 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/12/2006 7:50 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Written by Archimandrite Lev Gillet, “A Monk of the Eastern Church”
“A New Creation”
“This Great Vision”
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/12/2006 7:56 PM (GMT -6) | | | Oh. I found the first part too:
“To You, Whoever You May Be”
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Yo, POW. Good stuff. I liked it a lot.
Check it out. Hook a brotha up. What can you tell me about some EO perspectives on universalism? I know that the EO doesn't officially sanction universalism, but ALLOWS for a "universalistic hope". But can you spill some knowledge on this for me? Thanks.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/13/2006 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | |
"Spill" some knowledge on you? Oh, boy. What knowledge I have in my bowl doesn't even make it over the edge when the bowl is tipped on its side. So, not much hope of that.
Maybe I'd suggest you remember...
Not without reason did Cardinal Newman describe the theological enterprise as "saying and unsaying to a positive effect". ...
When you make bread, a certain amount of salt is necessary. But too much salt and you get an effect of it's impeding some necessary process of the way the dough functions in its rising.
So.....rather than look at "universalism" the way you do and wondering why all the pieces don't fit... (I'm not saying they don't...I gave up trying to read all that...So I'm not presuming, just 'just supposing.) WONDER INSTEAD what elements might be given too much influence on the mix. (Clear?)
I can't think of any perfect thing to start with. D. Take all the capital-B Biblical and capital-T Traditional things seriously. Remember that in baking cooks often take out a part of the flour and mix in certain ingredients just to that before returning all of it later to the mix. (Like starting the yeast!)
But here is something worthwhile, that I think you read my quoting before.
Evil in Our World Today
http://www.stlukeorthodox.com/html/evangelist/2002/synergy.cfm
Fr. Hopko contrasted God and His creation as they relate to evil. "God is the Creator," and "everything God creates is good." In fact, God Himself "is good in a way beyond human imagining." All things "beyond [God] are creatures, from which evil comes. Evil is a lack of good…and has no substantial existence." It is also "the misuse and abuse of good," Fr. Hopko pointed out, "the constant destruction and perversion of what is good." Furthermore, as Dr. Chryssavgis later related, "Evil is against life and is all that opposes life." In fact, "the word 'evil' is 'live' spelled backwards."
"God knew His creatures would be evil," Fr. Hopko continued. "However, because of God's great love, He created them anyway. Evil originates "when creatures think they have choices." They "refuse to give glory and thanks to God" because they prefer to "worship the creature rather than the Creator." (This was "the sin of Adam," who chose "to live life without God").
Ultimately, Fr. Hopko deduced, "the only choice is: Thy will be done. The more we [live] in Christ, the less choice we have, [but] the freer we become. Jesus has no choice at all, [yet] He is totally free and knows the truth."
"God [Christ] entered the world as it is with all of its evil and destruction," Dr. Chryssavgis confirmed, but "evil, the devil, and death are cursed because they can't love." Thankfully, "good (love) conquers evil, and suffering through evil leads to new life."
Will evil last forever? "Yes," the scriptures say. However, evil can have a purpose. "All acts of tragedy are meant to get people's attention for repentance," Fr. Hopko affirmed. "God does not will evil or death," but He does use them, if necessary. "Wickedness and evil are the only things God has in this era of evil."
The article began this way...
"The roots of 9/11 are spiritual. People were forced into a confrontation with good and evil" on September 11, 2001, "but where evil [is] present, God, too is present," asserted Rev. Dr. John Chryssavgis, Professor of Theology at Holy Cross School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts.
"God doesn't permit evil; he commands it. There is no one who is not God's servant, even Osama bin Laden," stated Very Rev. Thomas Hopko, newly retired Dean of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary in Crestwood, New York.
