> > >That's a bit of a theological tail-chaser IMO : surely, by
> > >_definition_ an impersonal god doesn't engage in personal
> > >relationships with mortals ?
>Me> I never said the relationship was "personal".
>But the personal-ness is implicitly suggested by the use of the
>word 'relationship'. Only people (or other entities having
>personality) can engage in relationships, surely ?
But it does not require that both parties to the relationship be capable of personality. "I love my country" is a statement of a personal relationship to a demonstrably impersonal entity. "I am a citizen of my country" is a statement of a non-personal relationship to the same.
>To start with : is 'God' within Creation or not (shades of the olde
>Saint Plane debate) ?
Split between the Loskalmi and the Rokari. The Loskalmi believe that the Godhead is Irensavel who is "totally separate" from the world, and thus hidden. The Rokari believe that God's ultimate identity is Makan who is immanent within the Creation, and thus invisible.
>what sort of 'relationship' would the uneducated have with such
>an 'impersonal god' ?
Fidelity to the laws. Development of their logical faculties through philosophy that allows them to appreciate the splendor of the same.
Powered by hypermail