[harveyspecter]

(01-29-2016 06:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 06:02 PM)harveyspecter Wrote:  

Do any of the believers here are willing to delay sex until marriage?

Read that thread I just posted about premarital sex for men. It's not men who need to worry about saving their virginity before marriage, it is women. Our culture is fucked and tons of women think they should act like men though.

Okay, but we are still fucking those women and ruining them? Although they want to be ruined, let's not focus on that now.

My point is that wouldn't the world be better if everyone waited before marriage? Would that decrease the rate of divorce?

[hydrogonian]

(01-30-2016 12:03 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

If God existed why doesnt he just show himself to the people? Why is he hiding?

In the Christian faith, at least, that occurred with Christ. The Father is held to reside entirely in a supernatural realm and Christian theologians, with few exceptions for specific faiths (ie: Orthodox, Mormon) have not been able to philosophically arrive at a justification for Him ever manifesting himself in the material realm without compromising his nature; or at least the attributes that they give him. Though, the Orthodox faith doesn't hold that he appears in the way that you are likely referring to. They only hold that his energies are present in the material realm.

This is one of the theological issues that is a result of creation ex nihilo doctrine.

[hydrogonian]

(01-29-2016 06:02 PM)harveyspecter Wrote:  

Do any of the believers here are willing to delay sex until marriage?

Delay in general? No.

Delay with a woman whom I was going to marry? If she was the right material, I'd heavily consider it. This would be, if for nothing else, to do my part to preserve an almost defunct tradition that is almost unarguably a central practice of a more socially functional time.

It's sort of like copying the financial habits of a millionaire, if in this analogy "millionaire" means a man who is successfully married to a quality woman and fruitful in that marriage for as long as he chooses to be. In other words, I'm not refuting that premarital sex might be biblically legitimate (or at least blblically not illegitimate), only that a more socially functional society thought that waiting with your fiance was a good standard practice. As a man surrounded by poverty in this analogy, who am I to argue or reinvent the investment strategy?

[Samseau]

(01-29-2016 08:44 PM)avantgarde Wrote:  

Samseau, although porneia is derived from the word prostitute, it means more than whoredom and includes adultery, premartial sex in christianity. Yes formication from fornix the arch where whores gathered.

There is no such thing as adultery if two people having sex are not married. For adultery to occur, at least one person must be married.

Chastity is a female virtue. It is never mentioned for men outside of a few rare instances, and it is praised for the ability of a man to control himself and resist whores more so than the actual act of sex being sinful. A woman who gives away her sex for free is no different than a man who is prodigal (wasteful) with his wealth.

The fact is, when the Bible was written there was no such thing as casual sex. It almost never happened. Pregnancy, STDs, social stigmatization, etc. Either a man paid for a whore, or he paid for a wife. That is how 98% of men got laid when the Bible was written. The Bible was not written to account for technology thousands of years in the future. The words of the Bible have since been twisted to shame male sexuality but ironically not get applied to women, even though the Bible's teachings on sex were explicit for women back in the day as well.

Back when the Bible was written, women were all married off before they turned 20. Most before 18, many before 16. The idea that women need a degree and has to dozens of men to find her soulmate to get married around 30 is a sinful societal practice that is obviously destructive.

Again, for guys who want to really examine Ancient Biblical morality you should read my research:

thread-47972.html

I put a ton of work into that thread (it's still not finished even!), I spoke with the top priests of my Church including consulting ancient cannon law of the Orthodox. I will update the thread with more research soon.

Quote:

If God existed why doesnt he just show himself to the people? Why is he hiding?

He shows himself all the time, but the vast majority of people never notice Him. The human senses aren't capable of detecting him, you need to make a conscious effort to understand and communicate with Him before you can feel His presence. This can take years to achieve.

Also, God does reveal himself where there is excessive sin.

