’s what Luther has to say about the “theology of glory” (i.e. analogical):

• That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things that have actually happened.
• That person deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God through suffering and the cross.
• A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.

Luther has a little tendency to overstate himself, no?

Some other things I’ve read by Gerhard Forde have really made me think—For example, “The cross cannot ever simply be woven into the seamless metaphysical or ideological tapestry of time. It is a tear in the fabric.…The cry, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” demands an answer, an historical answer, not a metaphysical, theological, or exegetical anethesia. The Scriptures tell us that Jesus refused the wine mixed with gall. Theologians must not attempt to give it again posthumously.”

Theologians of the cross are brilliant and quite brutual.

After writing this paper on christology… my ideas about metaphysics have been, well, crucified…

pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Peace to the one who wrote and to the one who reads and to those who love the Lord in simplicity of heart.” § Melito of Sardis

quote:

---

After writing this paper on christology… my ideas about metaphysics have been, well, crucified…

---

quote:

---

Scholasticism is supported on the adoption of the Platonic realia. Our world is conceived of as an image of the transcendent universalia (realism, archetype). The instrument of knowledge is the mind-intellect. Knowledge (including knowing God) is accomplished through the penetration of logic in the essence of beings. It is the foundation of metaphysic theology, which presupposes the Analogia Entis, the consequitive ontological relation between God and the world, the analogy between the created and uncreated. Nominalism accepts that the universalia are simple names and not beings as in realism. It is a struggle between Platonism and Aristotelian thought in European thought. However, nominalism turned out to be the DNA, in a way, of European civilization, whose essential elements are dualism philosophically and individualism (eudomenism) socially. Prosperity will become the basic quest of the western man, theologically based on the scholastic theology of the middle ages. Nominalism (that is dualism) is the foundation of scientific development of the western world, that is the development of the positive sciences.

---

quote:

---

Theoria: Theoria is the vision of the glory of God. Theoria is identified with the vision of the uncreated Light, the uncreated energy of God, with the union of man with God, with man's theosis (see note below). Thus, theoria, vision and theosis are closely connected. Theoria has various degrees. There is illumination, vision of God, and constant vision (for hours, days, weeks, even months). Noetic prayer is the first stage of theoria. Theoretical man is one who is at this stage. In Patristic theology, the theoretical man is characterised as the shepherd of the sheep.

---

Since Orthodox spirituality differs distinctly from the "spiritualities" of other confessions so much the more does it differ from the "spirituality" of Eastern religions, which do not believe in the Theanthropic nature of Christ and the Holy Trinity. They are influenced by the philosophical dialectic, which has been surpassed by the Revelation of God. These traditions are unaware of the notion of personhood and thus the hypostatic principle. And love, as a fundamental teaching is totally absent. One may find, of course, in these Eastern religions an effort to divest themselves of images and rational thoughts, but this is in fact a movement towards nothingness, to non-existence. There is no path leading their "disciples" to theosis of the whole man. There are many elements of demonic "spirituality" in Eastern religions.

This is why a vast and chaotic gap exists between Orthodox spirituality and the Eastern religions, in spite of certain external similarities in terminology. For example, Eastern religions may employ terms like ecstasy , dispassion, illumination, noetic energy et.c. but they are impregnated with a content different from corresponding terms in Orthodox spirituality.

http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b15.en.orthodox_spirituality.01.htm

This same outlook is shared by all of the Holy Fathers. St. Symeon the New Theologian, for example, says that the man who is prudent, forbearing and meek, and who prays and beholds God, "walks in the spirit". He is pre-eminently the spiritual man, par excellence.

Again according to St. Symeon the New Theologian, when the parts of man's soul -his nous and intellect- are not "clothed" in the image of Christ, he is considered a man of the flesh, since he does not have the sense of spiritual glory. The man of the flesh is like the blind person who cannot see the light from the sun's rays. In fact he is considered both blind and lifeless. In contrast, the spiritual man, who partakes in the energies of the Holy Spirit, is alive in God.

As we emphasised, previously, communion in the Most Holy Spirit makes the man of the flesh spiritual. For this reason, according to Orthodox teaching, the spiritual man, par excellence, is the Saint. Certainly, this is said from the point of view that a Saint is he who partakes, in varying degrees, in the uncreated grace of God, and especially in the deifying energy of God.

The Saints are bearers and manifestations of Orthodox spirituality. They live in God and consecutively they speak about Him. In this sense, Orthodox spirituality is not abstracted but is embodied in the personhood of the Saints. Hence the Saints are not the good people, the moralists in the strict sense of the term, or simply those who are good natured. Rather, saint is the person who submits to and acts upon the guidance of the Most Holy Spirit within.

. . . . .

This is what St. Symeon the New Theologian teaches. In his poems he proclaims over and over that while beholding the uncreated Light, the deified man acquires the Revelation of God the Trinity.

quote:

---

If one makes a theological statement out of "experience [of] God, by being in communion with Him", then I'd say that that is not "based... [on] metaphysical assumptions."

---

I think that you mistook my question. I didn't ask if theological assertions were conscious DEDUCTIONS from certain metaphysical assumptions. I asked if it were true or false that all theological statments have metaphysical assumptions at their base. What this is attempting to demonstate is that all theological assertions ASSUME some things, whether the theologian knows it or not. What you dislike and keep arguing against, POW, is when theological enterprise does not originate and is not sustained by the PERSONAL aspects of the Faith. Please note that my question has nothing to do with that, really.

See, POW, the point is that there are MANY people who are not philosophically astute, meaning they are not aware of their own presuppositions about reality. BUT EVERYONE HAS THEM. Everyone. Including persons whose center of faith is "hesychastic." You and I would agree being in the Faith doesn't necessitate philosophical mastery...but it DOES necessitate having some personal experience with God. For these people, metaphysics is pretty superfluous to the entire idea of "theology" However, people who may be a bit more philosophically inclined often wish to make these unspoken assumptions PLAIN and discuss them. And I don't think that there is anything wrong with this.

This is why I say that theology is inseparable from metaphysics. I consider myself in the second camp. Sure, if I were purely concerned about the personal aspects, I could make the statment that theology IS separable from metaphysics. But this would mean that I'm NOT GIVING MUCH ATTENTION to my assumptions. Nothing more.

Do you understand my question now?

quote:

---

Meph: there are MANY people who are not philosophically astute, meaning they are not aware of their own presuppositions about reality. BUT EVERYONE HAS THEM.

---

quote:

---

Pia said:

quote:

---

After writing this paper on christology… my ideas about metaphysics have been, well, crucified…

---

Please explain what you mean here. I'm a little unclear on it. I want to respond to this.

---

For Meph and Pia

(I saw something this morning while staying off line to receive the snow-day call saying that school/work was canceled. )

This is something of Meph's from Pia's "Spiritual" thread:

quote:

---

The Arbitrary God => The Wind of the Spirit?

Some of you may not realize that this is a part of the reason that I believe that God is somewhat arbitrary...meaning the Spirit blows where it wills.

---