[FairfieldLife] RE: CLASSICAL THEISM
Xeno, Reading and learning from books can be a form of meditation to gain knowledge and enlightenment. I suggest that you read all of the books of Aquinas and try to disprove all of his ideas about God if you can. If you are successful in doing so, let us know if you have gained any bliss in doing so.
[FairfieldLife] RE: CLASSICAL THEISM
I suppose we see this differently. I do not see god. I see being, not evidence of being. You see (if I interpret your words correctly) evidence of god in the things you see. That seems to have an interpretative step involved. Am I understanding this properly? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: [Xeno] As to theism, I am a post-theist, I do not think the theistic arguments have much point, but they do have some interest for me even if I disagree with most of them. Fesers' discussion below is really well done, I think. I myself sometimes think using the conception 'absolute being' without the articles a, an, the, but it has a different significance for me than for a theist because it is not transcendent and not out of sight. [Ann's highlight] [Ann] I am a theist and my God, my creator is very much in evidence everywhere I look. It is not a transcendent thing and it is not out of sight.
[FairfieldLife] RE: CLASSICAL THEISM
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I suppose we see this differently. I do not see god. I see being, not evidence of being. You see (if I interpret your words correctly) evidence of god in the things you see. That seems to have an interpretative step involved. Am I understanding this properly? If by "interpretive" you mean on the level of thought, then yes, that is part of my perception. But I don't see things in terms of "being", that is very impersonal, abstract and therefore distant for me. I feel embraced, literally surrounded and cocooned within all of this creation and the creation is so intelligent. The world in which I live is like swimming amidst all of this incredible richness of matter. We exist as physical entities in our human bodies surrounded by soil and sky and walls and we stand on dirt or wood or stone. It is everywhere and it is whole and real. And the structure of it, the form and movement is evidently the result of something that guided and gave birth to it, allowed it to manifest. This is my feeling, this is how I move and work within this material world. For me, these things are irrefutable. You speak of seeing "being" and I do to but perhaps our perception of being is different because I also see it as something deeply personal and loving and it is concretized in the things that make up this world, this universe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: [Xeno] As to theism, I am a post-theist, I do not think the theistic arguments have much point, but they do have some interest for me even if I disagree with most of them. Fesers' discussion below is really well done, I think. I myself sometimes think using the conception 'absolute being' without the articles a, an, the, but it has a different significance for me than for a theist because it is not transcendent and not out of sight. [Ann's highlight] [Ann] I am a theist and my God, my creator is very much in evidence everywhere I look. It is not a transcendent thing and it is not out of sight.
[FairfieldLife] RE: CLASSICAL THEISM
This is a really wonderful description Ann. I think my perception of the world is rather impersonal. Life would be extremely boring if everyone were the same. I do not find my perception boring, it often has great beauty, but that personal sense I think is long gone, there is a rather intense neutrality that I experience. You win some you lose some. I do not feel it as a loss, but you reminded me of it, when things had a bright individualistic sparkle to them. I think that some, were they to know this ahead of time, might think to back away from it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I suppose we see this differently. I do not see god. I see being, not evidence of being. You see (if I interpret your words correctly) evidence of god in the things you see. That seems to have an interpretative step involved. Am I understanding this properly? If by "interpretive" you mean on the level of thought, then yes, that is part of my perception. But I don't see things in terms of "being", that is very impersonal, abstract and therefore distant for me. I feel embraced, literally surrounded and cocooned within all of this creation and the creation is so intelligent. The world in which I live is like swimming amidst all of this incredible richness of matter. We exist as physical entities in our human bodies surrounded by soil and sky and walls and we stand on dirt or wood or stone. It is everywhere and it is whole and real. And the structure of it, the form and movement is evidently the result of something that guided and gave birth to it, allowed it to manifest. This is my feeling, this is how I move and work within this material world. For me, these things are irrefutable. You speak of seeing "being" and I do to but perhaps our perception of being is different because I also see it as something deeply personal and loving and it is concretized in the things that make up this world, this universe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: [Xeno] As to theism, I am a post-theist, I do not think the theistic arguments have much point, but they do have some interest for me even if I disagree with most of them. Fesers' discussion below is really well done, I think. I myself sometimes think using the conception 'absolute being' without the articles a, an, the, but it has a different significance for me than for a theist because it is not transcendent and not out of sight. [Ann's highlight] [Ann] I am a theist and my God, my creator is very much in evidence everywhere I look. It is not a transcendent thing and it is not out of sight.
[FairfieldLife] RE: CLASSICAL THEISM
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: This is a really wonderful description Ann. I think my perception of the world is rather impersonal. Life would be extremely boring if everyone were the same. I do not find my perception boring, it often has great beauty, but that personal sense I think is long gone, there is a rather intense neutrality that I experience. You win some you lose some. I do not feel it as a loss, but you reminded me of it, when things had a bright individualistic sparkle to them. I think that some, were they to know this ahead of time, might think to back away from it. I remember some pictures you posted here of where you live, the mountains and the small towns and the lakes and you obviously appreciate the beauty of that. It is a gorgeous area that you live in and that is not lost on you. But what you say here might give some pause. It has big implications and makes me wonder about it all. What it is that we strive toward when we look to "improve" our consciousness, to change our outlook and vision. Although I am open to change and to new things I am not sure what you describe is so tantalizing. And you did catch the feeling I was trying to convey, I believe. There is a "bright individualistic sparkle" you said. I like that, I like that a lot. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I suppose we see this differently. I do not see god. I see being, not evidence of being. You see (if I interpret your words correctly) evidence of god in the things you see. That seems to have an interpretative step involved. Am I understanding this properly? If by "interpretive" you mean on the level of thought, then yes, that is part of my perception. But I don't see things in terms of "being", that is very impersonal, abstract and therefore distant for me. I feel embraced, literally surrounded and cocooned within all of this creation and the creation is so intelligent. The world in which I live is like swimming amidst all of this incredible richness of matter. We exist as physical entities in our human bodies surrounded by soil and sky and walls and we stand on dirt or wood or stone. It is everywhere and it is whole and real. And the structure of it, the form and movement is evidently the result of something that guided and gave birth to it, allowed it to manifest. This is my feeling, this is how I move and work within this material world. For me, these things are irrefutable. You speak of seeing "being" and I do to but perhaps our perception of being is different because I also see it as something deeply personal and loving and it is concretized in the things that make up this world, this universe. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: [Xeno] As to theism, I am a post-theist, I do not think the theistic arguments have much point, but they do have some interest for me even if I disagree with most of them. Fesers' discussion below is really well done, I think. I myself sometimes think using the conception 'absolute being' without the articles a, an, the, but it has a different significance for me than for a theist because it is not transcendent and not out of sight. [Ann's highlight] [Ann] I am a theist and my God, my creator is very much in evidence everywhere I look. It is not a transcendent thing and it is not out of sight.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: CLASSICAL THEISM
On 2/18/2014 11:08 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote: *classical theism does not conceive of God as "a being," no matter how ultimate, but rather Beingness Itself.* > Beingness: It's a noun - the state of being or existence itself; the ultimate reality transcendental to . But, that doesn't tells us much about the polytheism in India, but it tells us a lot about Plato and Aristotle. In Advaita Vedanta, the Being is what everything comes from but it is separate from the creation. In Indian Vishnu monotheism, Brahman is the Transcendental Person. */The main problem we should be discussing is how the individual relates to the Being - what karma is, and what we do back./*
