Article #28
Subject: Recent talk at Benton Chapel, Vanderbilt Divinity school
Author: Andrew W. Harrell
Posted: 3/21/2009 08:56:35 AM

Recent talk at Benton Chapel, Vanderbilt Divinity school
Dr. John Thatamanil
(posted on U-Tube March 12,2009)
on whether
There is more than One thing (substance) that makes up “Reality”
And,if so, a discussion of how this epistomological
fact/postulate relates
to the understanding of the Christian Trinity we need to promote in
order that we all (of different religions) are able to have a better
dialogue and learn more from each other.

There is a religious metaphor of seekers trying to climb to
A mountaintop to attain knowledge and a grasp of the One Absolute Reality
(which is called attaining Salvation)
But, is Christ working in unknown ways in other religions such that
all paths upward lead to the mountaintop?
Some theologians say that we reach One way of understanding this
Personal absolute reality once we reach the top of the mountain.
Others say we can only know how it appears to each of us separatedly.
Also many Christians, eg. pre-millillianist theologians, claim that we have
Christians the One way which is most efficaous to get up to the top of the
mountain

Hicks has proposed a One reality approach to religious
epistomology.
In all major religions personal God theologies are more often in conflict
with non-personal
God theologies than not. So it follows that this would be even more
true (to the detrement of everyone) if there is only One absolute reality
that we can know
(with or without God’s help)


Some problems with Hicks theology:

1) It doesn’t leave any need for dialogue among us.
2) Nor do we have any need to practice other religions and
Hence may miss many benefits that we gain from understanding them.
3) Many liberals and conservatives agree that there is only One reality…
Have they both missed or in danger of missing the mark?
4) We can’t have multiple religious ends or purposes if there is only One
Reality to reach.

Going back to the mountain climbing metaphor there may be many paths that
Are equally efficasously to reach the top of the mountain
(In fact I have found this to be the case in my own climbing up the Mt. of
the Holy Cross
in Colorado, Mt. Shasta, Mt Rainier in the U.S. and Mt. President, Mt
Athabasca in Canada)

Dr. John T. proposes that we postulate
three realities which are apostolic
three dimensions which are real:

1) Ground, 2) Contingency, 3) Relation

By Ground he means Pure Being (like the word Sat which means transcendent
reality in Sanskrit) which is
immanent but also transcendent.

By Contingency he means all that is being and makes every particular what it
is.
“The fact that love is contingent does not mean it should be removed.”

By Relation he means Truth
Those who teach emptiness in relation teach that nothing has particular
existence
except by way of relation.


Some reasons for doing it his way:
Instead of the more formulaic and Kantian approach of
(did he say Griffin?)

Formulas (or rules) tend to pre-assign conclusions before a dialogue
has taken place.
This results in an insufficient appreciation of diversity within different
traditions

Some dangers of this approach.
The orientation toward relationship might result in a loss of understanding
of the particular.

How some contemporary theologians fit into his 3D reality epistomology:
Some Christian theologians have concentrated or focused too much
On God as Ground or Contingency thus creating a too transcendent God.
Their purpose to know Christ by the power of the Indwelling Spirit always
asking
WWJD (what would Jesus do)
Martin Buber—a theology of the Spirit
God as ground, not so much as contingency, but with a sense of relationship.
Feminists and Unitarians—God as a relation
Process Theologians---they reject God as a creator
Mystical Theologians--- God is Ground which is relationship complemented

In conclusion he believes we must have more interreligious dialogue because
we need each other to know more about God.

Question 1 from the audience:
What are the “states’ of these 3 words (which represent the realities he is
talking about0.
Answer: He does not know. Not that he is trying to evade an answer, or he
thinks the answer isnt’ important.
But, he does not think that getting an answer to this is critically
important at the moment.

Question 2 from the audience
What are the relations of his terms to Christian terminology, the Father,
the Son, the Holy Spirit?
He has deliberately tried not to use these terms because of St. Augustines
famous quote, “You cannot count the Trinity.!” ie if you do you get a
contradiction 1+1+1=3=1

Article #29
Subject: What would Jesus do?
Author: Andrew W. Harrell
Posted: 4/7/2009 08:39:46 AM

Here is one of those many "What would Jesus do?" questions
Dr. John was complaining about.
If Jesus was alive as a real person living in our secular world
today, would Jesus mind if someone stole his identity?
answer: Maybe not because part of the purpose that perpetually drives him
is to set an example for us (and someone claiming to be him might help them
to acheive this).
But, also maybe so because another part of his purpose is to
sanctify the name of his Father. Because he and his Father have the
same name this could be confusing to those of us trying to keep track of him.
So, perhaps the answer is, He would not mind or care about this but someone
else should mind. I think His Holy Spirit in us would mind if someone
did this. For, if part of the purpose of Jesus is to sanctify the name of his
Father in us, part of the purpose of the Holy Spirit is to sanctify
the name of the Father's Son, Jesus in us.

Article #30
Subject: The Holy Spirit speaks
Author: Andrew W. Harrell
Posted: 4/8/2009 08:42:55 AM

As it was in the beginning, may it (for it ever shall
and always will be says He whose name is three times Holy
and The Light that shines in The Light) be
now and forever.
Glory be to the Son,
to the Father,
and to the Holy Spirit.
World without end,
Amen.

Article #38
Subject: further discussions on this
Author: Andrew W. Harrell
Posted: 9/2/2009 11:44:14 AM

Article #37
Subject: further discussions on this
Author: Andrew W. Harrell
Posted: 9/2/2009 11:41:16 AM

See Dr. Thanamanil's audio interview http://bit.ly/QiRBF by Ann Marie Owens.
In this interview he clarifies further and amplies on what he meant with the
analogy of attaining the theological mercy of God(different types of
grace,holiness,justification, sanctification)to reaching the top of a
mountain. "If we are only choosing one way (path) up to the mountain when we
choose a theology, what different does it make?" "Then there is no need for
us to have dialog and work to understand each other's points of view... other
than just to make nice."
But, Dr. Thanamanil's what if reaching the top of just one mountain is not
the total sum of our goal's in life? What if we just want to keep on climbing
mountains because we like it?