Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

19740Re: [existlist] The thought of sensation, randomness, and perversity in religion

Expand Messages
  • Lorna Landry
    May 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Harry, Your system of logical propositions is not really necessay here, because, we, or at least I, already know that Christian Existentialism exists and is a valid form of existnetialism.If you are looking for the formulation of decent propositions and their necessary conclusions, you would be much better satisfied on a logic list. Life just does not work that way, and neither does existentialism. Lorna

      Harry JMK <ti083866@...> wrote:At 02-05-2003 Friday, Mark wrote:

      >The ultimate concern is the Ground of ALL being regardless of race,
      >gender, religious affiliation, age, etc etc etc hence the ultimate concern
      >is the Ground for all humanity ... and plant life ... and animals ... and
      >bacteria ... and galaxies ... and quarks ... and black holes etc etc etc.
      >Christians call this ultimate concern God. You can call it the ultimsate
      >concern. It doesn't matter. As John Shelby Spong points out it could
      >also be called Allah or Gaia or Brahma ... where the descripotion is the
      >same as ultimate concern! It is the ultimate concern's 'being' that
      >matters not the name by which the individual comes to recognise the
      >ultimate concern (recognition in part only .... as it is
      >transcendent) This ultimate concern is spoken of in metaphor as words
      >limit it. Any definition is, as a result, not the whole but a struggle to
      >name the unnameable.
      >As I have stated before all that is left is to describe this ultimate
      >concern. The existence of the ultimate concern is a non-issue.

      Well, more and more I get convinced that the whole entanglement (concerning
      the subject of Christian Existentialism or Existentialist Christianity or
      What-have-you) in which we find ourselves at this moment comes from the
      very classic problem of not having addressed the subject with the necessary

      0. Start with clear Definitions, from that:
      1. Create Axioma's on which:
      2. To build subsequent Propositions and Proofs

      It's just like Baruch Spinoza did in his 'Ethics'.

      So, in my view, if we are to find a release of all the fogginess and
      unclearness what has to be done is do some decent homework, and I think
      that would have to come primarily from you, Mark. As you are the one who
      started the whole discussion in the first place.

      First you will have to specify all definitions plus axioma's on which your
      worldview of CE/EC/etc is built upon. The rest of existlist will have to
      accept these as basic to the discussion. Once established we can move on to
      building propositions.

      But first you will have to define some decent fundamental propositions and
      make sound proofs of them from the initial axioma's. These are the items we
      can discuss together.

      I do not intend to read any books on CE/EC/etc, but I am willing to enter a
      well argumented discussion if and only if the groundwork proves to be thorough.

      I trust it won't be any problem for you.

      If together we fail to get this groundwork worked out well enough any
      discussion on the matter is fundamentally futile. We had all better stop
      with it then (much like Susan has already proposed) and work on other problems.

      'Nuff said. Comments anyone?

      Kind regards,
      - Harry -

      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

      TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

      Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 32 messages in this topic