[MD] What's wrong with "a personal God"?
lisaequintana at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 28 15:35:58 PDT 2016
I'll be looking forward to that.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:16 PM, John McConnell<jlmcconnell at bellsouth.net> wrote:
Interesting synchronicity: I have just been reading (for the third time) Ravi Ravindra’s Science and the Sacred. I am finding striking isomorphisms between my Christian theology and Ravindra’s account of the Yogic spiritual path. Both call for an “emptying” of one’s [ego-centered] self, in which one is the slave of “sin” [ego-mind, “flesh”, etc.], in order to become free to become one’s true Self, in which is perfect freedom. When I finish extracting my notes on the book, I’ll write up a couple of pages on it.
Email: jlmcconnell at bellsouth.net
From: Lisa Broy [mailto:lisaequintana at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 4:39 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org; John Carl; John McConnell; moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Cc: Nick Summerhayes; Anthony; skutvik at online.no; Andre Broersen; Henry Gurr; Antonio Italy
Subject: Re: [MD] What's wrong with "a personal God"?
I've only just subscribed to this mailing list, and I haven't read Auxier or James or Bowden. But since you've been talking about God, I can't resist asking whether anyone has opinions of the Yogic perspective?
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:52 PM, John Carl
<ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
John, I brought up the issue of Personalism a while back in MD, and
honestly, before we get into what you mean by "God", I think we ought to
talk about what we mean by "Personal". I got interested in the discussion
of Personalism in the general way through reading Auxier's commentary on
James's Personalism, which he (James) largely derived from Bowden Parker
Bowne, if Auxier's correct (and he usually is ;) It's a fascinating
philosophical discussion and one that modernist-analytic philosophy (SOM)
tends to ignore, being that it is a form of Idealism and god knows who we
let in if we open THAT door....
but on the other hand, without an account of the personal, all science;
all modern education, flounders in such abyssi as "mind/body" and
"Self/Other" logical problems.
before we can personalize God, God must personalize us, or we have no
basis for standing. I believe this can be a rational process, but it MUST
be a process. That is, Personality is a story - a process in time. The
god of the bible is certainly that, first and foremost - IAM he that knew
your fathers, that brought you out of the land of bondage, etc. The person
is rooted in history but the now is always a choice.
Thanks for continuing the conversation,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:16 PM, John McConnell <jlmcconnell at bellsouth.net>
> In a number of sources which otherwise affirm a spiritual reality or a
> concept analogous to the way Christians conceive of God, most are vehement
> in their denial a “personal God”, which most equate with an
> “anthropomorphic” or “sectarian” God. Although such may often be the case,
> why, on the face of it, do scholars reject the notion of a “personal God”?
> Why can’t God choose to be “personal”? Why is the affirmation of a
> “personal God” considered by MOQ fundamentalists to be a “limitation” or
> “definition” of God? How does being “personal” (not “personified”) violate
> God’s the attributes of ineffable, indefinable, etc., ascribed to Dynamic
> Quality? What could be less “effable” and “definable” and “limited” than
> the pure Essence of Being of Thomas Aquinas? I’m really puzzled by this.
> Can you help?
> Many thanks,
> John McConnell
> Home: 407-857-2004
> Cell: 407-867-2192
> Email: jlmcconnell at bellsouth.net
play within boundaries.
play *with* boundaries."
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
More information about the Moq_Discuss