Matthew Fox

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

In another thread, frequent poster and commentator Mateo wrote that Matthew Fox is “a champion of liberation theology”.

I have read several of Dr. Fox’s books, sat through several of his lectures and even had lunch with him once – but I can’t recall anything he says that seems to promote “liberation theology”.

I found Dr. Fox to be a great defender of what he called the “treasures” of the Catholic faith, especially the great mystics of the Catholic tradition. However, he does, at times, question some contemporary “authorities”, I suppose.

Can someone, more learned that myself (perhaps Mateo) point out Dr. Fox’s teachings on “liberation theology” and why they might be so troubling?

Finally, can anyone point out what Dr. Fox teaches that is believed to conflict with approved Catholic teachings? I heard that he was officially censored but don’t know why.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 23, 2003

Answers

Origenmoscow writes:

" I have read several of Dr. Fox’s books, sat through several of his lectures and even had lunch with him once – but I can’t recall anything he says that seems to promote “liberation theology”.

Can someone, more learned that myself (perhaps Mateo) point out Dr. Fox’s teachings on “liberation theology”...?"

Patronizing statements aren't necessary. I know little about Matthew Fox, so I relied on the website of the University that he founded to describe him. Here's a quote from the

University of Creation Spirituality (UCS) website:

"A liberation theologian and progressive visionary, he was silenced by the Vatican and later dismissed from the Dominican order. After dismissal he was received as an Episcopal priest by Bishop William Swing of the Diocese of California.

Fox is the founder and president of the University Creation Spirituality (UCS) located in downtown Oakland, California."

There is a close connection between Creation Theology (something Fox is credited with inventing) and Liberation Theologians. They are both left-leaning. They are both anti-hierarchical (vertical structures are bad).

Origenmoscow writes:

"...and why they (pro-Liberation Theology teachings) might be so troubling?"

Outside of California, Marxist-inspired theology is considered a corruption of Christianity. Since this thread's subject is on Matthew Fox, I'll hold off on talking about the pros and cons of Liberation Theology.

Origenmoscow writes:

"Finally, can anyone point out what Dr. Fox teaches that is believed to conflict with approved Catholic teachings? I heard that he was officially censored but don’t know why."

I can refer you to an excerpt from the book, HREF="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FOX.HTM">"Unicorn in the Sanctuary" by Randy England.

Fox's Creation Theology seems more in line with Universalists than Christianity.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 23, 2003.


I believe there are two different notable Father Fox's.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 23, 2003.

Yes, Emerald, There is Father Robert Fox, a great promoter of the Fatima message, and then there is Matthew Fox, dissident theologian.

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), February 23, 2003.


One of my links didn't work. Try number two:

An excerpt from the book, "Unicorn in the Sanctuary" by Randy England.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 23, 2003.


An excerpt from the book, "Unicorn in the Sanctuary" by Randy England.

Funny you should mention that book. I bought it in September, but I just finished reading it last night. It's a little dated, but still relevant. The section on Fr. Fox was particularly disturbing.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), February 23, 2003.



Phew...disturbing is right. Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), February 23, 2003.

I wrote:

"There is a close connection between Creation Theology (something Fox is credited with inventing)"

I want to correct this statement. I think that Fox had a big part in trying to distort Christianity into pantheist Creationism; but he didn't "invent" Creationism.

Here's a little more on why Fox's teachings are troubling:

[Matthew Fox] maintains that "drugs can democratize spirituality, which has for so long been imagined to be in the hands and hearts of the wealthy, leisurely classes."[7]

[Quoted from "On Becoming a Musical, Mystical Bear," page 125]

This sounds like Liberation Theology.

Jake, have you read "Catholics and the New Age"by Mitch Pacwa, SJ? I haven't read it, though I'm currently reading another of Father Pacwa's books.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 23, 2003.


Jake, have you read "Catholics and the New Age"by Mitch Pacwa, SJ

Yes, some time ago, but the Moderator apparently does not like my having told you so.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), February 24, 2003.


Mateo and others: Thanks. My sarcasm aside, some of this was genuinely helpful.

I actually didn’t know of Fox’s dabblings in Liberation Theology, but it doesn’t surprise me. Mystics are usually VERY interested, and often passionate, about social justice. Liberation Theology was a late 20th century search for that justice – flawed, no doubt, but in some ways a powerful critique of the status quo.

At its simplest, I’ve heard Liberation Theology defined as a belief that the gospel is about poor people. If one pushes that idea too far, you get an entirely “worldly” religion, I suppose.

Fox’s more “disturbing” emphasis is his pantheism, or “panentheism” as he calls it (holding a slightly different meaning for him than “pantheism”). Hey, it greatly disturbed me the first time I read his “The Coming of the Cosmic Christ”. I thought, “Why bother to be a Christian, then??!” It was several years later before I was ready to sit down and consider what he was saying.

His most basic idea is that all things, all beings and everything in life are holy and can/should be celebrated as such. Our basic problem is that we don’t really believe or practice any such thing – and we are killing ourselves and our world as a result.

“There is no more urgent or important moral issue,” he argued. The way we’re going, there simply aren’t going to be many more future generations.

And yes, he calls this “Creation Spirituality” – since he believes that an emphasis on the holiness of “creation” (a hill, a river, a human being, etc.) cuts across national and religious lines and thus is truly ecumenical.

Fox, however, draws much of his panentheism from his study of Catholic mysticism. But apparently he pushed it too far.

And yes, he is very much for democratising the church and all spiritual practice. I suspect this is what finally got him censored – not defrocked exactly, but forbidden to celebrate Mass or teach. And so he went to the Episcopal church, where they have a number of such renegades.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 24, 2003.


MATTHEW FOX'S WORK is the closest thing I have found that truly incorporates a realistic concept of God and touches on the true spirit of Jesus. I find the term 'worldly' religion a bit unbalanced, for when one see the world and all things as one there is no other and the term itself loses meaning.

The greatest contribution Fox gives is giving awareness to the detriment of a fall/redemption tradition, a religion with original sin as it starting point, a religion which does not teach trust...a trust of existence, of body or society or creativity or of cosmos. It teaches both consciously and unconsciously, verbally and non-verbally, fear. Fear of damnation, fear of nature,===beginning with one's own; fear of other; fear of the cosmos. "Throughout Christian history the conviction that man's birthright is sin has encouraged and unrealistic acceptance of remediable social evils, or even a callousnees about human suffere. It helps to explain the easy acceptance of slavery and serfdom, and a record of religious atrocity unmatched by any other religion."