NOW, D. I don't know about you. But that kind of statement BLOWS MY MIND. It does so because my thinking is so small. And my thinking is so small because my LIVING is so small. And I MADE it small all the while I'm living. What is in those statements SHOULD be self-evident and hardwired into my neuro-net from daily live. The Psalmist says "Whom have I in heaven but Thee, and their is none upon the earth that I desire besides Thee." WIRED. The people saw God's acts, but Moses KNEW HIS WAYS. Moses was wired. And more than hardwired Moses ran his ciruits right so as to MAINTAIN them.
FACT is, D. That as I understand it if we hope to "have the mind of God" on things like this, we don't do so from the outside. We do so by thinking and living righty in relation to God.
Here's a message from our CRC (Reformed) prayer chain (from a mom in our church) that illustrates a life wired by virtue of running circuits correctly, and building up circuitry correctly. You'll see what I mean.
December CT scan shows a new spot located on or near the right adrenal gland, near the kidney. The doctor who read the scan says that it is new, and likely represents matastisis. When I visited with my oncologist this past week, she said she is not convinced it is a reoccurance, as the adrenal glands can have benign growths in them.
What to pray for:
-that my oncologist is right
-the bio-therapy does cause my blood pressure to rise, pray that it stays as low as possible
-thanksgiving that though this cancer is stubborn, I am half Fresian, and therefore, MORE stubborn
-and truly, thanksgiving that though this cancer does keep returning, and is life-threatening, it does NOT make me feel sick and I can function quite normally (as normal as I am anyway : )
There is always something to smile about.
God is good, ALL the time!
GOD IS GOOD, ALL THE TIME.
You don't get that by "doing the math." You get that by living. "Theology" is right prayer. And prayer is dwelling in God. THAT is how you can understand these things. As much as one needs to.
But practically, for one's intellect, I think Cardinal Newman describe the theological enterprise well: "saying and unsaying to a positive effect".
And I'll add to do so "theologically" (THAT IS, IN PRAYER), and prayerfully (THAT IS, WHILE DWELLING IN GOD).
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/13/2006 5:19:33 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/13/2006 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
Maybe I'd suggest you remember...
Not without reason did Cardinal Newman describe the theological enterprise as "saying and unsaying to a positive effect". ...
When you make bread, a certain amount of salt is necessary. But too much salt and you get an effect of it's impeding some necessary process of the way the dough functions in its rising.
So.....rather than look at "universalism" the way you do and wondering why all the pieces don't fit... (I'm not saying they don't...I gave up trying to read all that...So I'm not presuming, just 'just supposing.) WONDER INSTEAD what elements might be given too much influence on the mix. (Clear?)
I can't think of any perfect thing to start with. D. Take all the capital-B Biblical and capital-T Traditional things seriously. Remember that in baking cooks often take out a part of the flour and mix in certain ingredients just to that before returning all of it later to the mix. (Like starting the yeast!)
1) What is the "positive effect"?
2) What does it mean practically to take the biblical and tradition seriously? What does that look like?
*******************************
POW:
NOW, D. I don't know about you. But that kind of statement BLOWS MY MIND. It does so because my thinking is so small. And my thinking is so small because my LIVING is so small. And I MADE it small all the while I'm living. What is in those statements SHOULD be self-evident and hardwired into my neuro-net from daily live. The Psalmist says "Whom have I in heaven but Thee, and their is none upon the earth that I desire besides Thee." WIRED. The people saw God's acts, but Moses KNEW HIS WAYS. Moses was wired. And more than hardwired Moses ran his ciruits right so as to MAINTAIN them.
And Muhammad knew Allahs ways too, right?
This seems so quasi-mystical.
I'm trying not to...but all I'm hearing is one big appeal to mystery here. To know is to participate in the mystery...and not ask questions.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/13/2006 8:35 PM (GMT -6) | |
PoW: "He made known His ways unto Moses, His acts unto the children of Israel." (Psalm 103:7) A script ure very important to our youthgroup's spiritual development (1973-75).
........
M.E. asked... 1) What is the "positive effect"?
