Re: MD Philosophy and Theology

From: Joe (
Date: Wed Apr 09 2003 - 18:43:10 BST

  • Next message: johnny moral: "Re: MD Undeniable Facts"

    On 06 April 2003 11:26 AM Rick writes:

    > SAM
    > Yet Christians would say that 'nobody else was the Son of God' - so why
    > > shouldn't Jesus be different?
    Well, that's fine so long as one is willing to believe that Jesus was the
    son of God (or even that there even is a 'God' for that matter). I admit I
    can't prove that there is no god or that Jesus was not his son, but I also
    can't disprove the existence of unicorns, goblins, batman, or the
    tooth-fairy. Homer's Odyssey and Iliad contain countless fantastic elements
    I can't disprove (ie. that a cyclops existed who was killed by Ulysses).
    Should I believe that the Odyssey also really happened for this reason?

    Hi Rick, Sam and All,

    When I read Augustine, Aquinas, Jerome, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila,
    etc., I am struck by the reverence they express when writing about Scripture
    (revelation). They want to have a different attitude towards Scripture than
    towards Plato.

    I know of four ways to learn words:
    1. Abstraction
    2. Instinctive sense of reality
    3. Belief:
            a. Faith
            b. trust
    Faith is very obscure and yet very certain. I learn new patterns by Faith
    in revalation. I turn to theology to compare such wild patterns to
    intuitive patterns of metaphor and analogy.

    Intuition follows the patterns upon which analogy and metaphor are based. A
    rhythm is established and I am convinced my Faith is well founded, as I am
    aware of existence. Intuition follows the patterns and the aspect of
    purpose is isolated. Lies and exaggerations seem to be related more to
    purpose. It is very easy to test a lie or exaggertion. Do it!

    Many of the new patterns I learn from revelation relate to actions. When
    God doesn't do it!, I say he doesn't exist. My metaphor, God, based on an
    intuition of the aspect of existence in the metaphor, becomes a lie or
    exaggeration based on an aspect of purpose in the metaphor. God doesn't
    have anything to do with it, merely my perception of the metaphor I am

    IMO theololgy is a philolsophy of metaphor and analogy applied to
    revelation. The certainty of theology initially borrows from the certainty
    of Faith. If theology achieves the intellectual level it has a certainty of
    its own. I think it is impossible to achieve an intellectual level by
    abstraction or trust. If I read Pirsig correctly he indicates the
    intellectual level is atttained by intuition. I intuit the dynamic. Faith
    is always certain. Faith is misplaced when it does not stand alone, but is
    based on social trust. Grace dynamically intuited is the basis of Faith.
    Always theology starts from Faith, since the new patterns with which
    theology is concerned came from revelation.

    I do not think awareness is learning. Awareness is from existence, and only
    in the pattern of 'awareness' do I perceive an aspect of purpose. The
    pattern I call God is a metaphor. I intuit an aspect of my pattern 'I' to
    be existence and I apply it to the God metaphor. I do not find any 'no' in
    an intuitive awareness for planets. They certainly have a lot to do, and I
    expect an instinctive sense of reality would help. But they don't talk to
    me! Over a billion people don't talk to me! My patterns are limited.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 09 2003 - 18:41:03 BST