"The harm tha has been done to souls, during the centuries of Christianity, first by the literal interpretation of the story of Adam, and then by the confusion of this myth, treated as history, with later speculations, principally Augustinian, about original sin, will never be adequately told."

Mathew Fox is a true mystic, deeply entwined in the core of beingness, connected consciously to that which is greater than himself. His writings taste as honey to the soul. "One River, Many Wells" is a must read during this time of peril in the world.

-- Luke (llenti@rpi.edu), February 24, 2003.



a trust of existence, of body or society or creativity or of cosmos.

Red flags, anyone?

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), February 24, 2003.


"The greatest contribution Fox gives is giving awareness to the detriment of a fall/redemption tradition, a religion with original sin as it starting point..."

Know your enemy.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 24, 2003.


Luke, I don't want to come off sounding preachy here, but if I do you'll just have to excuse me because this is important enough.

That phrase above is the Apple in the Garden, the Ring of Power, the whatever-you-want-to-call-it. But let's call it what it is: it is the Luciferian Lie. One part of me knows that people mean well, and I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but the other part recalls the words of Christ "get behind me, Satan". Trashing the recognition of original sin is laying an axe to the deepest root of the doctrinal tree, so to speak. It would make Christ passion null and void; but God does not act in vain.

I have never read or seen Matthew Fox's works, but if that's the gist of up, drop it and walk away from it; it is death.

Sorry... now back to your regular programming... =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 24, 2003.


Origenmoscow writes:

"Fox, however, draws much of his panentheism from his study of Catholic mysticism."

I saw some of the ads for his "rave masses." His celebrate-life religion seems to be more believer centered instead of God-centered (Creation-centered instead of Creator-centered). One of the Bible quotes we were discussing yesterday was Matthew 16 ("...upon this rock..."). After the verses we were discussing, we have the following:

Matthew 16:24-26 - "Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life?'"

Self-denial is central to Christianity. It is an especially frequent theme of Christian mystics. I'd recommend St. Ignatius of Loyola as a great example to imitate; but there are plenty of other examples.

I don't think that "rave masses" or other believer-centered activities bring one closer to Jesus Christ. I don't exactly know what a rave mass is; but if it's anything remotely like a rave (even with no drugs), it's probably not a spiritually enriching activity for a Christian. Just my $0.02.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 24, 2003.


I wouldn't consider Ignatius Loyola much of a mystic, although his spiritual disciplines are very powerful indeed.

Fox draws especially on Hildegaard von Bingen and Meister Eckhart. There are plenty of others one could draw from, but I don't recall any Fox quotations from others at the moment.

The Augustine interpretation of early Genesis is indeed much of what Fox disputes. (Me, too, but I'm an unwashed nonCatholic heathen.) But at least Fox is a doctor of theology from a Catholic tradition, so I think you guys should consider what he has to say.

Too often the church (and other institutions) cast out their wisest rather than face what they say. "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, etc."

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 25, 2003.



But at least Fox is a doctor of theology from a Catholic tradition,

That's not altogether accurate. Fox's background does not excuse him from his body of writings or lend it credibility. What he propounds is so completely foreign to any Catholic thought or teaching. He's a dissident theologian, and they're a dime a dozen.

so I think you guys should consider what he has to say.

There may well be people here who have or do subscribe to all or part of his message. It's a glossy package, after all. A God Who promises eternal happiness but makes no demands of us? If you think about it, that's what he's peddling; A religion without authority, a Creator without concern for your soul, a creature without obligation to struggle against his fallen nature. A plan for salvation where each individual becomes his own god.

The only "attention" I'll pay to that is to drop it like a hot rock, denounce it for what it is, and fight any attempts anyone may make to expose my family to it with every ounce of strength I have.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), February 25, 2003.


"The doctrine of original sin is not found in any of the writings of the Old Testament. It is certainly not in chapters one to three of Genesis."

"The idea that Adam's descendants are automatically sinners because of the sin of their ancestor, and that they are already sinners when they enter the world, is foreign to Holy Scripture."Herbert Haag

"FALL/Redemption theology concentrates on sin...yet sin, after all, is part of the anthropomophizing of our existence. For if the universe is twenty billion years old, humna sin is only as old as humanity or at most four million years old. This means that fall/redemption theology leaves out nineteen billion, nine hundred ninety-six million years of divine/earthly history! One result of this rather substantial lacuna is, ironically, the very trivializing of sin, the inability to grasp sins like geocide and ecocide and biocide of which the human race is fully capable.

Another consequence is trivializing of the gospel message itself. Gandh complained of Christianity without Christ," a far -too -common situation in his opinion.

How much of the piety of "Jesus is my best friend" or "Jesus saves" comes perilously close to pure projection-when in fact Jesus, like all the prophets, taught people to heal themselves and others, to be instruments of New Creation, and to do works greater than he did? How much of the gospel, how much of the person and message and spirit of Jesus Christ has been lost by the overconcentration on fall/redemption religion in the West?" Fox

"The universe is the primary revelation of the divine, the primary scripture, the primary locus of divine-human communion." Thomas Berry

-- Luke (LLD@rpi.edu), February 25, 2003.


Yes! I was going to mention Thomas Berry, but I haven't read enough of him to be conversant. But he impresses me as well.

If we don't care about the earth, just what are we supposed to care about? All other issues disappear if there are no people left alive!

Horror of horrors: human extinction might even disturb the liturgy. But at least our theology, recorded somewhere, will be correct. ;^)

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 25, 2003.


If we don't care about the earth, just what are we supposed to care about?

There is the small matter of your immortal soul, the ultimate end of which will be either eternal bliss or unending torment; but, following Fox's logic, why worry about that now? If you just change our definition of sin, you can live any sort of life it pleases you to live.

"Don't worry, be happy" theology may be easy to live by, but it doesn't make dying any easier, and it won't make the next life very convenient at all; but you knew that.

Didn't you?

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), February 25, 2003.


italics off.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), February 25, 2003.

Jake, that's too "otherworldly" for me.

No earth = no people = no souls,

except the few who were lucky enough to incarnate or be born before we killed everything and everyone. A nasty picture, indeed.

We humans are only a small part of our earth's history, and only a small part of the divine story. Important to us, of course, but is that it?

This obsession with heaven and hell is a big part of our problem. Yeah, I know it's "heresy" to think that, but it's true.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 25, 2003.


Origen writes:

"I wouldn't consider Ignatius Loyola much of a mystic, although his spiritual disciplines are very powerful indeed."

I've read his autobiography and a number of biographies on him. Believe me, he's a mystic. :-)

Origen writes:

"Jake, that's too "otherworldly" for me."