[avantgarde]

If you read 1st Corinthian, you will see the bible recommends to marry if you want to have sex.
If you are banging chicks outside of marriage with intention of marrying, it would be could considered a sin in the bible. Back then women married off young and avoided premartial sex, if they had higher standards wouldn't they expect premartial sex to be bad?
Also if women remained chaste til marriage and you can't bang whores, then you would have to be chaste til marriage too. But now women being sluts, they would be considered as whore back then. I once wanted to interpret porneia as prostitution but then my friend made me think I might be bending this to my desire.

[Phoenix]

(01-30-2016 05:09 AM)harveyspecter Wrote:  

Okay, but we are still fucking those women and ruining them? Although they want to be ruined, let's not focus on that now.

My point is that wouldn't the world be better if everyone waited before marriage? Would that decrease the rate of divorce?

That's not up to men though, at least not non-fathers. If you decide to wait for marriage, the other guys will have the joy whilst you lie in bed alone every night. Men are not the regulators -- it is their job to get the best they can get for themselves. Women are the regulators. Sexual morality should be targeted at them, and men have no choice but to follow.

This is kind of related to the false moral dichotomy of "wanting to bang as many as you can" and "advocating women be virgins" that gets questioned here from time to time.

|------------------ (3) Your sexual success
|
|------------------ (2) Average sexual success
|
|
|------------------ (1) One lifetime partner
|

(3) minus (2) -> How well you feel you're doing, where 0 is "normal".
(2) -> Set by women as a group.
(2) minus (1) -> Likelihood women will be unhappy long term, plus a bunch of other negative social repercussions. The higher this number, the greater the percentage of sex the men at the top get, and the greater the number of sexless men at the bottom.

[Pride male]

This guy is brilliant.

[Pride male]

More.

[Teutatis]

These God discussions always end up with the futility of each side trying to convince the other how right their side is and how wrong the other is. We have lots of well thought out arguments for both sides but in the end no one will change their minds about it.

Do I believe some kind of sentient being or entity created the universe? No, not all. I wish god did exist though, it would make things so much easier and comforting, but no, the whole concept of it doesn't make sense to me.

For the people arguing for the benefits society experiences from a belief in God, I don't disagree with that but it doesn't make it real.

(01-26-2016 03:59 PM)Habano Wrote:  

My litmus test for the question is a life-ending scenario. Imagine that you are on a plane that suddenly quits working. As the plane plunges toward the ground for a crash where no one survives, do you say a suddenly believe that God exists? Would you pray to him to save your life or redeem your soul in the event you die?

If put in the right situation, many who deny the existence of a higher power will change their mind.

Maybe it does happen with some but not all, I've had something like that happen to me and I didn't change my mind.

[hydrogonian]

^^ yeah, Christianity bitch! Less wrong than everyone else by popular vote!

Seriously though...I watched the first video. My thought is...meh.

In the argument itself, there is a presupposition that "God" is a subjective entity that can change between individual religions. In reality, strip away the myth and different names, and different punishment and reward systems (carrots and sticks) and what you are left with are metaphysical frameworks. I do believe that there are better and worse metaphysical frameworks. How is that measured, objectively? By the "Holiness" that they bring to believers, or in other words the social and community results. Would a truly Holy religion facilitate social dysfunction, political weakness, and the resultant constant suffering of its believers? Would it bring an equal or lesser social result than occurs for communities of non-believers? Would it require constant socially paralyzing prostration? Well, perhaps, depending on the group's tendencies. Would it require medieval torture as punishment? Would it require lifelong meditation so that your "soul" does not return? Would it require the desacralization of human beings? Would it require only constant repetition of prayer?

I'd have a difficult time buying into any argument that it might.

So, for logical skeptics, my advice is to stop anthropomorphizing God and your relationship to Him. He's not a winged human in the clouds who makes decision according to your perfect adherence to a religious system. It can help to conceive of Him in certain ways, but that should come later to fit the overall theology.

First you have to reconcile that "God" is a social concept and social system. Believing in Him is akin to having faith in and applying the social concept, and that takes a buy-in as to how he defines you as a person as well as the nature of your community.

