Gilberto, At 01:41 PM 12/13/2004, you wrote: >>Okay, but what I'm saying is that one can say God "*can* change His mind, but >>chose not to, at least not in an ultimate sense, hence the perennial >>philosophy.<<
Most proponents of the perennial philosophy I have read would not agree with what you wrote, including the traditionalists and Huxley. They *begin* with the assumption, the foundationalism, that the same basic truths are repeated time and again, and they then proceed, deductively, to draw their conclusions from that assumption. >>The Perennial philosophy doesn't imply putting presumtuous limits on God. The >>disagreement isn't about what God can do but over what God does do.<< Some of them may make that distinction, but, if so, I am unaware of it. You would need to show me an example. However, all the perennialists I have read assume that the perennial philosophy reflects the timeless Nature, or Essence, of God. I wrote: >>>>One of the problems with the philosophia perennis is its assumption of >>>>*essential* constancy.<<<< You replied: >>I'm not sure why this is problematic.<< Because they fail to distinguish between God's Will and His Essence. >>Right. I think that being actually guilty of murder in some moral sense is a >>very very different question from whether one is convicted guilty of murder >>in a court of law.<< Okay, but what is "some moral sense"? Are you referring to religious law? >>Innocent people are convicted all the time. Guilty people are let off on >>technicalities. That's why I don't think that plea bargaining or other such >>behavior is a good argument for the flexibilitiy of the definition of >>murder.<< I am not arguing for it. I am saying that definitions of murder are often grounded in opportunism, politics, and language games. >>Ok. But my question is why you would say there is more than one elephant.<< It goes back to what I suggested before about each Revelation being a distinct paradigm. >>Different religions are looking at the one God in different ways.<< Yes, or, perhaps, as in the case of the Buddhisms, not focusing on "God" at all. >>How do you see the analogy working?<< I am a perspectivist. I believe that there are many possible Baha'i faiths (small "f") in the context of the Baha'i Faith. I wrote: >>>>IMO, seeing truth is another way of referring to the study of the revealed >>>>Word (the words of the Prophets).<<<< You replied: >>What you are saying doesn't make sense to me. Although I'm not sure how to >>pinpoint where the disagreement is.<< lol. A lot of people don't agree with me. You are not alone. Mark A. Foster * http://markfoster.net "Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger" -- Abbie Hoffman __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