PoW: A statement that can be said. One that might need qualification or limitation after being said. Or not. Refers to both kinds. (E.g. "America is a democracy." That needs qualifications almost immediately after saying it, of many sorts. But the strong nature of that original statement tends to forestall people replacing it. And typically if they do, those other statements also need qualifications -- which are "unsayings.")
M.E. asked... 2) What does it mean practically to take the biblical and tradition seriously? What does that look like?
POW: It has to look like people. People letting the Word and putting the Word to work in their lives. And it looks like 'lots' of people, who live with the witness and counsel and example of those in whom the Light of the Word has shown forth. Like a retired Reformed pastor said on Sunday night, that we have a lot of witnesses, in the hymns they wrote, the prayers they composed, the stories surrounding their lives in Christ, etc. That's what it looks like.
*******************************
M.E. said... This seems so quasi-mystical.
POW: Why so?
M.E. imagined... To know is to participate in the mystery...and not ask questions.
PoW: Show me where THAT was in what I posted? To not ask questions--no way!
Where is this mystery in the witness of the chemo patient? Her knowledge of the Goodness of God may be "BEYOND WORDS" (So a shorthand phrase suffices); but (1) it is not beyond asking questions, and it is not beyond knowledge. Nothing of the sort.
Yet is is ALSO not limited to reductions to a rationalism. Not alien to or estranged from what can be "rationally" examined. But not confined by it either. (Like the illustrations of "knowing" behavior in others, in the above link -- did you see that one?)
QUOTE: So the only way to really know God in Trinity is not by our minds, but in our hearts. It demands our hearts rather than our intellects, our love before our understanding. The only way to know God is by union with Him, a procedure that negates the way through reason. We should have a clue to the way of love if we think about our human affections. How do we anticipate what our child will do before it happens? Not by logic, but by intuition. Something within us comprehends before she does the way she will act in a given situation. It applies as well with man and wife. We may say, “I know what he will do,” but what we mean is, “I sense it.” “I feel it inside.”
If anything, going through what she has, walking by faith, step by step... Giving of whatever she has on those good days, and placing herself in the Lord's hands on the others.
"...though this cancer does keep returning, and is life-threatening. . .God is good, ALL the time!"
That's what it looks like!!!
Iconical: It is the LOOK of THAT which is the only hope of winning souls and drawing nations back to Christ.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/13/2006 8:10:07 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 9:01 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm getting lost. Clarify for me please. I'm really trying to understand you here.
Make it 2nd grade level.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/13/2006 9:07 PM (GMT -6) | | | I don't know what to say.
You asked questions twice (rather than me having something I wanted to say), and I tried to answer you.
Maybe you want to come back later, and ask a question then. I've tried, and I thought some of my examples were good ones: (1) salt in moderate amounts for dough, (2) taking out some flour to add yeast before mixing into the whole, (3) the oncology patient in our church, (4) political definitions, hymn writers, (5) prognosticating spouses,
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/14/2006 11:00:02 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 9:18 PM (GMT -6) | | "So the only way to really know God in Trinity is not by our minds, but in our hearts. It demands our hearts rather than our intellects, our love before our understanding. "
How can one love what one cannot understand? I'm not talking FULL COMPREHENSION. I'm not talking about PARADOX either (though we'd have to talk about how one distinguishes paradox from contradiction). How can one genuine love what one perceives to be complete absurdity...meaning utterly contradictory?
IS there a link between the left and right brain activities? If so, what...as it applies here?
One thing I've ALWAYS liked about Doc's ministry is one of it's chief premises: that one CANNOT fully be passionate about something cannot make any requisite sense of. Bald intutions are not enough.
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/13/2006 8:37:22 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/13/2006 9:43 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
"So the only way to really know God in Trinity is not by our minds, but in our hearts. It demands our hearts rather than our intellects, our love before our understanding. "
How can one love what one cannot understand? I'm not talking FULL COMPREHENSION. How can one genuine love what one perceives to be complete absurdity?
