rationalskepticism.org

Teuton wrote:

DefineGod wrote:
I would first ask if you could post a source for personalistic psychotheism.

"How is the claim that there is a God to be understood? I suggest—provisionally—in this way: there exists necessarily and eternally a person essentially bodiless, omnipresent, creator and sustainer of any universe there may be, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and a source of moral obligation.

(Swinburne, Richard. The Christian God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. p. 125)

"By a theist I understand a man who believes that there is a God. By a 'God' he understands something like a 'person without a body (i.e. a spirit) who is eternal, free, able to do anything, knows everything, is perfectly good, is the proper object of human worship and obedience, the creator and sustainer of the universe'. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all in the above sense theists."

(Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. p. 1)

"That God is a person, yet one without a body, seems the most elementary claim of theism."

(Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. p. 101)

"[T]heism is the belief that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing perfectly good immaterial person who has created the world, has created human beings ‘in his own image,’ and to whom we owe worship, obedience and allegiance. …God, according to theistic belief, is a person: a being who has knowledge, affection (likes and dislikes), and executive will, and who can act on his beliefs in order to achieve his ends."

(Plantinga, Alvin. "Religion and Science." In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science)

Thanks for the sources!

This then remains: Remember to retire into this little territory of thy own, and above all do not distract or strain thyself, but be free, and look at things as a man, as a human being, as a citizen, as a mortal. But among the things readiest to thy hand to which thou shalt turn, let there be these, which are two. One is that things do not touch the soul, for they are external and remain immovable; but our perturbations come only from the opinion which is within. The other is that all these things, which thou seest, change immediately and will no longer be; and constantly bear in mind how many of these changes thou hast already witnessed. The universe is transformation: life is opinion. http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.4.four.html Marcus Aurelius, Meditations. (Its all good!)

Mr. Plantinga uses "owe worship, obedience and allegiance." I believe atheists share this pattern, yet put their faith in science, a less encompassing term IMO. Whereas "affection," "executive will," and "personality" sound like conceptions of consciousness. What do you think?

DefineGod wrote:
Here is a link to a Zen Christian source.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55058908/handokai

I glanced through the first pages and came upon this (p. 6):

"When we speak of three constituents, where is God in all this? Let’s take the matter of the third constituent first. Actually, it is indicated in the English word be-ing. This “ing” expresses action or movement. Be-ing is dynamic. It is moving. There is only being when the formless Source moves into form, into act. With-out this movement, there is no being. Thus movement is the third constituent or component of being."

I disagree. The verb "to be" is not a dynamic verb but a stative one, being (as such) is not an activity or process but a state, and being is not the same as becoming or doing. For if there is nothing, nothing can become or do anything. Where there is no being, there isn't any becoming or doing either.

I think its a pretty darn interesting book.I like to go back and re-read sections from time to time. Another good one is "Living Buddha,Living Christ" by Thich Nhat Hanh. http://www.amazon.com/Living-Buddha-Christ-Thich-Nhat/dp/1573220183
Little bit of an easier read than "the Handokai."

If I understand, you disagree with Fr. Hand on his view of the verb "to be." "Being" is a state one must be in (statically) to "be" I am not sure how else to respond. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
Perhaps reading his more in depth explanation on "the trinity" on page 13 would be helpful? I know it was for me! (This stuff is heavy)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPkBG-mymAE[/youtube]

Thanks again for the post! Giving me some reading to do!