Origen, I have no doubt that the gospel of Jesus Christ is also too "otherworldly" for you. This is the message that Our Lord brought us. If you disagree, that's fine; but, one can't try to project this materialistic (Creationist) spirituality on Jesus Christ. This is the error of Matthew Fox.

Origen writes:

"This obsession with heaven and hell is a big part of our problem."

Actually, most Christians believe that the obsession with sin is a big part of our problem. Fox's materialistic theology wants to wish away objective good and evil in our actions (or at least wish away the consequences).

Would you tell a promiscuous person to not be obsessed with STDs? Would that make the risk of STDs disappear? Answers: nope and nope. You tell the person to avoid the behavior so that they could avoid the consequences. Same thing for a sinner: avoid sinning and you will avoid hell. There's no need to obsess about hell--just conform yourself to the will of God.

Regarding an obsession with Heaven, what's wrong with making your life goal eternal joy in the presence of God? That sounds like a pretty good obsession to me!

Enjoy,

Mateo

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 25, 2003.


"There is the small matter of your immortal soul, the ultimate end of which will be either eternal bliss or unending torment..."

See that? That's it right there, that's the truth.

"Jake, that's too "otherworldly" for me."

Exactly. But I like the honesty, though, that does count for something.

"No earth = no people = no souls" and "We humans are only a small part of our earth's history, and only a small part of the divine story. Important to us, of course, but is that it?"

Can I make small observation on this? I think what's happening here is actually somewhat simple but also dangerous. We live in a world that seems to think that the sum total of creation subsists in matter; that "that which is" is confined to the physical realm. Once you limit comprehension in fashion, then it is a short step to the operative mindset that 1. the universe is really big, and 2. we are really small and therefore a lesser part, the more insignificant part.

When you are in an airliner and look down and see our incredible smallness, or see a snapshot of the earth from space and look through it from the windows of the soul, it is actually a very different reality that strikes you about these seemingly insignificant creatures, humans, that all heaven and hell battles over them on this blue globe... because think about it; the globe itself is so sizably insignificant to the rest of the universe yet there is absolutely nothing we know of out there we know of that is anything at all like it.

Or take your computer there, for instance, by analogy. Ever stop to think that a hundred years ago, advances in technology were expressed in terms of bigness, and now they are expressed in terms of smallness?

Smallness does not equate to insignificance. These are strange days where everything is upside down, reversed, opposite and juxtaposed. For instance, this: "No earth = no people = no souls"; I would be inclined to rewrite it this way:

No souls >>> no people >>> no earth.

Or this: "This obsession with heaven and hell is a big part of our problem." I would be more inclined to say this:

This lack of obsession with heaven and hell is the sum of our problems.

...because look around you. Who really does have an obsession with heaven and hell? Not many; look at people. They don't really act like they care, and I do believe that many don't. I think that's the stamp of death. It's not like people in this age are worried about heaven and hell at all; in fact, it is the single greatest loss of understanding on the market right now.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 25, 2003.


This obsession with heaven and hell is a big part of our problem.

What was it that Padre Pio said about Hell? I don't have the eact quote, but it was along the lines of "If you don't believe in Hell now, you will believe in Hell later."

Origen, I pray that you become a Catholic, and a fervent one!

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), February 25, 2003.


Hey, this is more fun than the other threads. At least people are thinking.

You guys need to actually READ some Fox before talking so confidently about “what he believes”, “teaches”, “projects”, etc. The man’s thought runs deep.

My 2 cents on the subject: Divinity isn’t confined to the church. Divinity isn’t confined to humanity. God is in everyone, in everything. We just have to learn to be aware of it. This is “panentheism”, as Fox calls it. Is it wrong? Well, ask the mystics. Or better: learn to be one.

Another 2 cents: people obsess about heaven and hell PLENTY. Much of our society, especially the more religious part, is neurotic as “hell” (or as “heaven”, if you prefer) about it.

As Jung, I believe, argued: our neuroses are just our religious life, bouncing along on three flats. There are more intelligent ways to go about it, though. How? Consciousness, my friends. Awareness. For me, this is the gospel – or at least, a big part of it.

Another 2 cents on heaven and hell. Why do you think they are sometime after we die? Why aren’t they right now – or rather, outside of time, in the Present? Can it be that some, many (?) are in hell because they don’t know their true nature? And can some be in heaven, right now, because they do?

Mateo, why wait till after you die to enjoy God?

Study a bit of Neoplatonism, or the nonChristian mystics, or Buddhism if you want to go east, and think about it. Heck, study the Christian mystics if you want (where you’ll often find Neoplatonism running just below the surface).

My immortal soul? Believe me, I care plenty about it. I just don’t think it is served or protected by shutting down my mind and hiding somewhere. My path lies toward greater Consciousness. Maybe yours as well?

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 25, 2003.


The man’s thought runs deep.

I will concede this point. It certainly is getting deep around here.

My path lies toward greater Consciousness.

Your path ends somewhere, pal. If calling it "greater Consciousness" helps you sleep better at night, go ahead.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), February 25, 2003.


Hey Origen, I may not agree with your thoughts, but I admire the drive that brings them forth. Who can blame you? Certainly not I.

"You guys need to actually READ some Fox before talking so confidently about “what he believes”, “teaches”, “projects”, etc."

Sorta kinda. Sometimes one can know things for what they are as a totality by just looking at a few fragments... much more accurately and impressively than a scientist can put together an entire model of a skull from a few skull fragments. See, from what few bits and pieces of these musings from this Fox, it is clear what the rest of the puzzle looks like. These aren't new thoughts belonging to Fox; these are ancient thoughts; there truly is nothing new under the sun.

"Well, ask the mystics. Or better: learn to be one."

Ouch. Careful what you ask for. If you want to be a mystic, supposing you could actually decide to be one, get ready to get crucified and pour out your life essence... because that's the price of understanding. All the Catholic mystics walked this road. The Father demanded it of His own son, and as for the rest of us, we only have Him to imitate.

"Study a bit of Neoplatonism, or the nonChristian mystics, or Buddhism if you want to go east, and think about it."

Take some time to read the story of one of my close friends... it is interesting, and pertains to what you are talking about, regarding eastern mysticism.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 25, 2003.


Origenmoscow writes:

"Hey, this is more fun than the other threads. At least people are thinking."

Origen, you've gotta get out of your habit of patronizing others.

Origenmoscow writes:

"You guys need to actually READ some Fox before talking so confidently about “what he believes”, “teaches”, “projects”, etc. The man’s thought runs deep."

