View Single Post
Old 06-11-2008, 02:02 AM   #43
Erick Mead
 
Erick Mead's Avatar
Dojo: Big Green Drum (W. Florida Aikikai)
Location: West Florida
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,502
United_States
Offline
Re: The poll on aikido spirituality

Quote:
Jonathan Hay wrote: View Post
Brace yourself, this is gonna be a long one!
This will be shorter.
Quote:
Jonathan Hay wrote: View Post
I'm afraid you've built something of a straw man, here. None of my comments to you spoke directly to the matter of being like God.
Your reference was:
Quote:
I strongly doubt that Morihei Ueshiba was inspired by the Holy Spirit in the things he said about the relationship between the human and the divine.
If you did not mean in that respect his several references to assimilation to the divine, then you could be more clear in making the criticism.
Quote:
Jonathan Hay wrote: View Post
The "glass" I use, called the Bible, is "dark" insofar as it does not give a complete picture of God (we know "in part," as the apostle Paul explains). It does, however, inform me of all that I need to know of Him at this time. The Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, none of them use the "dark glass" of Scripture to frame their understanding of God. They are not using the same "glass" from "a different angle," they are seeing and understanding a different god through another means altogether.
Hmmmm. Others have viewed the dark glass more broadly, especially since when Paul wrote that the canon of Scripture was not yet assembled.
Quote:
St Augustine on Psalm 36 wrote:
He promiseth us some great thing. He would speak it, and He speaketh it not. Can He not, or do not we receive it? I dare, my Brethren, to say, even of holy tongues and hearts, by which Truth is declared to us, that it can neither be spoken, which they declared, nor even thought of. For it is a great thing, and ineffable; and even they saw through a glass darkly, as saith the Apostle, "For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face."(2) Lo, they who saw through a glass darkly, thus burst forth. What then shall we be, when we shall see face to face?
Quote:
Jonathan Hay wrote: View Post
I suppose you're thinking that Christ's use of the term "gods" here is some proof of the idea that we have an inherently divine nature? ...The Bible defines who and what God is. I believe the Bible to be true. Therefore, all other gods are false. This isn't idolatry; its basic logic.
Based on a incomplete (not entirely wrong) but incautious assumption, however. God defines who God is, the rest of us just take dictation.

Reread more critically what you just wrote. The text is defining the divinity, you believe the text, therefore all other divinity is false. How is the text not thus eliding itself into the constituting authority of divinity and not the other way around -- and thus repeating the Pharisaical error. Hang out with a few more Samaritans ... really -- they're nice people, and with just a few queer ideas ... some of them quite informative.
Quote:
I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.
So whether YOU know "His own" is not the point, he does and you cannot be the judge of that if you are to abide in charity. Error is nothing, literally, so look also at what you can find of the ineffable Truth written in the hearts of men wherever they are found. The rest does not matter.
Quote:
Jonathan Hay wrote: View Post
If Morihei Ueshiba wants to talk about kami as he does, so be it.

He is, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to do so. However, since I believe the Bible to be true, and since O-sensei's teachings do not agree perfectly with that truth, I must conclude that his beliefs are in error. This is the nature of Truth; it is naturally exclusivistic.

If I sincerely believe that I know the truth about God - as far as He's revealed it - then I must necessarily exclude as false what is contradictory to that truth.
You cannot assume error from your belief, and then conclude that it is error in the belief of another without engaging it, which you have pointedly not done, and indeed you try to justify only your reasons for NOT doing it. Not proved, sir.
Quote:
Jonathan Hay wrote: View Post
Postmodernism, which is more or less what you're espousing, at its end holds only confusion and contradiction. I want none of that.
heh. Postmodern? THAT'S funny. I am seriously suggesting, from the standpoint of Christian authorities such as St. Ambrose (4th c.) and St. Augustine (4th c.) that you should listen carefully for the Voice of the Spirit in a man trying to expound, in the context of advocating love of enemies in conflict, the fundamental myth of the Japanese people, written down in the eighth century -- and that makes me a postmodernist?

Dogma in the tradition of the Church proper are narrow (but very deep) and the bounds of theological exploration very broad.
The problem with the exclusive reliance on the text, is that it becomes all and the only dogma. It tends to swallow all the legitimate liberty of exploration of the rest of our spiritual inheritance, buried in the loves and remembrances of mankind like gems in the earth. That's why Puritans ended up hating Christmas and all its baptized pagan symbolism. You would make yourself similarly impoverished -- when your spirituality should become ever more abundant with the goodness in unfamiliar pagan teaching that you should look for and redeem, not ignore or destroy.

Cordially,

Erick Mead
一隻狗可久里馬房但他也不是馬的.
  Reply With Quote