I don't know why you appear here to be so frantic. Or make such exagerated comparisons.
Merely saying, as the ariticle I posted quote from "...our love BEFORE our understanding" does NOT equate with your saying "CANNOT" understand. It does not!
An example of loving first and then understanding is that "We love him because he first loved us" (I John 4:19). And, "God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8,9), of which one of the early fathers recounted "He, therefore. had love toward us even when we were practising enmity against Him."
ONLY AFTER our responding to his Love can we begin to understand God.
BEFORE that, the posture of enmity PREVENTS our understanding God. (I see that in kids with behavior disorders, vividly. There are some moments when loss of rationality totally prevents understaning, dialog, and even their own safety...except for the help of those who are supporting them unconditionally.) Sin brings that loss of rationality.
Further, why...whY...why dID you make the exagerated remark "perceives to be complete absurdity?"
It is NOT a complete absurdity to find one's heart demanded. ("It demands our hearts. . .before our (intellectual)understanding."
")
In the case of my friend, there is many, many things about her illness, her life, and her death that she mostly will not understand. The shear numbers and complexity, and the reduced capacity pretty much guarantee it. But isn't it good that it is not the only capacity she has to know and understand God with?
I think so.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/13/2006 8:46:19 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 10:00 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
I don't really know you D. But neither do I know why you appear here to be so frantic. I can't answer you here
I have diagnosed ADHD. Trust me. This is NOT me being frantic. 
****************************
POW:
Merely saying, as the ariticle I posted quote from "...our love BEFORE our understanding" does NOT equate with your saying "CANNOT" understand. It does not!
An example of loving first and then understanding is that "We love him because he first loved us" (I John 4:19). And, "God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8,9), of which one of the early fathers recounted "He, therefore. had love toward us even when we were practising enmity against Him."
ONLY after our responding to his Love can we begin to understand God. BEFORE that, the posture of enmity PREVENTS our understanding God. (I see that in kids with behavior disorders, vividly. There are some moments when loss of rationality totally prevents understaning, dialog, and even their own safety...except for the help of those who are supporting them unconditionally.) Sin brings that loss of rationality.
Ok. I'm interpreting (I'm using this word intentionally) something different now. Before, I interpreted the statement say saying that our affections and passionate devotions are demanded of us regardless of whether or not we comprehend what we are supposed to be passionate about. NOW, I'm interpreting YOU as saying something to the effect of this: Our sin darkens our understanding such that we CANNOT "understand" God (I take this to mean more subjectively with respect to appropriation) before our open, genuine response to God's previous offer of love. Is this what you are saying? If so, I get that.
Do you see how we were on two different pages?
********************************
POW:
In the case of my friend, there is many, many things about her illness, her life, and her death that she mostly will not understand. The shear numbers and complexity, and the reduced capacity pretty much guarantee it. But isn't it good that it is not the only capacity she has to know and understand God with?
I think so.
I have no problem with a person's faith being more wholistic (logic and intution). OF COURSE, that's the way it should be. We are MORE than our ability to sequentially process and critique data! I have a problem with the idea (NOT that you have said this!) that participation in the "knowledge" provided by one's noumenal experience should be such that more logical evaluation and critique of said experience is both unwarrented and unnecessary.
THIS is the thought that triggered me. Again, I'm NOT saying you said this. You didn't. But it was part of what I interpreted from what I read.
See why feedback is wonderful?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/14/2006 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
THIS is the thought that triggered me. Again, I'm NOT saying you said this. You didn't. But it was part of what I interpreted from what I read.
See why feedback is wonderful?
If feedback helped you see that the extremes you first read into the quotes is NOT there at all, then it is wonderful that it helped you.