No one follows a rule book and creates holiness, for long, because it is merely there. They do so because it defines and improves upon their self-definition as a person. It helps to think of God as the best, most ideal you that you can be (but will never reach). Though, you create what is referred to as Holiness in your life and community by attempting to mimic, to the best of your ability, that immutable righteous archetype that is what we conceive as God's human traits.

That he is "omnipotent" is just another way of saying that this archetype completely permeates as the immutable Truth and the immutable Good in the Universe. Thus, the rejection of "God" is akin to the rejection of an objective, righteous, eternal Truth. If you believe in such a thing, then it is illogical to reject God. If you do not believe in such a thing, than subjective individualism and atheism are more logical for you.

[hydrogonian]

Below are some mostly Platonic concepts that are pertinent to theology. Any philosophical assertions, attributed or not and unless otherwise noted, are those of Nicolas Laos who is first cited about half-way down:

The unique characteristic of the ancient Greek polis consists in a collective attempt to institute a community whose telos, or existential purpose, is an attempt to live in harmony with the principle of truth, rather than in the management of needs.

- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, X.

"Divinity is the direct object of the love (universal magnetism) of the eternal physical beings (of the celestial spheres) which imitate divinity's perfect life through their harmonious motion"

- Aristotle, Physics

The ultimate goal (telos) of collective life is truth that, according to Plato and Aristotle,consists in the imitation of true being (the mode of existence that is free from corruption, alterations, and annihilation).

-Plato, Republic, and Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.

Plato’s Myth of the Cave in the book Republic symbolizes humanity’s relationship with the Good as a process of education and psychological remodeling.

-Plato, Republic

In the context of the Cave allegory, the shadow means lack of communication, lack of society, and an entity that remains closed toward the rays of the light (Sun = the Good).

-Plato, Republic

Plato was not familiar with abstract thinking. Abstract thinking was invented by Aristotle… In Plato’s philosophy, idea and species display the visible rational form of the life-giving Universal One. It follows that the truth of the world of ideas is identical with the essence of reality. Thus, a dialectical philosopher reduces a multitude of phenomena to the archetypal One instead of analyzing phenomena. Under the Light of the Good, truth is the disclosure of being in its perfection (idea) as opposed to its imperfect empirical reality (phenomena). The Good is absolutely transcendent, and thus external to human consciousness, but it is available to be known by the human psyche that turns toward the good.

- Laos, The Metaphysics of World Order

In Platonic philosophy, the individual is neither absorbed nor nullified by the ‘universal’, since Platonic ideas are not concepts, and therefore the knowledge of Platonic ideas is not based on a leveling principle of logical coercion, but is a process of entering True Being rather than logically mapping it from the outside…

- ibid

Modernity has differentiated truth from reality and seeks truth, as a concept, through abstract reasoning.

-ibid

For both Plato and Aristotle, the immortality of the soul is the ontological presupposition and foundation of their theory of knowledge.

-ibid

In Plato’s philosophy, ideas are neither one’s own concept of things nor images of things, but they are the fundamental values of things, which hold universally, regardless of whether some persons (eg: the prisoners in the Platonic myth of The Cave) want to know them or not.

-ibid

The following is a bit dense but important:

Ideas hold universally because within their context life holds an intrinsic value. Every other existential condition lacks an intrinsic value because it is potentially self-destructive. For instance, prisoners in the Platonic Cave Myth could establish an order of things based on their illusions, but such an order of things would be threatened with collapse immediately after the first expression of doubt about its merits, which would only be a matter of time since the illusions preclude the knowledge of truth qua universal value, which could underpin an ontologically stable order of things.

-ibid

The Myth of The Cave explains the way in which the problem of knowledge is experienced by humans. It is a symbol of humanity’s relationship with truth. The levels of knowledge become steps of spiritual life. Thus the myth is not merely an object of abstract thinking, but corresponds to an existential condition, a way of life, and a struggle.

