Posted on 07/26/2003 3:17:18 PM PDT by betty boop
I think it's fair to say, brother A., that Grandpierre is not "agnostic" regarding the relational nature of the human spirit at its core and foundation. If anything, the shaman's "success" in the application of his art proves this relationality -- which Grandpierre's speculation seems to extend into far greater vistas of Spirit than merely the personal. Where he speaks of Spirit (and the word seems to stand for Logos in his usage), he seems to indicate that it proceeds "from umbilicus to caul," from the personal to the universal. And such flows are bi-directional.
What he does not do, as a scientist, is speak of God as such. He is not doing theology. And based on what I've read of him, his concept of the universe is not sealed off by any description of physical or structural laws as we now know them. He is open to the universe, completely. And I would note that, in speaking as he does of fundamental laws of the universe, whether he is speaking directly of God or not (and he does not), he is effectively suggesting that their source does not lie in space-time reality. Like Plato, he seems to point to an Unknown God Beyond the cosmos.
I do not know what credal confession he embraces, if any. (I can say the same thing about Eric Voegelin.) He does not engage in proselytizing -- like Voegelin and also like Plato. If you consider that a defect, well, I just can't agree with you Brother A. He's an astrophysicist, not a pastor or priest.
If a scientist is open to the universe completely, how can he exclude God (as the actual person: God) from the equation? Are such things as intention, volition, etc. not to be measured whereas they are measuable and identified where they are identifyable? Let's make sure we're completely out of materialistic strictures in our science, as well as being as free as we may honestly be from our other predilections. Also, where is the freedom, in denying what one knows, when God is not unknown (to Plato or whomever)?
I do not know what credal confession he embraces, if any. (I can say the same thing about Eric Voegelin.) He does not engage in proselytizing -- like Voegelin and also like Plato. If you consider that a defect, well, I just can't agree with you Brother A. He's an astrophysicist, not a pastor or priest.
Well, if he is regenerate, then he is a priest and if he is not, he is not a priest. If one's vocation does not include (proselytizing?) evangelizing (and mine does not, since I'm paid to sell business software and related services) then it does not. But if one knows God, one's avocation includes to "tell of all His wonders."
There are many shamans from many cultures who have had very powerful experiences with other spirits, but sadly not to their success.
When learning about spirits, one may learn how things are "from Him (God) and through Him and to Him," but one may also accept this in ways that are not true, much to the prompting of many "corroborating" spirits. (That one guy in the graveyard had enough for a couple thousand pigs.)
I'm not saying that speculation and study are wrong. I am saying flatly that spirit-to-spirit communion with those who are not the Holy Spirit is wrong and not just noetically wrong. It is harmful and it is, by the nature of the cunning, deceitful, and hateful spirits invoved, evil. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit does have a critical vocation on this Earth and that is to testify as to the actual Logos who actually lived for a very eventful and climactic thirty-three years on Earth, before actually being taken back, as observed by many empiricists.
I'm not condemning Dr. G, I'm saying that truth is, whether or not it fits our science and may God deliver us from all wrong involvements including even unwitting shamanism.
Let's celebrate when our pendulums are allowed to swing, but let's reserve some enthusiasm for when they come to center.
Unspun, I realize you are concerned about his well being (and anyone who adventures in the spirit.) I also pray for him and all the Hungarians and others who are seeking.
But if they seek Him diligently, they will find Him. (Hebrews 11:6) If they are seeking without being aware of Him, at least they are moving - I'd be more concerned if they weren't seeking at all.
I agree with you, betty boop. Considering the subject, if Grandpierre were to embrace a credal confession openly it would discredit the scientific nature of what he proposes and cast him into the theology camp.
I don't care much about traditions of credes and of course that was not quite what I was mentioning. But would it change much if AG spoke about his views of God and God's relationship with the universe, including man and including himself? Who would do this casting into the theology camp and upon what grounds? Such concerns didn't prevent Newton or Einstein from sharing their views about God. Neither the materialist scientists whom you/we have been mentioning.
I don't think that someone who induces others into mass events of altered states of conscious opening the door to spiritism (i.e., shamanism, channelling, unwitting spiritual subjection to demons) and discusses this is going to be very shy to speak his mind about the nature of it all, it seems that in fact he has, but I could be wrong; people often come up with surprising inconsistencies.
You made a lot of good points and in no way would I suggest that a Christian should ever deny his faith. And you are correct that Grandpierre does not lack for courage.
With regard to Newton and Einstein sharing their views on God, times have changed - and not for the good IMHO.
My thinking is that a group of scientists (Grandpierre et al) proposing an integrative approach to science, will of necessity reach beyond the material or natural realm. In a brief exposure to the concept on another thread, the first words out of the mouths of some of our resident Freeper scientists were 'supernatural' 'the force (like Star Wars)' and so on. And that was, of course, without their actually reading or pondering the material.
Because of this reaction on Free Republic, I'm confident Grandpierre and the other scientists will have to endure a lot of condescension before they will be taken seriously as it is. Thus, I believe any theological statements in the proposal would make it untenable to most American scientists.
Likely so, but meanwhile science and other forms of gaining knowledge proceed. That's prophesied in the Bible, you know:
"Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase." -- in Daniel 12
BTW, there's about real "brights."
Good night, bright ladies. (I'll just have to find a good Sheldrake interview or review to post, soon....)
Indeed, that passage is one of the greatest indications to me that we are prime for the second coming of Christ. Another is II Timothy 3.
Why, NO!!!! Brother A! Where'd you get that idea? :^)
Sometimes I have tended to choose to demonstrate my points, with only a brief reference to the apt points of others, in thier own contexts.
Well, dear friend, that is the easiest thing in the world to do. And thus the most easily forgiven -- assuming I even need to "forgive you" for anything, which in fact I don't. (You always "tell it like it is," and I respect and appreciate that.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.