God’s Word?

[firstfloor]

So, you think a non-existent god can inspire literature?
I'm not sure what you mean by scripture. Obviously, there exist writings that certain religious groups call scripture; and, within those groups, certain subgroups believe that their scripture is inspired by God. I don't argue over the labeling of scripture, but I do argue about its being inspired by God.

It seems to be a matter of what you think God is. The sense of the divine is a real human emotion. The credit given to the invisible hyper-being for one’s own efforts at persuasion is mainly salesmanship. We are God (by elimination of other possibilities). Scripture is simply a static tradition of the divine in print – and the tradition kills it and distorts its meaning until it is like a cancer.

[Doug Shaver]

It seems to be a matter of what you think God is.

I don't think God is anything real.

The sense of the divine is a real human emotion.

Human emotions are certainly real, but that doesn't make any of them God.

If you want to stick the "God" label on somebody's emotion, I can't stop you, but I'm not obliged to mimic you, either.

[robrecht]

I don't think God is anything real. ...

John Scottus Eriugena, one of my favorite theologians, would agree with you!

[Doug Shaver]

John Scottus Eriugena, one of my favorite theologians, would agree with you!

Sounds like some version of apophatic theology. I think I understand it, but it still doesn't quite compute for me.

Eriugena was briefly mentioned in the Intro to Philosophy course I took about 10 years ago, but his name never came up again in any subsequent course I took. I'm afraid I can't remember a thing the textbook said about him.

[robrecht]

Sounds like some version of apophatic theology. I think I understand it, but it still doesn't quite compute for me.

Eriugena was briefly mentioned in the Intro to Philosophy course I took about 10 years ago, but his name never came up again in any subsequent course I took. I'm afraid I can't remember a thing the textbook said about him.

Yes, he was an Irish theologian who translated Pseudo-Dionysius from Greek for the West in the so-called Dark Ages, but he also added his own creative 'system', wherein Nature consisted of everything that is and is not. God is spoken of both as what is and what is not and as immanent in all things. One of the things I like about him is the lack of separation of the supernatural and his focus on reason and immanence. Worth checking out if you're interested: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scottus-eriugena/

[Doug Shaver]

Thanks for the link. That was fascinating.

That Intro course I mentioned was essentially a historical survey, sort of an introduction to all the major thinkers from Thales to the postmodernists. The textbook was only 436 pages, including glossary and index, so you can imagine how much good stuff had to be left out. It has to say something about Eriugena that he made that sort of cut.