Selaphiel

Happy birthday! Here's a gift: see "F. Fundamentalist Interpretation."

:chuckle: With a look like that, I'm sure nothing can go wrong. lain:

Hope the lesson goes well. Enjoy the movie. What kind of movies do you tend to watch?

Sounds like interesting lectures. :thumb:

Yeah things are going rather well, thanks

Thanks. I guess my question would then be why is the default goodness instead of some sort of amorality or neutral stance. Is there no such thing as neutrality?

Quickly sending something from my phone. Will get to the rest later. :e4e:

Happy Birthday, Sela

Happy Birthday. :cheers: Got any plans? I'm sure your wooly friends have something big planned. lain:

Part 2:


I've also been thinking about his thoughts about Euthyphro's Dilemma. My question (one which I've no doubt is a basic one) to Hart's answer is why is God the Good. Why is God love. I'm reminded of a Unbelievable podcast I listened to a long time ago about the evil god challenge, or something to that effect. The hypothetical was about taking the world as it exists (mixture of good and evil) and saying that there could be an evil god instead of a good one. Is such a thing, an evil god under the classical meaning which Hart advocates, logically or metaphysically possible?

How are you doing? Semester still going well?

:e4e:

Part 1:

Things are going alright. I've been making progress in Hart's book. I'm in the last chapter now. I think about 20 more pages. In the Bliss chapter I really enjoyed his thoughts about beauty and morality, but I struggled a bit with some of what he said about God's fullness of being and consciousness leading to the fullness of bliss. I want to reread some of it.

I was fascinated by his comments in the last chapter about Aubry Moore and how he championed evolution, thinking it was a nobler conception of creation and one more fit for a God who is the logos of all things. How uncommon a view like that is these days. It's unfortunate. The section about atheism being the 'opiate of unbelief' (Czeslaw Milosz) and a religion of consolation was interesting too. And earlier where he says atheism is a plausible attitude toward the 'predicaments of finite existence', an emotional commitment or moral passion. I can understand and sympathize with that.

:chuckle: I liked the Tree of Life as well. I think it is better, but also more grandiose and less subtle than To the Wonder. In both of them you see Malick flirting with strongly Christian themes.

Have you seen To The Wonder? It's one of Malick's newer films. I enjoyed it, and I think you might, even though many haven't. :chuckle:

:chuckle: I hate it when I do that.

I quickly browsed Amazon for Pannenberg and came across a few that piqued my interest. One about Jesus, one about the Creed in light of modern questions, and one about nature.

:chuckle: Quite the scene. On top of the damage from their own football game in the house. lain:

Cool. I'll check it out.

:e4e:

Blessings in the buddhi-light

:noway: And I think when I read 50 pages I'm doing good. :eek: I've never read anything by him. Have you?

Glad you had some time with your brother and mass. My weekend is alright. I went out for the first week of football and I'm in a bad mood now because my team lost. :chuckle:

:think: Maybe something like this? http://www.amazon.com/Book-God-Walter-Wangerin/dp/0310220211/ref=la_B001H6WZFO_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410126552&sr=1-1

Could be nice at times for a change of pace.

:e4e:

I'm making progress in Hart's book, in the chapter on Bliss. The passage where he talks about the author who explained distant altruism, like donating money to distant people in need, by saying we have been fooled into thinking we will receive something back was pretty comical. :chuckle:

Hope you are having a good weekend. Any more driving classes to do?

:e4e:

Nice. Maybe you could get involved in some of the research while you are up there too. :D

Thanks for the info. So that would be a combination of the traditional translation and the one my study bible had. That would still fit in with their mention of verses like Ex 7:5, where Israel will know God by his actions. Wouldn't have thought about John 3:8 but that's an interesting connection too. God is dynamic and we must be in tune with it and join in with it.

The commentary in this Jewish study bible also makes frequent references to the different sources that were used to compile the OT. I would enjoy having a bible that indicates which source each verse/passage comes from. This might be close - http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Revealed-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/006073065X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y :think:

Today's Bing picture is from Norway. :D

http://www.bing.com/?FORM=Z9FD1


You should go there! :chuckle:

:think: Interesting.

Have fun with Heschel.

Yes, now that you mention it I do remember Hart briefly mentioning panpsychism. Something like that seems necessary but that is still a tough one for me. It seems kinda out there. :chuckle:

Any plans for the weekend?

:e4e:

Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

That passage is in the weekly readings. Most translations I've seen use what I show there. I AM. But for these readings I'm also trying to read the OT passages in the Jewish study bible I have. In that, for this verse, they don't translate the name of God, they leave it in Hebrew. They have comments though, and the comment says that the best translation is probably "I Will Be What I Will Be", and then just "I Will Be". It also gives a meaning of, 'my nature will become evident from my actions'. It then references a couple places in scripture where God tells Israel that He will be known as Lord by his actions.

What are your thoughts on that? What do you think the best translation is? Do you think there's a significant difference between "I AM" and "I Will Be"?

I don't know much about Eagleton. The book looks like it could be good though. The Amazon review says he's a Marxist. Probably wouldn't be too popular on TOL. :chuckle: Confessions is a good pick. I own Fear and Trembling but have never read the entire thing, only bits and pieces and it was several years ago.

I saw the short discussion you had with anna on Heschel's book. I think I'd like it. I've had some similar thoughts about how God chooses to communicate with humanity (from the review anna posted). I really should have picked that up at the bookstore a few weeks ago.

:e4e:

I am writing this review forty years after I read the book. A short portion of the book has stayed in my mind so forcefully that it directs what religious faith I have. I am a Protestant Christian Episcopalian but this book steers me. I have thought that a true God would not have required his subjects to read man-written tomes such as the Bible or Koran to guide his faith but the God would communicate directly with the subject. This book makes that point so well that it has stayed with me ever since I read it. When I read the book there was a considerable portion that did not interest me and still does not, but Heschel's points that Man has a sense of "the ineffable" and that in the sentence structure equivalent of Man and God, God can only be the subject of the sentence while man can only be the object. Read the book to have this explained -- and the explanation is brief. This book has influenced my thinking for my entire life (of 74 years so far.)