Read on Twitter
i see pantheists say such cute things like “you are jus a moment of God”
but- even tho its quite a bit less catchy- i prefer a certain pan𝘦𝘯theistic twist : “God is the substrate between moments (which can appear as people)”
¹⁄₁₁ [my first theological thread \oh no..]
but- even tho its quite a bit less catchy- i prefer a certain pan𝘦𝘯theistic twist : “God is the substrate between moments (which can appear as people)”
¹⁄₁₁ [my first theological thread \oh no..]
in the latter view we find solution to a common problem. spinoza presents it in metaphor,
`believing that Jesus is God incarnate is no less absurd than believing that a circle has taken on the nature of a square.`
²⁄₁₁
`believing that Jesus is God incarnate is no less absurd than believing that a circle has taken on the nature of a square.`
²⁄₁₁
what does it mean for God to take on the nature of a man? .. for a man , born of a woman to 𝙗𝙚 God & not indoingso temper th category altogether-? in som sense make it less 𝘎𝘰𝘥ly ?
³⁄₁₁
³⁄₁₁
across history, much of th confusion surrounding Christianity has been routed in this v particular conundrum we face in “squaring” the 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘦 & the 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 in the Body of Jesus
⁴⁄₁₁
⁴⁄₁₁
classical theism & pantheism chase each othrs& #39; tails on this matter: “are they different?” , “are they the same?”
??? ?
w/ a panentheist view which says th divine substantiates all Things in Reality & is the substrate between unfolding moments in time tho…
⁵⁄₁₁
??? ?
w/ a panentheist view which says th divine substantiates all Things in Reality & is the substrate between unfolding moments in time tho…
⁵⁄₁₁
we are capable of explaining the fullness of the divinity of Jesus by formulating 𝘴𝘪𝘯 as a kind of error or defect in this process and Jesus` pureness as God being substantiated deviation-free; i.e. His unprecedented living w/o sin
⁶⁄₁₁
⁶⁄₁₁
God is the creator and sustainer of All & is present in All, but how much of Him we let shine through us unto th world is a matter of free will , insofar as we continue to live in sin, our will (& therefore our nature) clearly deviates from His.
⁷⁄₁₁
⁷⁄₁₁
th only way to prove a metaphor is 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨 is to present a better alternative - let`s now reformulate Spinoza’s for ourselves (i think, despite our differences, he would appreciate it- being a man of optics himself)::
⁸⁄₁₁
⁸⁄₁₁
perhaps the nature of the “image” of God is not shapely, but refractive~ our true self less to be found in our body, but rather in th way we bend & filter divinity flowing into us as it sustains/becomes our being
⁹⁄₁₁
⁹⁄₁₁
God as light shining into lenses \ us as the lenses \ free will as our orientation in relation to God`s light \ our bodies as bent, refracted image \ Jesus as perfect reflection
¹⁰⁄₁₁
¹⁰⁄₁₁
we are `made in the image of God` (𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 1:27) , but Jesus 𝘪𝘴 `the express image of his person` (𝘏𝘦𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘸𝘴 1:3)
He is the lens oriented properly- projecting the divine into Reality w/o distorting its True form.
¹¹⁄₁₁
He is the lens oriented properly- projecting the divine into Reality w/o distorting its True form.
¹¹⁄₁₁
p.s. this view also sympathizes w/ a certain (~pagan/animistic) sense of certain aspects of Nature bein understood as “gods”. the forest &the sun &th wolf live wholly in proper orientation to God`s light ; His role for them- andinsodoing are rightly identified w/ divinity