I've read plenty about what he advocates (Pantheism, Liberation Theology, etc.). If I reject Amway, must I still review the quality of each individual Amway salesman? I've already heard the sales pitch for Amway, Pantheism, and Liberation Theology. And I view them with roughly the same level of respect (apologies to Amway sales people).

Origenmoscow writes:

"Mateo, why wait till after you die to enjoy God? "

You're reading into my statement something that is not there. Please re-read my post.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 25, 2003.


Jung has written that there are two ways to lose your soul. One of these is to worship a god outside you. If he is correct, than a lot of churchgoers in the West have been losing their souls for generations to the extent that they have attended religious events where prayer is addressed to a god outside. The idea that God is "out there" is probably the ultimate dualism, divorcing as it does God and humanity and reducing religion to a childish state of pleasing or pleading with a God "out there."

All theism sets up a model or paradigm of people here and God out there. All theisms are about subject/object relationships to God. The Newtonian theism that posited a clockmaker God who wound the universe up and sat back found its logical conclusion in Laplace's statement that he had no need in his scientifice system for such a God. But this agnosticism and eventual atheism finds its logical antecedents in religious theism itself, which kills God and the soul alike by preaching a God "out there."

What is the solution to the killing of God and the loss of human soul? It is our moving from theism to panentheism. Now panentheism is not pantheism. Pantheism, which is declared heresy because it robs God of transcendence, states that "everything is God and god is everything." Panentheism, on the other hand, is altogether orthodox and very fit for orthopraxis as well, for it slips in the little Greek word en and thus means, "GOD IS IN EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING IS IN GOD." This experience of the presence of God in our depth and of Dabhar (the word, the creative energy) in all the blessing and the sufferings of life is a mystical understanding of God.

Panentheism is desperately neeeded by individual and religious institutions today. It is the way the creation-centered tradition of spirituality experiences God. It is not theistic because it does not relate to God as subject or object, but neither is it pantheistic. Panentheism is a way of seeing the world sacramentally. The primary sacrament is creation itself-which includes every person and being who lives." Fox

-- Luke (LLD@rpi.edu), February 25, 2003.


I believe, at this point, we are all obligated to lay prostrate before the wisdom of Fox.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 25, 2003.

Thanks, Luke! I suppose I fall in more closely with Fox and Jung than anyone else quoted here lately.

Jung, as you might know, was the son of a minister. His father preached something he never could quite believe -- because he never knew how to experience it. And Jung very much resented the "just believe" approach, and he devoted his life to KNOWING the Divine. Toward the end of his life he was asked, "Dr. Jung, do you believe in God?" He said, "Believe? No, I KNOW God."

This is nothing unique to Jung, Fox or anybody else. It's open to all.

Yes, Mateo, it is presumptuous for me to assume I know something you want/need to hear. Certainly you didn't ask for me to try to teach you. Sorry.

I'll suggest one more book: "The Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle. It's a great introduction to finding the Divine -- by whatever name -- within ourselves. It's a guide to the ancient wisdom in a simple package.

It's much easier than digging through the ancient philosophers! ;^)

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 26, 2003.


Origen writes:

"Yes, Mateo, it is presumptuous for me to assume I know something you want/need to hear."

Origen, you keep misinterpreting my posts. It is patronizing (not presuptuous) for you to assume that you can tell us all when we are not thinking or when we are thinking.

Luke writes:

"It is the way the creation-centered tradition of spirituality experiences God."

Whether "pantheism" or "panentheism," the problem with these "desperately needed" theologies is that God becomes confined by His relationship with nature. God's existence does not depend on nature. He was in existence before He created the Universe and He will exist after the Universe is gone. He is eternal.

On a side note, I believe that "panentheism" is a relatively new word (I wonder if Fox was the one who coined it?) Anyway, I got a pretty funny result when I looked for the definition at www.dictionary.com. The first suggestion had me rolling on the floor! :-)

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 26, 2003.


rotlol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 26, 2003.

Mateo, I think we may be destined to continually misunderstand each other. Don't take it personally, please. ;^)

At the risk of offending further: what I meant by "not thinking" was that most people are just defending their positions without reconsidering anything, as far as I can tell. Obviously, that's judgemental of me, and I could easily be wrong.

Back to your point: Why would God be "confined" to nature by "panentheism"? I think that's the distinction between it and "pantheism". The latter can be taken to mean that God is limited to the material universe, whereas the former doesn't impose any such limit. God can be in any and all universes, and beyond them as well. Indeed, as Being itself, God sort of has to "be" everywhere, philosophically speaking.

One problem with "theism", as it's usually applied, is that God is always somewhere "not here". God is applied to realms we don't understand -- which is fair enough. But as our understanding of the universe has grown, this has left less and less place for the theistic God.

For most educated people, there's no place left at all. As one of my fellow engineers told me once, we can see, with telescopes, nearly to the full extent of the universe and near the beginning of time, and with microscopes and other instruments, to the atomic level and beyond -- and yet we've never found "God". We're running out of places to look. Theism is dying in the modern world.

For instance, our ancestors believed that God lived in the sky, or "heaven". True heaven was viewed as just beyond the immediate sky. Even Jesus "ascended" to "heaven". But now we know, in the physical sense, there's nothing up there but a near vacuum!

Who wants to go to vacuum? Is Jesus in vacuum? Our Father who art in Vacuum? Yes, it sounds terrible, because that's where we find ourselves in the modern age.

Hence, some different ways of thinking and experiencing the Divine (different theologies, if you will) are very desperately needed indeed.

But if we saw the sky, and even "vacuum" as something that contains the divine, it doesn't seem so bad. We might even understand that the "ascension" doesn't mean "going to the sky" -- it means that something profound has happened in one's heart. Christ hasn't just gone up -- he's gone inside -- you and me. Maybe he's taking us up with him -- not to the sky (hold your breath, Jake!) -- but to something the sky represents: a higher state of Life, a higher Consciousness?

I know, I know: Catholics will be sitting in their vaccum looking down at us poor heathens roasting in the garbage heap of Gehenna -- which is not symbolic, but an actual garbage heap, and actual lake of fire, etc. -- while we deluded heathens gaze at our navels and imagine we actually are being lifted up to some imaginary higher Life. ;^)

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 26, 2003.


The theory that everything is in God and God is in everything has many metaphysical faults. God lives in our hearts and souls through a conversion and turning to Him. We are temples of the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit Himself.

God created and sustains sreation, how that creation came about is debaeable, but God is not his creation. Nor is God the failure of his creation to remain faithful to himself (ie: God does not = sin).