(Slow down. Watch where you step. The cows of theological milk have been messy.)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Again...I thought some of my examples were good ones: (1) salt in moderate amounts for dough, (2) taking out some flour to add yeast before mixing into the whole, (3) the oncology patient in our church, (4) political definitions, hymn writers, (5) prognosticating spouses,
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/14/2006 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Yo, POW. Good stuff. I liked it a lot.
Check it out. Hook a brotha up. What can you tell me about some EO perspectives on universalism? I know that the EO doesn't officially sanction universalism, but ALLOWS for a "universalistic hope". . . .
1. What DID strike you in those two articles, M.E.
2. Some say uiversalism was condemned with Origin. Others point out that it was "preexistence of souls" that was condemned.
Either way, I'm guessing that you'd find them cautious.
3. And INTELLECTUALLY, for myself, I'd be cautious about the opening to distinguish "univeralistic hope" (your words) from "hope for all." I don't think they would be the same thing.
Do you see the difference?
Tell me if you don't. Otherwise we could discuss that a bit.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/14/2006 12:30:11 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/14/2006 1:30 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
Do you see the difference.
Tell me if you don't. Otherwise we could discuss that a bit.
I'm unclear on the difference. Discuss away.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/14/2006 1:35 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
1. What DID strike you in those two articles, M.E.
The pursuing nature of Love
The purging nature of Love
The permeating nature of Love
The transformative nature of Love
The freeing nature of Love
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/14/2006 1:57 PM (GMT -6) | | |
PoW:
3. And INTELLECTUALLY, for myself, I'd be cautious about the opening to distinguish "univeralistic hope" (your words) from "hope for all." I don't think they would be the same thing. ... Do you see the difference?
MephEternal said...I'm unclear on the difference. Discuss away.
We'll see whether a discussion breaks out from this hockey game...
Point One (academic) -- "Universalism" (like a lot of 'isms') is a rule that generates particular instances.
Of course there are exceptions. . .
BUT, in the theological-sprecht of the West, where in trinitarian discussions the habit has long been to work from the 'essence' to the 'person'--giving the word the particular list of "OMNI's the west repeats (rather than to recognize the 'person' as the source--which leads to the sort of way the East talks, as with John of Damascus), it seems likely that when one sees the word 'universalism' that the speaker means to imply an overarching policy that will be implemented without exception. And, further, that it is the policy rather than the accumulation of instances to form a pattern that is at the heart of the concept. I think this is part of the trinitarian debates. And I also think it is at the root of a lot of discussion on your site too. Its an ALL-OR-NOTHING kind of thinking.
I won't participate in that.
For us practical, sedond-grade thinking (THAT'S ME!) people, "hope for all" is not hard. It's hope for this one, and that one, and that one, etc. A pattern forms. And from that pattern comes affirmation of what is already known by one's self, that God is the "THEANTHROPOS"--The Lover of Mankind!
The term "univeralistic hope" sounds to me like the loosing of important recognition of free will. And for that reason I reject it.
But the term "hope for all" preserves free will. And I accept this more biblical (imho) and more practical, and more second-grade (or age 5-21 special ed. like my students) term
M.E. .... Now its your turn to "discuss away."
===================================
BTW -- For some on St. Isaac the Syrian, see:
H A P P Y R E A D I N G !
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/14/2006 2:27 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:(emphasis mine)
Point One (academic) -- "Universalism" (like a lot of 'isms') is a rule that generates particular instances.
Of course there are exceptions. . .
BUT, in the theological-sprecht of the West, where in trinitarian discussions the habit has long been to work from the 'essence' to the 'person'--giving the word the particular list of "OMNI's the west repeats (rather than to recognize the 'person' as the source--which leads to the sort of way the East talks, as with John of Damascus), it seems likely that when one sees the word 'universalism' that the speaker means to imply an overarching policy that will be implemented without exception. And, further, that it is the policy rather than the accumulation of instances to form a pattern that is at the heart of the concept. I think this is part of the trinitarian debates. And I also think it is at the root of a lot of discussion on your site too. Its an ALL-OR-NOTHING kind of thinking.