-ibid

The Four Levels of Knowledge According to Plato. He describes these as types of seeing, which are four different types of knowledge, states of consciousness, and thus existential conditions:

i. Illusion or conjecture – primitive, unreliable opinions. Unable to distinguish reality from what one desires to be real. Illusions are often purposefully cultivated. Indicated by emotional thinking, uncontrolled emotions, and spiritual chaos.

ii. Belief – empirical knowledge that allows one to distinguish objects from their shadows, but that lacks methodological rigor.

iii. Rule based reasoning / Logic – the liberated prisoner is in the sunlight and aware of it. Math. Testing and confirmation of his method of discerning shadows from reality. However, its coordinate system is determined by variables of the reality only perceived by the senses, and therefore this type of knowledge is not sufficient to perceive and discern the heights of the mental (intelligible) world, where Plato’s Idea of the Good resides. Thus, this logic cannot lead to the first, most absolute principle (The Good). Kurt Gödel mathematically proved that the Truth transcends every possible formal (deductive) system.

iv. Intelligence – the comprehension of the true nature of reality. Corresponds to knowledge of the Good. It transcends logic, aware of its limits, and acquires knowledge as a result of an experience of enlightened intuition.

-ibid

Plato’s Republic is a methodological study of the metaphysical idea that should inspire and guide the actual republic in the historical sphere (my note: for extra points start drawing ancient parallels).

-ibid

Note: I don’t hold Plato’s Cave allegory to be necessarily wholly ‘true’ in the context of knowledge of the Good, perhaps in the more subtle parts of some of the definition of the last stage (though I can’t discount it either at this time), but what is true is that you will find the DNA of Plato and his allegory wholly intertwined within Western theology; in spite of what the Jehova’s Witnesses or Mormons might say in regard to their own theologies. There are also philosophers who hold Plato’s philosophy to be a somewhat corrupted version of earlier theology, perhaps in that he holds the last stage of knowledge, intelligence, to be a result of the process of the dialectic (whereas some philosophers, like Laos, point to the first corruption in Augustine of Hippo’s theology, and others still later (Milbank?). Though, it makes a fine basis for study, as any corruption should be extremely subtle in comparison to later theologies, and as no mainstream Christian theologian of which I know will own up to any influence earlier than Plato. In other words, learning Platonic philosophy as a reference foundation in any theological study is smart and completely worthwhile in my opinion. No adjustment may be needed, metaphysically speaking, or you can walk out the theology from this starting point while fully aware of the nature of the changes being made instead of accepting a theology as "true" without being aware of where it falls on the philosophical spectrum.

[The Father]

(01-30-2016 12:03 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

If God existed why doesnt he just show himself to the people? Why is he hiding?

My guess is, "he" isn't what we think he is. But my guess is that God is all around us and we can only rarely tap into that dimension of consciousness. Maybe we will when we're dead, I honestly don't know.

[The Father]

(01-30-2016 05:09 AM)harveyspecter Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 06:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 06:02 PM)harveyspecter Wrote:  

Do any of the believers here are willing to delay sex until marriage?

Read that thread I just posted about premarital sex for men. It's not men who need to worry about saving their virginity before marriage, it is women. Our culture is fucked and tons of women think they should act like men though.

Okay, but we are still fucking those women and ruining them? Although they want to be ruined, let's not focus on that now.

My point is that wouldn't the world be better if everyone waited before marriage? Would that decrease the rate of divorce?

It would be better if women waited. Guys need to have more than one sex partner. It's that way in nature, too: The male has a heard that he fucks regularly - but no one else can fuck his females.

So as for those women we are "ruining" - they are mostly already ruined. The ones who hold out and have few (or ideally no) sex partners until they meet the one they can devote themselves to, you can't ruin those girls so easily. Also, the other thing ruining women is the family court system that encourages them to dump perfectly good husbands for fun and profit.

[PapayaTapper]

(01-30-2016 01:45 PM)The Father Wrote:  

Maybe we will when we're dead, I dunno.

Prior to the instant where each of our dad's sperm penetrated our mom's egg and catalyzed our life there was an infinity of time whereby we didn't exist. In other words before we were alive, were we not "dead" for that infinity? If we were dead before and then lived to finally end up dead again for another infinity why should the second infinity be different than the first ?

I don't know either but it's an interesting perspective to ponder isn't it?