We know that Christ ascended into heaven. Heaven is not a place (or state) limited by our earthly conception of space and time. Christ ascended bodily into heaven, his body was a glorified one. Christ rose from the dead and his body was not bound by the normal physical constraints a body usually would. He was able to walk "through" walls, he could appear in differnt places and to different people. Heaven is not a place as we know it with physical laws and boundaries, but different in many ways not known to us. People looking for God with telescopes and microscopes are totally missing the point and trying to place God in their own comfortable boxes. God is not measurable, not just because He is infinite, but because he is ineffable, not measurable by human craft.

Joe

-- Joseph Carl Biltz (jcbiltz@canoemail.com), February 26, 2003.


Joe,

He is also undetectable, and therefore unreal for most people who expect something more than words.

Undetectable, that is, except through our human experience. For we have an “inside view” of what’s going in our own being. Thank God!

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 26, 2003.


Origen,

As I understand it, the theme of your last post seems to be, "Looking in nature to find God will only result in finding metaphors, mere reflections of the Truth of God."

These ideas reinforce my belief that God cannot be described simply in terms of how he relates to His Creation. We in Creation depend upon Him for our existence; but He does not depend on us.

Finding God in nature isn't ipso facto an un-Christian activity. St. Francis of Assisi saw God in Creation. But, Matthew Fox tends to celebrate this life as if it were the culmination of our existence (hedonism). We Christians do not belong to this world.

John 8:23 - "He [Jesus] said to them, 'You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.'"

John 12:25 - "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life."

John 18:36 - "Jesus answered, 'My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.'"

Romans 12:2 - "Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."

1 Corinthians 3:19 - "For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their craftiness.'"

These quotes show a dramatic contrast between the teachings of Jesus Christ and those of Matthew Fox.

Looking at the dictionary.com definition of hedonism:

"Hedonism - The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good."

I'm getting the impression that this is what Matthew Fox is all about.

Here's some random links on his "Rave Masses"

Link from gospelcom.net

Link with Matthew Fox Interview

Announcement for a "Rave-mass"

One site quotes Fox as saying, "Everyone is hungry for ritual." There is a way to interpret this as an innocent statement. It is also possible, based on Fox's other statements, that he is once again stating that the ritual (sensory experience) is the goal.

If we are "hungry for ritual," we should only be hungry because we long to know God.

Incorporating various religious traditions' rituals cannot be done without any knowledge of the meanings behind them. If we turn this practice of dabbling in various foreign rituals around, what if a Buddhist built an altar, walked around it with incense, sang Gregorian Chants, and raised a piece of bread into the air? What possible benefit could he gain? He wouldn't gain anything because there is no meaning behind the ritual imitation. Fox's culturally inclusive rituals are equally ineffectual.

One last thing. A couple years ago, a friend of mine told me how impressed she was when she went to a Unitarian-Universalist temple and they had a big room with statues of a number of significant "holy ones." They had statues of Muhammed, Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Gandhi, Mary (I guess she's for Catholics! LOL), Krishna, Martin Luther King, Hanuman and Ganesh. I guess they wanted all their bases covered. The funny thing is, the Romans tried this almost 2000 years ago--they tried to add Jesus to their pantheon. It didn't work then; and it doesn't work now.

If you place bets on all of the horses in a race, you have no faith in any of them.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 26, 2003.


Origen writes:

"He is also undetectable, and therefore unreal for most people who expect something more than words.

Undetectable, that is, except through our human experience. For we have an "inside view" of what’s going in our own being. Thank God!"

A relevant scripture passage when Our Lord appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection:

John 20:24-29 - "Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, 'We have seen the Lord.' But he said to them, 'Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.' Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, 'Peace be with you.' Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.' Thomas answered and said to him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him, 'Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.'"

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 26, 2003.


I like this Origen... asking all the right questions, thinking about all the right things. Temporarily coming to any wrong conclusions is part of the game. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 26, 2003.

Mateo writes: "Hedonism - The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good."

I'm getting the impression that this is what Matthew Fox is all about.

Yeah, I think so. The acid test question would be this: after one gets done incorporating all these philosophies and musings and understandings in there heads and in their daily existence... what makes them any different from a pagan?

I mean, was is Catholicism good for at that point anyways?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 26, 2003.


Let me try to say that better.

By what little I've heard of Fox, it is evident that the principles he uses force an implicit rejection on his part of divine revelation.

Whether Fox admits it, or likes it or not, this automatically pops him down in status from theologian to common philosopher.

The reason can be found in the basic Thomist layout of what theology actually is, and it is somewhat simple to understand but still interesting. Theology uses syllogistic processess as does any science, but the premises are where the difference lies... the premises are taken from divine revelation. As soon as you reject the principles of divine revelation, the doctrines and dogmas, you default to human reason to derive all the premises in the syllogims. At that point you are just a philosopher.

Obviously there is nothing wrong with being "just a philosopher", but I suppose when it is brandished as theology, as something it is not, there's a big red flag that pops up, upon which is inscribed the phrase "wolf in sheep's clothing".

Philosophy is what humans can and should do. Theology addresses what man cannot do for himself and will die with having.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 26, 2003.


...without having, I mean.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), February 26, 2003.

Mateo,

Each of these scriptures is a long thread in itself.

But getting back to my last post: what I meant was that theism has put itself into a steadily shrinking position. It used God to explain what we didn’t understand about life and the universe (and everything!), but as our ignorance of the universe shrinks, so does the theistic God.

We indeed have a lot of ideas about God (and Joe posted a few of them), but my point in response was that the theistic God still has little or no place to stand, for the modern person. And that place is steadily shrinking.

An alternative is to find God in our experience. This is a big part of what mysticism is all about – be it St. Francis, Hildegaard, or Matthew Fox. It’s hard to be a mystic, though, if one doesn’t see divinity in anything around them!

This isn’t hedonism – it is appreciating life for the Miracle that it is.

Rituals help, too. Symbols, and the rituals that enact them, are “containers” of the Divine energy for the soul. In fact, it’s the best way for most people to receive that power – the prime example for you guys being the Mass or Eucharist. This is a major topic on its own.

But one can learn to “tap” or experience the Divine power even without the symbol or rituals. This is what contemplation and meditation is all about. It’s not for everyone, just those are ready for it. Weird people, mostly. ;^)

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 26, 2003.


Origen writes:

"This isn’t hedonism – it is appreciating life for the Miracle that it is."

I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between the dictionary definition of what hedonism is and your definition above. They sound the same.

Origen writes:

"But getting back to my last post: what I meant was that theism has put itself into a steadily shrinking position. It used God to explain what we didn’t understand about life and the universe (and everything!), but as our ignorance of the universe shrinks, so does the theistic God.