I won't participate in that.
Some things...
1) You would NOT like dabbling in philosophical theology. That much is certain. You'd have to deal with the idea of metaphysical principles and such...which would implicitly deal with all-encompassing concepts.
2) Universalism doesn't need to be seen as an arbitarily set metaphysical imposition...but a inferred conclusion BASED upon the "patterns" of which you speak.
*******************
POW: (emphasis mine)
Point Two (practical) -- To me, the distinction between the terms "univeralistic hope" and "hope for all" (a title of a chapter addressing St. Isaac the Syrian, in Kallistos Ware's book, "The Inner Kingdom" http://www.svspress.com/product_info.php?products_id=117 )
For us practical, sedond-grade thinking (THAT'S ME!) people, "hope for all" is not hard. It's hope for this one, and that one, and that one, etc. A pattern forms. And from that pattern comes affirmation of what is already known by one's self, that God is the "THEANTHROPOS"--The Lover of Mankind!
The term "univeralistic hope" sounds to me like the losing of important recognition of free will.
And for that reason I reject it.
But the term "hope for all" preserves free will. And I accept this more biblical (imho) and more practical, and more second-grade (or age 5-21 special ed. like my students) term
Hmmm...
That big discussion that we'd been having that you stopped reading. It was all about seeing if the idea of eventual universal reconciliation was COMPATIBLE with the full idea of libertarian freedom. From my perspective, it looks like we have found at least a solid skeleton for something that they ARE compatible.
But I see why YOU reject the term. Makes sense to me.
*******************************
Hmmm...
This really makes me think, too. Maybe it's just no good. I mean trying to convince lots of people about universalism. The whole reason why (I believe) my system works is based DEEPLY on philosophical theologizing. For people who are much more like you, POW, we couldn't even get the conversation started too much. (This is NOT a pejoration!) Can we really see a person like Ware wanting to get all into process philosophy, "dispositions", and "rock-bottom" experiences...just to get to some form of universalism? Probably not. He may well think it's a waste of mental and spiritual energy. As would many others. But they would CONTINUE to deny universalism on the basis of it's so-called implicit denial of man's "free will"
Even if I were to clean all this up and put meat on the bones...and put it all in a 300+ page book with tons of notes and stuff, who would really take the time to read it?? 
Sigh...
Oh well. I know for me, this has always MAINLY been about me clarifying my OWN ideas...for use in my OWN life. Which is just fine with me.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/14/2006 3:21 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
The pursuing nature of Love
The purging nature of Love
The permeating nature of Love
The transformative nature of Love
The freeing nature of Love
Amen. (I guess.) But some of these are over my head.
For instance there are MANY DIFFERENT ideas of what truly is freedom (Hopko, above) and I'd not agree or say 'amen' to all.
I'm not sure what 'permeating" means here. Like to hear you say.
Purging make sense. Nice expression. The Cross?
Pursuing is good.
Transformative is great.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/14/2006 3:29 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
I'm not sure what 'permeating" means here. Like to hear you say.
per·me·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrm-t)
v. per·me·at·ed, per·me·at·ing, per·me·ates
v. tr.
To spread or flow throughout; pervade: “Our thinking is permeated by our historical myths” (Freeman J. Dyson). See Synonyms at charge.
To pass through the openings or interstices of: liquid permeating a membrane.
v. intr.
To spread through or penetrate something.
Emphases mine
“The Burning Bush is an expression of the divine nature. In the flame of the bush you can have a glimpse of Who I am. As the scripture declares, your Lord, the Lord of Love, is a consuming fire!
“Like the flame of the Bush, I am Love that gives endlessly of itself. I am that generosity that knows no bounds. No one can say of my Love: it extends to this point, and no further.