[hydrogonian]

(01-30-2016 02:57 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 01:45 PM)The Father Wrote:  

Maybe we will when we're dead, I dunno.

Prior to the instant where each of our dad's sperm penetrated our mom's egg and catalyzed our life there was an infinity of time whereby we didn't exist. In other words before we were alive, were we not "dead" for that infinity? If we were dead before and then lived to finally end up dead again for another infinity why should the second infinity be different than the first ?

I don't know either but it's an interesting perspective to ponder isn't it?

It is. Some religions believe in pre-existence of an eternal essence or intelligence (that is you). Many, if not most, believe in post-mortal existence.

[PapayaTapper]

(01-30-2016 03:03 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 02:57 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 01:45 PM)The Father Wrote:  

Maybe we will when we're dead, I dunno.

Prior to the instant where each of our dad's sperm penetrated our mom's egg and catalyzed our life there was an infinity of time whereby we didn't exist. In other words before we were alive, were we not "dead" for that infinity? If we were dead before and then lived to finally end up dead again for another infinity why should the second infinity be different than the first ?

I don't know either but it's an interesting perspective to ponder isn't it?

It is. Some religions believe in pre-existence of an eternal essence or intelligence (that is you). Many, if not most, believe in post-mortal existence.

Reincarnation. Another interesting concept.

Ever notice how when someone recalls a past life they were a figure of note? Like a general, or nobility, or even famous person?

No one ever says something along the lines of "Yes in a previous life I was a dirt covered dark age serf that shoveled donkey shit for living and ended up with mold growing like grass from my asshole and puking myself to death at the age of 28" Seems like that should be pretty memorable

[hydrogonian]

(01-30-2016 01:38 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

iv. Intelligence – the comprehension of the true nature of reality. Corresponds to knowledge of the Good. It transcends logic, aware of its limits, and acquires knowledge as a result of an experience of enlightened intuition.

-ibid

I don't know if anyone got through my Plato post, or if anyone will, but for whomever did I was just handed a relevant insight through, of all things, a video game. The Talos Principle is heavy on esoteric theology/philosophy reaching back to at least Egypt. I can't speak to the overall accuracy of what the game will eventually attempt to tell me, but the game is accurate and deep at least on the level of fine detail as far as I can tell. Meaning that terminology is correct, and the general discussion seems like it knows its subject.

Anyway, in my Plato post, I discussed Plato's Four Types of Knowledge. The Fourth type is intelligence, and it transcends logic. I went on to state how I wasn't sure about the validity of the details, that I was given in my reading, under this Fourth Type of Knowledge. Keep in mind that the Knowledge Types are focused on uncovering Truth.

So, the video game seemed to broach this topic, though it didn't directly mention Plato. What it gave, or rather a choice that it gave me, was to answer the question "tell me more about consciousness"? I chose the answer: "It transcends physics", which was seemingly the correct answer. I directly referenced Plato's Four Knowledge types to answer the question.

What this insight means to me, in reference to the Four Types of Knowledge, is that logic is not the last form of knowledge, or the manner by which we can come to Truth, specifically because consciousness transcends physics and thus we can not explain consciousness via logic. This necessitates a way to truth that transcends logic. This likely also necessitates a theology in a correct religion that transcends the notion that God is known through logic (looking at you, scholasticism).

I'll also go on to make the bold statement that this reality of consciousness, more or less, invalidates secularism if consciousness is indeed above the laws of physics. Though, I suppose that the debate would necessarily move to this question if we are to accept its gravity.

[MiscBrah]

(01-30-2016 01:38 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

I don't know if anyone got through my Plato post, or if anyone will,

I definitely will. Your posts are absolutely incredible but require more thought process and mental power than I usually have when I'm browsing the forum. I usually have to set some time aside to fully go through what youre posting.

[hydrogonian]

(01-30-2016 01:38 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

I definitely will. Your posts are absolutely incredible but require more thought process and mental power than I usually have when I'm browsing the forum. I usually have to set some time aside to fully go through what youre posting.

