[Buddha-l] Fighting creationism

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Hi,

Scc>  If, however, one conceives of the creative act itself as
Scc> entirely free and unrestricted by any considerations of space and
Scc> time, then there is nothing to prohibit conceiving of God as the
Scc> first cause, because here God is not some first thing in a series
Scc> occurring in time and occupying some dimensive quality.

I agree with some parts of your post, although I'm not sure if I
understand you here. I think there is not problem in attributing God
the creation of all things. Other thing is attributing time, etc..
Well, such question sounds similar to that koan of "What was your
original face before your was born?" 

I think when some Christians attribute to God be the first cause of
all the things, then they are putting human attributes (time and space)
in him. Time and space are pure forms in our understanding. However,
God must be devoid of any form. While there is time, there is not
eternity. And according Christ, he teached a way for the eternal life,
and it is the main characteristic of God. So the attribute of first
cause sounds opposite to me.

Other thing is when God is the cause of all the things and that's all.
This sense of being the source is not exactly being the first cause.
I mean; there is not need to put time and space because they are our
own addition. We are living the things, and there is space and time
in us. Both are here precisely because we ignore the true source.



Scc> This is a very fair remark with regard to the tension between
Scc> the utterances of mystics and the inability of some theologians
Scc> to contextualize the import of these utterances within some
Scc> theological framework.  Molino's teachings in many ways parallels
Scc> Eckhart's, and it's probably no surprise that he met with much
Scc> the same fate that awaited Eckhart had he (Eckhart) not first died.

yes. Molinos at first time was welcomed by the hierarchy as a good
attempt to revive the prayer. Problem started with the possibility for
the masses of the direct contemplation of God. It was the real
concern for the hierarchy. It's quite similar to the Eckhart case.
Well, we know contemporary St. John of the Cross and many other
official mystics. But they are inside their monasteries; most times
writing a more cryptic poetry or literature,etc...

However, in Eckhart, Molinos and such people, we see attempts to
democratizate the God experience. The Molinos guide is a very clear 
manual, and quite modern btw. Very similar to our modern spirituality
books. In those times, many common people progressed under that
guidance. It was a fashion, first inside monasteries (Sta.Theresa was
inspired by  quietist sermons) and later reaching to the general
public.

Still today there are more of 2.000 letters and papers of the Molinos
process which remain secret with the excuse they are missed.
Real danger was not in the same Molinos (not in his person) but in the
message of facilitating the mystic experience to anybody. He was not
heretical. Many official mystics were very influenced by him. In fact,
for this same reason they were prosecuted. The real intention was to
oppress this movement and to maintain the mystic practice inside the
monasteries walls.

Today still it's the same. Few years ago, a contemplative monk
told me they were not allowed to teach lay people in a open way.
That's terrible, I think.


Scc> This was a good read.  Clearly the papal theologians and others
Scc> were unable to appreciate much of what they condemned.  As far as
Scc> I can judge the matter most of the condemned propositions can
Scc> easily enough be reconciled with theological principles.

yes. Also, by his own culture, the Vatican hierarchy is not other
thing than a prolongation of the Egypt and Roma priests.
Religion in itself is the second of their priorities.



best regards,