(urth) Lupiverse(es)

[Daniel Petersen]

Yeah, David, I know what you mean about 'personal God' and even more so
'personal Jesus' - the latter phrase has no good use at all to me.  The
former can be misleading, but I think it's trying to talk about a view of
God as willing and knowing and feeling and acting and so on (even if also
'Beyond Personality' to mention the the title of the third book in Lewis's
Mere Christianity).  It's often put in terms of gods usually being either
personal but finite (polytheism) or infinite but impersonal (some forms of
pantheism, perhaps, or deism and others) - whereas the traditional
monotheistic conception (mainly Jewish, Christian, Muslim, I guess) is a
God that is BOTH personal AND infinite - and all the theology follows:
 viz. the many 'attributes' and so on - omnipotent, omnipresent,
omnibenevolent, etc.  I think Wolfe's fiction hints toward the orthodox
paradox of God as BOTH transcendent (totally beyond us in divine
incomprensibility) AND 'immanent' (near to his creation, involved, even
incarnational).

Cave said he didn't believe in a personal God who was 'looking after him'
or something along those lines.  But he did also say in the same breath
that he was 'open' and that he wouldn't want anyone to come up with a
'proof' for God because he loved mystery in the universe.  Again, I think
Wolfe manages to avoid 'proofs' and embrace mystery - yet also say
something concrete about whether God is there and what God is like.

-DOJP

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 5:27 PM, DAVID STOCKHOFF <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote:

>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
> *To:* The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 11:58 AM
> *Subject:* Re: (urth) Lupiverse(es)
>
> Ha, thanks everyone for engaging so profusely with my initial rant.  I
> think all the angles have been well-covered.  I'll just add that any of you
> who think Lewis and/or MacDonald have little literary merit and are
> reducible to dishonesty and/or didacticism, well...
>
> ---I think there's something about this forum that exaggerates what is
> said, and I'm just not careful enough to avoid a ballooning
> misunderstanding. I think Lewis and MacDonald are great, sometimes. And
> didacticism is not = dishonesty. There's nothing wrong with didacticism . .
> . unless it's dishonest, or pandering, or condescending, or poorly
> executed, or without life. In other words: murder is already illegal, we
> don't have to pass a special law against certain types of murders.
>
> And I am far from being the reader I was at 9.
>
>
>
> you can go suck an egg.  And I wish you speedy recovery from your literary
> myopia.  :)
>
> As to Lee's direct question:
>
> Just as a thought experiment, what would the reverse bring for you? What if
> there was, say, a deathbed confession by Wolfe that all his work was meant
> to
> subvert belief in Christ and promote worship of Satan or Dionysus. Would
> you be
> out?
>
> This did happen to me in the past few years with one of my favourite
> singers and lyricists, Nick Cave.  First I just loved his musical and
> lyrical artistry - some of my all-time favourite stuff.  Then I noticed his
> lyrics were consistently more and more 'God-conscious' and even
> specifically 'Christ-conscious'.  Then he started professing to believe in
> God and in Christ (if in an idiosyncratic sense) - then his lyrics became
> even more blatantly 'Christian'.  Then he suddenly said in several
> interviews on the back of his second novel coming out (The Death of Bunny
> Munro) that he did not believe in the literal existence of a personal God -
> contradicting quite clear statements in interviews in very recent years.
>  Was I confused and even disappointed?  Yeah.  Have I abandoned enjoying,
> following and analysing his work?  No way.  Do I think the discussion is
> closed?  Uh-uh.
>
> ---I have wondered about that, having noticed the change in lyrics and
> read statements that Cave is Catholic. But what's the contradiction arising
> from disbelieving in a "personal" God?
>
> (That term, especially in the form "personal Jesus," always makes me think
> of something portable and convenient, like a purse dog. Does the Church
> assign everyone a non-optional personal God, like Philip Pullman's daemons?)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20120316/74b07ce9/attachment-0004.htm>