To gain access to the true essence of God, I believe people have to first reject the false gods that society has created.
Religion does not take kindly to time. For many people the impulse to religion is generated by a desire to escape from the tyranny of time: And, independently of our motives for seeking God, it would seem to derogate from His perfection to subject the Almighty to the corrosion of time.
And so the Greeks, once they began to emancipate themselves from the all-too-human gods of Olympus, started to posit a timeless Absolute, an impassible, unmoved mover, the ground of our being, and perhaps the worthy recipient of our worship, but not an active intervener in our affairs or a person we could communicate with.
The God of the philosophers was clearly very different not only from the Olympian deities but equally from the Yaweh of the Jews. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was thought to have intervened on many occasions in the course of the history of Israel, giving them a helping hand in their escape from Egypt, and a chastening one when they went after false gods.
The word of the Lord came to the prophets, often unwelcomely as it did also to David and Ahab when they strayed from the strait and narrow path of righteousness.
See transparency There was an obvious tension. But most people preferred not to be very much aware of the tension. Philo sought to accommodate Judaism to Greek philosophy by understanding most of the Old Testament mythologically, much as modern believers reconcile Genesis with geology or cosmology by insisting that the account of creation is not to be taken literally but expresses a deeper, metaphorical truth.
Justin Martyr sought to make Christianity philosophically respectable, and his efforts were followed by a concerted endeavour on the part of the Fathers in late antiquity to achieve an intellectually respectable understanding of Christianity.
God became more and more respectable, and less and less human.
In the contest between Athens and Jerusalem, Athens won. I want to challenge that result.
The God of the philosophers cannot do the work the Christian God is required to do. I shall argue that in spite of great ingenuity on the part of Augustine and Aquinas, we do not have an intelligible account of how a timeless Being can act in history; in particular, how a timeless Being can, like a father, pity His children, hear their prayers, and on occasion respond to their petitions.
In this lecture, therefore, I shall first unravel the different considerations which have led thinkers to hold that God must be timeless, then I shall argue that that is to depersonalise Him, and finally I shall try and sketch a more positiveand temporalview of eternity.
See transparency We suppose God to be timeless for many reasons. Religious experiences seem out of this world, and so, we think, outside time too.
Thinking about the God of the philosophers is an exercise in the theological superlative, which all too easily oversteps the bounds of common sense and even intelligibility. And if God is timeless, we can fend off awkward questionsabout foreknowledge and free will, and about the beginning and end of the universe which otherwise would be difficult to answer.
Once these are recognised, we no longer feel impelled to think that God must be timeless. See transparency Time implies the possibility of change, and Plato was against change.
It is natural, when change rears its ugly head, to want to stop it, not only for the immediate now, but for ever in principle. If reality bes rather than becomes, then we can discount unwelcome changes as mere transitory appearances, and not permanently real. Many truths, for instance those of mathematics and the natural sciences, are either timeless or omnitemporal, holding at all times, as they do also in all places and for all persons.
Just as the laws of nature are invariant over time, so the Ultimate Reality must be changeless and free from any temporal variation.
Plato had a further, more explicit, argument for the changelessness of God. In either case God would be less than perfect. The perfection of God requires that He be changelessly at the acme of perfection. But this argument assumes that there is a strict linear ordering of states with respect to moral merit, and this is not obviously true.
Many changesmy breathing in and my breathing outare matters of indifference so far as moral merit is concerned, and even where moral virtues are concerned, they are not always either compatible or comparable:LETTERS OF CATHERINE BENINCASA.
ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA AS SEEN IN HER LETTERS. I.
The letters of Catherine Benincasa, commonly known as St. Catherine of Siena, have become an Italian classic; yet perhaps the first thing in them to strike a reader is their unliterary character.
The Scientific Revolution was a time where people really started thinking about what went on in the world instead of basing everything out off religion. Why might people have difficulty accepting new ideas or ways of thinking? In Buddhism, the first schism was set up by Devadatta, during Buddha's life.
This schism lasted only a short time. Later (after Buddha's death), the early Buddhist schools came into being, but were not schismatic,  only focusing on different interpretations for the same monastic community.
In the old texts, 18 or 20 early schools are mentioned. Jul 01, · From banning them to embracing them, a group of Americans got together to talk about guns Dan posed and then considered the essential question: Are school shootings the price we pay for a.
The rise of new digital industrial technology, known as Industry , is a transformation that makes it possible to gather and analyze data across machines, enabling faster, more flexible, and more efficient processes to produce higher-quality goods at reduced costs.
Shared information provides new perspectives and generate new life. We feel a spiritual connection to the created file.” Other emerging tech-connected faiths, however, embrace the more grandiose.