We indeed have a lot of ideas about God (and Joe posted a few of them), but my point in response was that the theistic God still has little or no place to stand, for the modern person. And that place is steadily shrinking."

I know where you are trying to go with your opinion. I don't reach the same conclusion as you do. Science answers a number of "what" questions but it will never answer any "why" questions.

Naysayers have been predicting that science would make God obsolete for a while. Primarily, the leaders of the Communist revolution thought that their grand endeavor would simultaneously provide meaning for the common man and remove God from the World. It would all be done through the vision of great scientists, comrads fighting for humanity! Well, that was a load of baloney; and the aftermath of Atheistic Communism has not only destroyed the economies of the Eastern Bloc countries, it's also poisoned the souls of those people under their rule.

Even before Communism, people thought that science would make God obsolete. I don't think that this is anything new. Here are some tests that I would like to see scientists achieve before I start believing that we know a lot (even a little) about the universe:

1) Create a single atom...from nothing.

2) Place two objects next to eachother. Reverse the ordinary force of gravity so that they repel eachother. You may not use other objects or existing forces (electomagnatism, etc).

3) Kill an ant. Now bring it back to life.

4) Manufacture a single living ant using common house-hold atoms.

5) Increase the speed of light by a factor of two.

I have studied science a lot, and I have never believed that God's Truth had to shrink away as our knowledge increased. On the contrary, learning science has reinforced my belief in God.

In short, God is no less relevant today than He was 2000 years ago. And He will be just as relevant 2000 years from today.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 26, 2003.


I know you addressed this to Mateo... pardon my butting in, but I question the use of the word theism; I think the word has been conjured up arbitrarily to name a supposed "one among many" possible theories about causality, and then used equivocally to refer to Christianity. That way one can approach a conversation with pre- packaged grievances and broadbrush everyone they meet as being out of the truth-loop.

Can you see how using this word is taking a sometimes-true observation and using it as a genus of all supposed error instead of a species of particular error? Taking it out of it's particular context and applying it to all seemingly like or similiar situations?

Here it is: you are saying that there is such a thing as robotic, blind ritual and rule following. I would say that's true. You seem to be saying that a distant god-at-the-edge-of-the-universe, in its many manifestations, is a wrong headed idea. I would say that's true too. So then that nifty word theism is conjured up to identify these cases, but lacking as it is in its power of signification, it renders everyone a theist without exception who believes in a first-cause prime-mover eternal God. The word is lacking in its signification most likely because there is nothing in reality to be named by it.

"...the theistic God still has little or no place to stand, for the modern person. And that place is steadily shrinking."

This is where relativity shows its negative side effects:

"It [theism] used God to explain what we didn’t understand about life and the universe (and everything!), but as our ignorance of the universe shrinks, so does the theistic God." Is our ignorance shrinking, or is our knowledge of how ignorant we really are increasing? If you explore a house and find more rooms, does necessary make the yard any smaller? Talk about place pre- conceived limits on the sum total of reality! =)

True knowledge is a knowledge of causality; but the way you have it set up here is that as we work through the chain of causality and learn more, supposedly wending our way evermore towards the first cause and univeral understanding, while we at the same time somehow manage to revel in the knowledge that there is in fact no first-cause theistic prime mover God?

Then why waste our time learning anything when we deny the objective of our quest from the outset?

In a wierd way, this sounds like the dream-lie in communism where the state is a scaffolding or temporary support until utopia is solidified... then the state simply dissolves into irrelevancy. Except in the case, God is the placeholder designating "lack of knowledge" until knowledge is had, then he simply dissolves into disuse.

That's the exact opposite of reality.

Talk about putting limits on things... "what I see is all of reality, and beyond this, nothing exists".

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 26, 2003.


..what I remember about Matthew Fox is that he lives out here with us Californians in Berkeley, has a witch named Starhawk on his board, has been excommunicated for his 'new age' beliefs and teachings, and has been defrocked by the vatican. Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), February 27, 2003.

Emerald et al,

I don’t see such a sharp distinction between theology and philosophy. The two overlap greatly. Philosophy is an investigation of (actually, love of) truth or wisdom. At what point is the philosopher supposed to stop investigating? Or the scientist, for that matter. Or the “normal” person?

As much as I admire Thomas Aquinas, who was probably the greatest mind of his time, it strikes me as terribly naïve the way he would quote from isolated scriptures as if they were an unassailable, self- evident statement of fact.

Of course, modern Biblical studies had not been invented yet, and if they had I suppose they would have been considered terrible sacrilege. In those days, they killed you for such things. But today, to quote a scripture out of its context, with no analysis of its historical, cultural, textual, etc. nuances is to just give it one’s own subjective meaning.

I admire even more the Aquinas who, near the end of his life, had a profound mystical experience and never wrote again. When one of his friends urged him to finish his Summa, he replied something like, “The things which have been revealed to me make all I have written seem as straw.” Now, there’s a mystic!

It would have been great to talk to him after that, but we probably wouldn’t be able to understand what he was saying, or he to articulate it. We’d have to go through a similar experience ourselves to understand.

By the way, the “first cause” argument is usually set aside as one of those, to date, unanswerable questions. I agree with you that one should think about it, but many just don’t worry about such things.

Unfortunately, the burden of proof for the “unseen” rests upon those who claim it. As sceptics often note, nonexistence is pretty hard to prove!

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 27, 2003.


Mateo et al,

Enjoying life – even reverencing it as sacred – is HEDONISM? You must have a dull life; or, if not, you feel guilty about enjoying it? ;^)

Janism was officially rejected by the Catholic Church, right? I thought it was more officially accepted that life was to be enjoyed and appreciated.

I would define hedonism as the belief or practice that immediate pleasures were the only good or important things in life. Seems to be a pessimistic, short-sighted philosophy.

On the other hand, I find it hard to disagree with Epicurus, who reportedly said that it was hard, if not impossible, to define the Good except in terms of what was pleasurable: pleasing to the senses or to the mind.

As to science: As Emerald might have quoted, “The hour is later than you think.” (I’m a Tolkien fan, too.) Science is fast becoming the overwhelmingly dominant basis for all modern thought. In fact, the vast majority of “hard” scientists, and many other educated folks, is that religion, spirituality, prayer, etc. are completely superfluous. You can't disprove some of their abstract concepts, but they don't add anything to the scientific explanations, either -- so logically (Occam's Razor), they are unimportant and probably untrue.

I’m not one of those people, but I can sympathise with them a lot sometimes.

