“obviously it has to mean everything but that. similarly, 'Our Father' means absolutely everything except our father.”
I don’t really want to argue about this but how do you know the boot isn’t on the other leg, and that our fathers mean nothing except vis-à-vis our Father? You wrote an acorn is to an oak as Man is to God. Agreed. But you will also agree that this is a metaphor. What if the acorn represents our existence as we ordinarily conceive of it and the oak, rising into the heavens, represents the transformation and transfiguration of our ordinary existence into a divine one? The acorn doesn’t become an oak merely by becoming a better acorn.
first of all, thank you for the kind words and the comment.
to the first question, and using the idiom Barfield used, my point is that classic theology not only does not save the appearances, but worse, discards them altogether. The appearances in this case are not only what we can observe, but revelation, that is, the bible. This seems clear to me from the readings i've done. They are of course unable to deny it completely, because on the surface they do take the bible as important, but it is discarded and clearly not important at all in the face of hellenic philosophy. A sign of this is the fact that the creed is essentially contradiction upon contradiction precisely to affirm in one sentence the god(s) of the bible and on the other keeping monism. Impossible to be coherent. So no, i do not believe the church fathers and the others that followed them even consider that the heavenly father is anything like an earthly one, not in the least - except, perhaps, as a friend of mine put it, in the sense that we are a source of disappointment. A humorous quip, but with a bit of truth in it.
Which leads to the next question, of the oak and the acorn. I don't deny that at all. My point there was that god and man have the same nature, just one is fully developed and ready to be fully creative (yield other acorns) whereas the other must still be busy growing and developing. I don't doubt that the fully perfected nature is hard to fully grasp in our current condition, but i do take our humanity - including our very form - as a guide, and that it has something to teach us about the exalted state - instead of, like classical theology, taking it as completely unlike that of our creator.
One last point, which perhaps you will object to, is that the acorn is taken to turn into an oak by nothing but necessity, an automatic process. But i do not believe that about acorns at all, and similarly not of man. i think there is choice and purpose and will even in acorns.
As always, I loved this collection of aphorisms.
“obviously it has to mean everything but that. similarly, 'Our Father' means absolutely everything except our father.”
I don’t really want to argue about this but how do you know the boot isn’t on the other leg, and that our fathers mean nothing except vis-à-vis our Father? You wrote an acorn is to an oak as Man is to God. Agreed. But you will also agree that this is a metaphor. What if the acorn represents our existence as we ordinarily conceive of it and the oak, rising into the heavens, represents the transformation and transfiguration of our ordinary existence into a divine one? The acorn doesn’t become an oak merely by becoming a better acorn.
hi Max,
first of all, thank you for the kind words and the comment.
to the first question, and using the idiom Barfield used, my point is that classic theology not only does not save the appearances, but worse, discards them altogether. The appearances in this case are not only what we can observe, but revelation, that is, the bible. This seems clear to me from the readings i've done. They are of course unable to deny it completely, because on the surface they do take the bible as important, but it is discarded and clearly not important at all in the face of hellenic philosophy. A sign of this is the fact that the creed is essentially contradiction upon contradiction precisely to affirm in one sentence the god(s) of the bible and on the other keeping monism. Impossible to be coherent. So no, i do not believe the church fathers and the others that followed them even consider that the heavenly father is anything like an earthly one, not in the least - except, perhaps, as a friend of mine put it, in the sense that we are a source of disappointment. A humorous quip, but with a bit of truth in it.
Which leads to the next question, of the oak and the acorn. I don't deny that at all. My point there was that god and man have the same nature, just one is fully developed and ready to be fully creative (yield other acorns) whereas the other must still be busy growing and developing. I don't doubt that the fully perfected nature is hard to fully grasp in our current condition, but i do take our humanity - including our very form - as a guide, and that it has something to teach us about the exalted state - instead of, like classical theology, taking it as completely unlike that of our creator.
One last point, which perhaps you will object to, is that the acorn is taken to turn into an oak by nothing but necessity, an automatic process. But i do not believe that about acorns at all, and similarly not of man. i think there is choice and purpose and will even in acorns.
thanks Laeth; I appreciate you taking the time to spell out your position for me✌️
no problem.