Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
Is there no room for pneumatology--study of the spirit?
Part of the trouble is that pneumatology has been plagued by so much hot air that the definition "the study of flatulence" may not be entirely undeserved ...
MOSTLY, but not all, GOOD STUFF
========================================
There are so many interesting comments since my last past that I feel like a mosquito at a nudist colony: I have no idea where to begin!

Bill S., I begin with your not very gracious "comment" or "knock" to me about pneumatology--a word dating from the Middle Ages and before. It has been in the major dictionaries for centuries. Check out World Book Dictionary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Book_Dictionary

which defines it as a branch of metaphysics and an archaic term for psychology. Does this qualify it as just so much "hot air". Pneumatology is a serious study

Having a background in psychology I have had a life-long interest in holism--that is, an integrated approach to understand who were are physically, mentally and spiritjually. Beginning on Sunday, Nov., 28--at a church I attend--I will be doing a series of free lectures on Holistic Health and Religion. Those from the North Toronto area, and are interested in details, send me an e-mail. I will also be posting summaries of my lectures at www.lindsayking.ca part of the Family Life Page.

Quote:
Atheists tend to level much of their criticism against religions, rather than against the concept of God. Religions do tend to make themselves easy targets.
Then you add:
Quote:
Your posts suggest that you like to have a scientific basis for your beliefs.
Every since I was in high school. Early in life I learned that, even in churches, there are--like one finds in any community (atheists included) good people and bad people, some are even criminals.

Also, there are sick religions and there are many people with a blind-kind of faith. I decided to try and eschew both.
Quote:
Perhaps people with theological inclinations should give more thought to establishing what they know, rather than just what they believe.
Why not both? I am not a devout religionist, of any kind. I am a cultural Christian who has fellowship with all kinds of free-thinking Christians (and there are many)--and members of other sighted-faith kind of people. I am not a "creedalist", one who follows one set of doctrines, blindly and without question. I am more of a "deedalist"--one who has the rational faith that deeds are more important than creeds. Don't ask me if I am good person, one who can be trusted to be a fair and honest human and humane person; ask my family, my neighbours and those with whom I associate day by day.

About the god-hypothesis: As a unitheist (unitheist.org), I reserve the right to my own definition of 'god'. I do not believe in 'a' supernatural being called god, even when "he" is called 'God'. I gave up that idea when I discovered who Santa really was. Later, I will respond to the following:

Quote:
Here are some thoughts on a possible starting point for a sort of "liberated" catechism.

What do we know about God? Nothing....

Is there anything we can deduce that would be relevant to the question of God?

Yes; there can never have been a time when there was nothing, or there would still be nothing now.

It follows that something must always have existed; i.e. something is eternal.

Eternity is usually defined as “infinite time”, but, as with all examples in the infinite series, this is no more than a “mathematical” convenience, which bears no relation to physical infinity/eternity.

Science has not provided a viable explanation for the origin of the cosmos, as distinct from the Universe. The most logical conclusion is that the cosmos is infinite/eternal. I stress that it is only a tentative start.


Edited by Revlgking (10/29/10 09:29 PM)
Edit Reason: Always a good idea!
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org