Thanks, and I know what you mean. I write like I'm writing notes to myself for learning reference, more or less, which isn't what I find easy to read. Meaning that I find my posts perhaps unnecessarily verbose when I read them back to myself. I have to work on writing less and simplifying. Information that is not conveyed is worthless, and I realize that I'm a newbie here, again, and that writing like that may not be endearing.

In short, I probably need to follow a prescription of more shit posting less effort posting

[Lothario]

Welcome back Hydrogonian, that was a long break away but glad to see you posting again.

Awsome posts in this thread, +1 a very long overdue one. I read all your posts yesterday and will reread them to digest them a little better.

[The Father]

(01-30-2016 02:57 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 01:45 PM)The Father Wrote:  

Maybe we will when we're dead, I dunno.

Prior to the instant where each of our dad's sperm penetrated our mom's egg and catalyzed our life there was an infinity of time whereby we didn't exist. In other words before we were alive, were we not "dead" for that infinity? If we were dead before and then lived to finally end up dead again for another infinity why should the second infinity be different than the first ?

I don't know either but it's an interesting perspective to ponder isn't it?

It is. And it's a unique perspective to me; I've never heard it put that way before.

The way I figure it, I can't lose: If there's life after death, I doubt it will be a "heaven or hell" type thing...just another reality, likely a more interesting one. And if there's NO life after death...well, I never did get enough sleep...I could really use a long, long nap to catch up...

[Paracelsus]

(01-30-2016 01:38 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Note: I don’t hold Plato’s Cave allegory to be necessarily wholly ‘true’ in the context of knowledge of the Good, perhaps in the more subtle parts of some of the definition of the last stage (though I can’t discount it either at this time), but what is true is that you will find the DNA of Plato and his allegory wholly intertwined within Western theology; in spite of what the Jehova’s Witnesses or Mormons might say in regard to their own theologies. There are also philosophers who hold Plato’s philosophy to be a somewhat corrupted version of earlier theology, perhaps in that he holds the last stage of knowledge, intelligence, to be a result of the process of the dialectic (whereas some philosophers, like Laos, point to the first corruption in Augustine of Hippo’s theology, and others still later (Milbank?).

Hydrogonian, I just had the chance to go through your post, and it contained a couple of realisation bombs that went off since I'm Catholic but had never tracked the theology back that far. Clearly I must go and assault the Nicomachean Ethics in due course. Thank you so much for this brief primer on the Platonic concepts. I admit I was floored by the concept of a polis primarily being about a community living in harmony with the truth rather than for management of needs. It's an extraordinary thought. Without looking at it in detail I'd bet a vast number of medieval concepts of Heaven borrow from that idea.

That aside, I was wondering: have you any brief notes on where the concept of apophatic theology fits in with all this? We've got John Scotus who appears to link up this form of theology with the idea of a transcendent good/God: "We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."" Was this type of reasoning anathema to Plato/Aristotle/Socrates?

[hydrogonian]

(02-03-2016 02:08 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 01:38 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Note: I don’t hold Plato’s Cave allegory to be necessarily wholly ‘true’ in the context of knowledge of the Good, perhaps in the more subtle parts of some of the definition of the last stage (though I can’t discount it either at this time), but what is true is that you will find the DNA of Plato and his allegory wholly intertwined within Western theology; in spite of what the Jehova’s Witnesses or Mormons might say in regard to their own theologies. There are also philosophers who hold Plato’s philosophy to be a somewhat corrupted version of earlier theology, perhaps in that he holds the last stage of knowledge, intelligence, to be a result of the process of the dialectic (whereas some philosophers, like Laos, point to the first corruption in Augustine of Hippo’s theology, and others still later (Milbank?).

Hydrogonian, I just had the chance to go through your post, and it contained a couple of realisation bombs that went off since I'm Catholic but had never tracked the theology back that far. Clearly I must go and assault the Nicomachean Ethics in due course. Thank you so much for this brief primer on the Platonic concepts. I admit I was floored by the concept of a polis primarily being about a community living in harmony with the truth rather than for management of needs. It's an extraordinary thought. Without looking at it in detail I'd bet a vast number of medieval concepts of Heaven borrow from that idea.