Some of the items on your list have either been done (like making a virus from “scratch”, which can be viewed as only being different from an ant in complexity, not in kind), or else no scientist would expect to ever be able to do (like change physical “laws”).

Creating an atom? Well, subatomic particle creation and annihilation is standard fare for high-energy physics. From there, there no reason in principle you couldn’t build simple atoms. You just need enough energy! Energy and matter are, at root, interchangeable.

Does the rising strength of science make religion go away? No. It is just putting it – and here, I mean "theism" more than religion in general -- on a more and more precarious intellectual footing – to the point where it is getting really hard to have any sort of dialog with the “empiricists” and other scientists.

Why doesn’t religion go away? Because science, on its own, is not enough. It doesn’t give most people enough feeling for their place in the universe or in their purpose in existing in the first place.

Hence the great neurosis of our time: a desperate need for the comforts (and healing) of religion, but religions that have lost most of their intellectual and cultural underpinnings.

Solution: some different – old or new – ways of interpreting our religion(s). And that’s what Fox is all about: exploring the old and new alike, bringing what we can into reality.

There’s no need to leave one’s tradition – we just need to enliven it. Fox himself still considers himself a Catholic; at least, he did several years ago.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 27, 2003.


For Mateo et al,

One more thing: what's so bad about having raves?

I don't think (for most people) drugs are any help, and they may be quite harmful, (so I don't endorse drug use),

but assuming drugs aren't used in Creation Spirituality raves (or others), qual es el problemo?

Ecstatic music, dancing, cheering, singing, whatever. What's wrong with that, now and then? Young people (and maybe a few of us old f*rts) having a good time sounds like a great idea.

Celebration, in whatever form, is worship. Bookish sorts like me could use more of it, and more often. It's a great thing to be alive, and anything that makes us appreciate it (without harming others) is a good thing, I say.

Many would have, and no doubt have, criticized folk masses because they just looked like too much fun. But few who've actually been blessed by such things would agree.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 27, 2003.


"I don’t see such a sharp distinction between theology and philosophy. The two overlap greatly."

Right.

"I admire even more the Aquinas who, near the end of his life, had a profound mystical experience and never wrote again."

Me too.

"When one of his friends urged him to finish his Summa, he replied something like, “The things which have been revealed to me make all I have written seem as straw.” Now, there’s a mystic!"

I agree.

"Unfortunately, the burden of proof for the “unseen” rests upon those who claim it. As sceptics often note, nonexistence is pretty hard to prove!"

The unseen = nonextistence = equivocation. The tear in the fabric of people's understanding of reality begins with the re-orientation of the mind towards the nature of the unseen; a move away from Faith.

"As to science: As Emerald might have quoted, “The hour is later than you think.”"

Ohhh... Man, I love that particular line/scene.

"Science is fast becoming the overwhelmingly dominant basis for all modern thought."

Yep!

"In fact, the [belief of the?] vast majority of “hard” scientists, and many other educated folks, is that religion, spirituality, prayer, etc. are completely superfluous."

Right.

"Does the rising strength of science make religion go away? No."

Right.

"Hence the great neurosis of our time: a desperate need for the comforts (and healing) of religion, but religions that have lost most of their intellectual and cultural underpinnings."

Sounds right.

"Solution: some different – old or new – ways of interpreting our religion(s). And that’s what Fox is all about: exploring the old and new alike, bringing what we can into reality."

Thesis >>> Antithesis >>> Synthesis!

"There’s no need to leave one’s tradition – we just need to enliven it. Fox himself still considers himself a Catholic; at least, he did several years ago."

Thesis >>> Antithesis >>> Synthesis; the Apple in the Garden, the Tree of Knowledge, The Ring of Power, The Yellowbrick Road, Alice's Wonderland, The Everlasing Gobstopper... lol!

I like everything you talk about. Sounds to me like all you need to do is just make a decision, and act of the will, that's all. I mean, that's all that was really required of us in the first place, right?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 27, 2003.


Emerald,

Dost thou think in such a short time that thou persuadest me to be a Catholic? ;^)

You closet Hegelian, you. The man was LUTHERAN, for heaven's sake.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 27, 2003.


Origen writes:

"Some of the items on your list have either been done (like making a virus from “scratch”, which can be viewed as only being different from an ant in complexity, not in kind)"

Ummm...no. Making a virus from "scratch"? Even if it were on my list, they have not pulled together atoms and built a virus. They may have built it from genetic sequences and made another from it, but that isn't from scratch. And it isn't an ant... :-)

Origen writes:

"Creating an atom? Well, subatomic particle creation and annihilation is standard fare for high-energy physics. From there, there no reason in principle you couldn’t build simple atoms. You just need enough energy! Energy and matter are, at root, interchangeable. "

The question just gets smaller (and bigger). We believe that matter and energy are related (relativity), but we can't create matter/energy from nothing (energy != nothing).

In the end, science has no idea where/when all this matter/energy came from. They have a theory that it magically appeared 15 billion years ago (sounds like Genesis). Previously (pre-Big Bang Theory), the scientific theory in favor by anti-religious "scientists" was that the universe always existed and that it was crazy to think that the Universe could be created in a moment. Before it was crazy; now it's scientific doctrine.

Anyway, the point is made. You're belief that scientific advances somehow push God away from modern man is baseless. Our advances in science are nothing next to His abilities (including His abilities to write the laws of the Universe). More important than a comparison of our abilities vs. God's, science and religion are partners, not adversaries--a sentiment you stated above. They both search for truth in different ways.

Random thought--In my view, anomalies in nature show that He's made the rules. I find it interesting that if H2O was denser in solid (ice) than in liquid (water), than our planet's oceans would probably be frozen solid (all other things being the same). H20 behaves in the opposite way of most materials--just because. It's even more interesting to see the effects of its behavior just above freezing, allowing deep lakes to remain ice-free.

Conclusion: science helps bring me (a self-proclaimed "modern man") closer to God, and does not push God away from me.

Origen writes:

"Because science, on its own, is not enough."

Well, that's correct. :-)

Origen writes:

"And that’s what Fox is all about: exploring the old and new alike, bringing what we can into reality."

Origen, all I'm saying is that this approach has been tried before. Specifically, in the beginnings of Christianity, it was rejected when the Romans tried to worship Jesus with all of the gods from other parts of the Roman Empire. This is an interesting parallel for those who consider the USA a new Roman Empire, because Unitarian-Universalism (I believe they are an American invention) does the same thing. As long as you deny the Lordship of Christ, Fox's religion makes sense. But you can't simultaneously profess to be a Christian and to embrace all religion in this way at the same time.

