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

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

Expand Messages
  • yeoman
    Mark, You will note that Chris has said that Christian Existentialism is a valid topic. To me, that means it is valid topic of *discussion. With emphasis on
    Message 1 of 32 , May 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark,



      You will note that Chris has said that Christian
      Existentialism is a valid topic. To me, that means it is
      valid topic of *discussion. With emphasis on discussion.
      If you feel that Christian Existentialism is of importance
      to Existentialism, then please discuss it and show why it is
      of importance. It is a hard world out there and, when one
      gets into difficulty, there isnt always a moderator to run
      to.



      The same applies to the non-god god that you are proposing.
      If you think that I am wrong, then please discuss the
      matter. Jesus may well have said, "The realm of God is
      within you", but did he actually mean that you have a god
      within you. To me, the context of the gospels is very
      clear, in that God is external and is what you might refer
      to as a "conventional" god.



      I have asked many times for you to clarify your opinion, and
      you have not responded. I dont care how many books may use
      these terms. You have read the books and supposedly are the
      expert. Then please give us the benefit of your knowledge
      with some kind of explanation --- that is the purpose of
      this group.



      You have stated that this God of the Ground of all Being
      impacts our "moment by moment" choices. I ask you again to
      show how there is an impact upon my choosing a Ford or a
      BMW. I would greatly appreciate your answer on this.



      eduard
    • Lorna Landry
      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
      Message 32 of 32 , 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
        discipline:

        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:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        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]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.