“I am that Love that always tends to incorporate and assimilate every element of human existence it encounters (indeed, I am the very Source of those elements). Just as the fire burns without consuming the wood of the bush, I never destroy the persons I have created. I only wish to make disappear whatever there is within a person that conflicts with the essence of Love.
“I take for myself and make it my own. I transform and I transfigure. I bestow life. I transpose human life on to a higher plane.
“He who loves unites himself to those whom he loves. I unite myself to you, my beloved. Nevertheless, there can be no confusion between myself, who am Love, and you, who receive that Love.
“Can you now behold this Great Vision? Do you see the flame that no one lights, the flame that leaps forth from my very Heart, the flame which is my very Being? Do you see the divine Fire that spreads out across the world? The entire universe is the Burning Bush!
God seeks to interpenetrate ALL aspects of our lives and Creation itself with His Love and Holy Presence.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/14/2006 3:52 PM (GMT -6) | | |
M.E. said... 1) You would NOT like dabbling in philosophical theology.
PoW: Right.
M.E. said... 2) Universalism. . .seen as an. . .inferred conclusion BASED upon the "patterns" of which you speak.
PoW: Question -- How CONCLUSIVE do those conclusions need to be. Noting bad about conclusions. Sometimes error forces doctrinal conclusions. But even then, it ialso sets in motion the process of "unsaying" that is so openly seen in history. (e.g., the Ecumenical Councils as to Christological and Trinitarian matters.) But HISTORY also speaks to us of the virtue of not concluding what we don't need to. ........... St. Irenaus spoke of the diversity within the unity as proof of the Spirit's leading!
"*******************
PoW: The term "univeralistic hope" sounds to me like the losing of important recognition of free will. And for that reason I reject it.
M.E. said... But I see why YOU reject the term. Makes sense to me.
PoW: And since THIS thread is the only object of my attention, and "that" thread only an illustration (admitted by me) you've acheived what was possible. Thanks.
One hesitation that I have to say too much too soon is that YOU carry baggage from one thread into another. I feel like I've stayed free from that, and had opportunity to define what I'm saying; and even to avoid saying things I don't wish to. Thanks.
*******************************
M.E. said... Hmmm... This really makes me think, too.
PoW: Sounds good. 
M.E. said... For people who are much more like you, POW, we couldn't even get the conversation started too much. (This is NOT a pejoration!)
PoW: Good observation.
M.E. said... The whole reason why (I believe) my system works is based DEEPLY on philosophical theologizing.
PoW: I see.
M.E. said... Can we really see a person like Ware wanting to get all into process philosophy, "dispositions", and "rock-bottom" experiences...just to get to some form of universalism? Probably not.
PoW: Right. He understands the West, for sure: grew up Anglican. But as a pastor (Orthodox Bishop) and a Lecturer at Oxford, He knows the differences between scholastic and doxological statements.
M.E. said... He may well think it's a waste of mental and spiritual energy.
PoW: Probably see the spiritual DANGERS. And would also see throughout history evidence that warns the same.
M.E. said... to deny universalism on the basis of it's so-called implicit denial of man's "free will"
PoW: No. What they would do is not deny it on that basis. They would just begin with God, and not move beyond God to philosophical-theology (scholastic) concepts. Or, more likely, they are already dealing with a legacy of scholastic concepts and their bad fallout and would be suspicious of accepting more "stuff" when they are bringing things out to the curb alread. 
I might suppose that from "free will" you would not get to "universalism" but might get to "for all." But that is not the same thing as you are saying.
M.E. said... who would really take the time to read it??
PoW: What would it contribute to a second grader?
PoW: That God loves this person, and this person, and this person fits the second grade curriculum. I prefer even an Kindergarten curric., saying that God love ME.
"God is Love." (Which too often gets turned into a philosophical-theological-concept)
and
"By this we KNOW WHAT LOVE IS (not a philosophical-theological-concept), that Christ died for us..."
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/14/2006 2:59:25 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:37 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|