Origen writes:

"One more thing: what's so bad about having raves?"

Raves give me the impression of a cult-indoctrination activity. Overload a person's senses and hypnotize them with the music.

OK, that's a pretty pathetic answer, but I've gotta go to work!

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 27, 2003.


Emerald didst thunk it thus, that Emerald hath not the power to smite thee for wisdom's sake, for it is written thus... that the greatest wisdom of men is less than the folly of God.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 27, 2003.

I don't have to ability to pursuade you; that's my whole point. It is a matter at this point, imho, of the will.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 27, 2003.

Short answer, Mateo, for I must run as well:

Granted, an ant is very much more complex than a virus. But we can sythesize the "building blocks" of life out of simple chemicals, and even make the simplest "life" (viruses) thereby. True, we're merely replicating nature, and true, viruses are not "alive" in the sense more complex organisms are. But look at the trend! Just 20 years ago, I would have laughed if anyone told me we would have deciphered the human DNA sequence by now, or replicated a virus. Who knows what another 20 or 100 years might bring?

But my point remains: you can see how the boundary of what we don't understand of the universe, and what science can't explain, is being steadily pushed back. We don't want to put our "hope" in the parts we don't understand -- since it's shrinking ground.

I don't mean my argument to take the wonder out of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Quite the opposite!

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 27, 2003.


I don't know, Origen. Half of me thinks that you are worried about a hypothetical person's faith (it's certainly not mine) and the other half makes me think we have a similar view of things.

I'm totally into scientific "stuff." I have some friends who work at particle accelerators and whenever I have the chance, I just ask them question upon question. I eat it up! I think it's totally cool.

On an personal note, I can tell you that some of my fondest memories were driving past NYC to visit relatives, on a stretch of the highway, I would just look over to Manhattan and stare at the Twin Towers. I thought they were an amazing engineering accomplishment.

On the other hand, I was just thinking about the Old Testament account of the Tower of Babel. I'll bet those builders were thinking the same thing thousands of years ago. They probably thought that they were "pushing back" God with their great engineering achievement. It's the same thing today. We are still struggling to advance science and engineering, yet we are nothing next the the Great Engineer (you saw that one coming, right?) :-)

Here's a little wisdom I got off the web:

Four engineers were sitting around, debating what kind of an engineer God was.

The Mechanical Engineer said: "Of course God was a mechanical engineer. Look at the marvelous construction of the human body. Look at the intricate detail, the sophisticated joints, the ability to absorb stress. Surely God is a mechanical engineer."

The Electrical Engineer disagreed. He said: "Look at the complex electrical circuitry. The underlying basis for the operation of the body is all electrical. Surely God is an electrical engineer."

The Chemical Engineer chimed in: "Of course not. The underlying basis of the human mind and body is chemical. We are just beginning to understand that moods, emotions and perceptions are chemically based... and yet, this is the most sophisticated, delicate and intricately-balanced chemical mixture ever. Surely God is a chemical engineer."

The Civil Engineer had been silent throughout this debate; now the others turned to him. After a brief pause, he stated: "You are all wrong. God is a civil engineer. Who else but a civil engineer would install a waste-disposal system right in the middle of a recreational area?"

Is it obvious I'm a civil engineer? :-)

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 27, 2003.


And on that fine point I'll leave you good Catholic folk in peace for a while.

I notice that the discussion group has thinned somewhat, and we few would probably argue till our last breath, as the world moved on, probably without missing us too much.

I may lurk on other threads a bit and even post something now and then.

Thanks to all -- it's been very enlightening for me.

Peace,

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 28, 2003.


O.k. Origen. Take care. Tell all the natives I said "hi" and that they're welcome to visit anytime. We'll keep a pot of coffee on for ya... =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 28, 2003.

Never say die (kidding)

I read two Matthew Fox books after reading a magazine article on him in Psychology Today. I was searching for faith at the time, today I am a Catholic. I no longer own the books by Fox since I consider them a hazard to my faith. I read, Original Blessing and The Coming Of The Cosmic Christ. Granted, as in all religious faiths, there are SOME good things in Fox's thinking. In retrospect, after growing again as a Catholic, I say Matthew Fox is a pagan. So if you want to be a pagan, follow his Creation Spirituality. But if you want the benefits of a modern society that came from Christendom, from the elimination of superstition and divination which allowed the grace from the one true God to reach earth through his Son, than be Catholic or at least Christian. Fox isn't even Christian.

Fox led me (by my own free choice) to indulge in Jungian psychology as my new NewAge focus at the time. Fox promotes Jung throughout his books. Jung is heavy into Alchemy, Dream Interpretation...in other words, the Occult. I bought into it as I was trying to give up alcohol and drugs, searching for a better fix. It was better than alcohol but as I said it was a step on the way home to Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church.

So guys like Fox may serve a purpose to someone on a journey back, like mine. However, if someone like me was heading to Fox, I'd share my experience and hope so they might see clearer and make faster progress.

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), February 28, 2003.


Mateo,

Two engineering students were riding their bikes on campus when one said to the other, "Where did you get such a great bike?"

The second engineer replied, "Well, I was walking along yesterday minding my own business when a beautiful woman rode up on this bike. She threw the bike to the ground, took off all her clothes and said, "Take what you want."

The first engineer nodded approvingly, "Good choice; the clothes probably wouldn't have fit."

Also,

A civil engineer was walking along by a stream several hundred years ago when a frog croaked up at him, "Help, I'm a beautiful princess trapped by an evil spell as a frog, kiss me and I'll turn back into a princess and marry you!"

The engineer bent down and put the frog in his pocket, and walked on.

A minute or two later he felt a squirming in his pocket, and pulled out the frog. The frog said, "look, I'm a princess, why won't you kiss me, become my prince, and we could live happily ever after?"

The engineer replied, "Look, taking care of a princess would be a lot of work, and as an engineer, I'm very busy. But having a *talking frog* on the other hand, now THAT would be major cool!"

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 01, 2003.


A civil engineer's burning question:

"How can I make this building as functional and useful as possible?"

A mechanical engineer's burning question:

"How big a payload does the bomb need to destroy the new building?"

The sociologist's burning question:

"Would you like fries with that?"

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 01, 2003.


Great stuff, Frank. A slight variant:

Mechanical engineers build bombers.

Chemical engineers build bombs.

Electrical engineers build guidance systems.

Civil engineers build targets.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 02, 2003.


If you build it, they will come.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 02, 2003.

First, Fox. Now, engineers. Have ye no pity?

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), March 03, 2003.

Actually, I feel kinda bad for the sociologists... :-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 04, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