Mary, List,
Mary, no doubt because of some of the things you wrote (especially
regarding the central importance of the Holy Spirit, the place of Mary,
"Mother of God," and the Filoque doctrine in this inquiry), a vector I had
once considered but had subsequently dismissed, resurfaced.
As Peirce a
Mary, List,
You wrote:
ML: You say "How the Person of the Spirit comes into play is much too
difficult/subtle to attempt to summarize here.” I totally agree, but I do
think its absence in our discussion causes some of the (my) confusion. Can
you explain how The Holy Spirit works in this discussio
Edwina and Jon,
ET
And again - all we are doing is quoting the same passages to each
other, and interpreting them in different ways. I suggest we allow
each other the 'grace' to do this - rather than insisting that one
or the other is 'right' - and the other is a 'misinterpretation.
Yes. The
Gary R., List,
Gary R.,
You say "How the Person of the Spirit comes into play is much too
difficult/subtle to attempt to summarize here.” I totally agree, but I do think
its absence in our discussion causes some of the (my) confusion. Can you
explain how The Holy Spirit works in this discussi
Gary F, Jon, List,
[Note: this is a response to two message, one from Gary f, one from JAS]
Gary F wrote:
Gf: Cosmotheandric??
Cynthia Bourgeault on Raimon Ranikkar's term Cosmotheandric:
*Cosmotheandric *is the term Panikkar invents to describe this dynamic
relational ground. The word itself
Edwina, List:
ET: That is, as JAS does, to maintain the reality of God as exo-Universe,
by setting up a purely theoretical argument that begins with the Peircean
statement that 'the Universe is composed of Signs' - and then, regress to
the Peircean claim that 'since semiosis is continuous then, a
Gary F., List:
GF: Jon, you’ve clarified your theological position somewhat (though I
don’t think you’ve really owned up to the paradoxicality of it as much as
Peirce does with his);
Would you mind clarifying the specific "paradoxicality" that you have in
mind? Among the major Christian theolo
Stephen R., List:
SR: I understand the Abba to whom Jesus refers with authority in Mark 1 to
be equivalent to the Word of whom John spoke ...
No, John is quite clear that Jesus Himself is the Word (*logos*), as well
as the Son of God the Father (*Abba*).
And the Word became flesh and dwelt amo
Jon, you’ve clarified your theological position somewhat (though I don’t think
you’ve really owned up to the paradoxicality of it as much as Peirce does with
his); but I’m disappointed that you haven’t addressed the semiotic issue that I
raised along with the two paragraphs I quoted from Peirce.
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
I don't think the problem is a binary conclusion. The problem I have
with these arguments is that they are strictly that - intellectual
arguments. Without pragmatic evidence or even, universality.
Therefore -
Peirce grew up at a time when awareness was still locked into Constantinian
Orthodoxy and it is very doubtful that at some points he did not take God
to be as delivered in the texts. I think that now we can have a conception
of deity as being All but that does not mean we need to subscribe to
effor
11 matches
Mail list logo