That aside, I was wondering: have you any brief notes on where the concept of apophatic theology fits in with all this? We've got John Scotus who appears to link up this form of theology with the idea of a transcendent good/God: "We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."" Was this type of reasoning anathema to Plato/Aristotle/Socrates?

Speaking off of the cuff, apophatic theology seems to have much to do with it, though, I'm admittedly only superficially updated on all of the implications. For instance, I can't yet elucidate the exact philosophical consequences of apophatic and cataphatic theology.

What I think that I know is this:

Apophatic theology seems to be best correlated with mystical theology, which would be theology that is most correlated, more or less, with Platonic philosophy. To illustrate, I believe that contemporary Orthodox Christian theology, having theosis (mystical unity with the divine) as an expressed central aim, is mostly correlated with Apophatic theology. Though, it may (or may not) likely admit to some cataphatic theology.

I'm less sure of this, but I'd venture that Roman Catholic theology has relatively more cataphatic theology -likely justified as a seeking of balance.

I believe that as a theology becomes more logical (less mystical) and less ontologically grounded in a transcendent ideal, cataphatic theology seems to become emphasized.

If you are interested in this topic, I'd recommend the following book. I haven't yet read it myself, but I know of its reputation and its relevance to modern theology. If I wanted to be caught up with the relevance of apophatic theology, this is the first book that I would consult. Also, in general, it is probably eventually required for the bookshelf of anyone interested in Western theology. I'm merely reading around it at the moment:

The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky

[hydrogonian]

(02-03-2016 02:08 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

That aside, I was wondering: have you any brief notes on where the concept of apophatic theology fits in with all this? We've got John Scotus who appears to link up this form of theology with the idea of a transcendent good/God: "We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."" Was this type of reasoning anathema to Plato/Aristotle/Socrates?

Upon rereading of your question, I realized that I did not address it exactly.

As I before stated, I'm no expert as to the philosophical implications on the two aforementioned opposing approaches to God. However, given what I do know, I think that you and Scotus are spot on in regard to the nature of apophatic theology.

What I would venture is this: If God is truly transcendent and not dependent on human consciousness, then it likely follows that positive description is theologically impossible. I would guess that these philosophers likely reasoned that any positive knowledge of God implies that God is not completely transcendent to consciousness, which implies a dependence on individual consciousness. This might lead to the end of the concept of God, whatsoever.

Of course, these are all just my immediate thoughts based on the logic. I'm not sure it it's valid. I could easily be wrong.

Where modern Christianity seems to get into trouble is in resolving a completely transcendent God, existing completely in the non-material realm and having brought creation into existence ex nihilo, with an ontological connection to God. ie: How can God avoid desacralization in being immanent, being a part of, and being dependent on human conception and consciousness, and avoid abandoning human kind and the world altogether in the other supernatural extreme?

Orthodox Christianity fixes this issue by claiming that God exists completely apart from the material world (similar to almost every other denomination), but His "energies" exist in the world and humans can undergo a certain mysticism that allows them to participate in these energies. It's an interesting solution, and the book that I above recommended should explain it in full.

A necessary disclaimer, that I suppose that I should mention, is that I'm not personally biased toward nor am I pushing an Orthodox theological view on anyone, to include any Roman Catholics. I'm not an Orthodox Christian. I just recognize their theology as interesting and useful, especially in light of your question, and the best mainstream representative of one pole of Christian thought. To me, this makes their theology valuable in that it helps one to be able to orient oneself to proceeding theologies.

[Samseau]

Quote:

Orthodox Christianity fixes this issue by claiming that God exists completely apart from the material world (similar to almost every other denomination), but His "energies" exist in the world and humans can undergo a certain mysticism that allows them to participate in these energies. It's an interesting solution, and the book that I above recommended should explain it in full.

I would add some Kantian insight to this: Our senses are incapable of detecting the "Thing in itself" of where God resides. He is around us all the time, but we incapable of detecting him. By achieving spiritual growth on this life, are we able to reach him in the next.