This woman has genuinely meaningful things to say. But I would add to them that we need to create a more balanced view of the reality of the physical and non-physical aspects of the human being. The physical human body is in fact not more inclined to sin than the non-physical aspect. Gluttony is indeed a serious sin, but no more so than spiritual pretense or neglect. Christianity is not Platonism. In the Christian view a human being is not an immortal soul trapped in the inferior realm of a material body. A human being in its reality is equally physical and non-physical with an eschatological promise that these opposing aspects will be unified in the Kingdom of Christ into a single sinless whole. But again, I like what this woman has to say. And I share her affection for Gregory of Nyssa.
Spiritualy speaking, sexual wisdom can begin with a fundamental understanding of the cyclical nature of reality (God). Represented by the snake in many creation myths, the living cycle has a trinity of a beginning (head), a middle and end (tail). As above so below, the sexes were created in the image of God's cyclical nature where Mother is the head and opening to all beginnings and Father holds the tail to all endings (through which the sowing of seeds allow for the next great matriarchal rebirth).The joining of the two (symbolized by the Ouroborus or the marriage ring) is the sacred union needed in assuring the creation and continuation of new life cycles. To speak of the present day God as "Our Father" is simply an admission to our collective positioning within the bigger cycle. As all mothers have direct experience with the creator quality of birthing, so is the direct experience of rebirthing the divinity within (baptism) belong to that which is spiritually matriarchal. (John 3, verse 3-8). Sekhmet statues (ancient Egyptian) carry most of their weight in symbolic memory of what was a mother culture dedicated to the direct experience of baptism. As the leg shaped hairlocks extend from maternal breasts to the womb of rebirth, the lioness's head proportions are such that they highlight the bust of a second animal figure. The Lioness's ears as eyes and eyes as nose (nostrils) brings to life the figure of a reptile. 'Neath the halo headress of the solar egg, the lioness's egg fertilization process being internal (Set) and the reptile's egg fertilization process being external (Setting), such being key components to the safety of entering the trans-egoic or "born again" state. The life threatening fear associated with the predatory nature of a lion and/or crocodile encounter are reflective of the intense ego death experiences associated with the transpersonal awakening process. In spiritually matriarchal times, illumination could be seen as wearing the false beard (ancient Egyptian funerary ego death mask) as the high state of cyclical self knowing; high cyclical awareness of both our upper matriarchal half and our lower (later) patriarchal half (compared with a mini lower body replica, an "as above so below" tail end beard extension); in full recognition of her civilizational Underworld; her inevitable cyclical destiny. The male pharaoh wears his beard tapered in reverse, indicating a pointing upwards towards the patriarchal head, divine representative of God's tail end cycle. To carry the Ankh was perhaps to symbolically carry that upper and lower understanding. As the upper matriarchal womb symbolised the fertile birthing of civilization, below, the now Christian cross is carried to place emphasis on the lower (later) "End Times" Father principle of the great cycle. Ganesha, the elephant headed Hindu diety, displays a cyclical head to trunk symbolism and points to the Mother head of his matriarchal elephant society. A whole temple was dedicated to the ancient Egyptian goddess Hathor, who is the matriarchal "Uterus" personified. ua-cam.com/video/J0m0zJSEFK0/v-deo.html In the name of the Father, the Son and the holy ghosted... ? ... inevitability.
In this video, at least, she ignores the strongest challenge to systematic theology: that it is talking about things you can't define and can't measure/observe while ignoring logic. This is the spirit of David Hume's quote "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school of metaphysics, for instance; let us ask 'Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
If we are strictly material logic cannot exist logic is immaterial it has no physical shape it is not compatible on the laws of biology or chemistry at all it is strictly immaterial. so first of all logic will rhave to come from an immaterial being which is technically what we call a God so she has basis for logic on her worldview not yours
@@damilolataiwo7750 It is not true, prima facie, that we are strictly material beings since we have a mind. "laws" of science are a product of inductive reasoning, and thus products of the human mind as well. If theology wants to sit around and speculate about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin with no connection to the world in which religious people live, it can do that. But it's no more useful than a fairy tale at that point. There are a number of theologians who have realized that theology needs square itself with the context in which religious inquiry takes place. When you can't define what you're talking about, when you can't model it mathematically, when you can't observe it, there is a real risk you are making things up or trying to rationalize hopes and emotions.
@@edtrob pysical laws cannot account for logic it is immaterial the laws of logic like the laws of non - contradiction is immaterial. Even Charles Darwin acknowledge this in his letter to William graham saying our brain is a bunch of random molecules, undermines the rational reasoning behind science.
@@damilolataiwo7750 "physical laws" have no ontological being. They are a product of inductive logic, so it's not surprising they can't "prove" logic. It would be circular in the extreme. Logic is a product of the human mind. So is science and all its "laws." But you seem to be suggesting "science can't explain X" therefore God must be the cause of X. Ockham's Razor suggests we look for a natural explanation first. Consider Newton's famous "hypotheses non fingo." That is prudent metaphysics! If he had assumed God caused gravity he'd look pretty foolish today, wouldn't he?
@@edtrob the laws of logic are not mere conceptions of the human mind, then where do they come from? Most atheists avoid even asking that question. It’s like asking about the origin of the laws of nature. …They don’t want to talk about it because it’s an impossible question to answer from an atheistic perspective. That’s because the laws of logic are certainly not material. You’re not going to find the law of noncontradiction made of wood in your workship somewhere. The laws of logic are immaterial realities that don’t change. All physical things change, but the laws of logic do not. They are fixed, immaterial, eternal laws that would not exist if the purely material world of atheism were correct. While atheists use them, they cannot exist them. “Oh, but give science more time!” If any atheist suggests that, I would suggest giving theatheist more time- more time to think. Science can’t in principle discover the origin for the laws of logic because science can’t proceed without using the laws of logic! The scientific method can’t discover metaphysical principles anyway. All it can do is use them. But can’t atheists use other arguments to explain reason? No. Any defense of reason by reason would be circular. Reason is a starting point. The question is, what grounds that starting point? Why do the laws of logic exist? I think Michael actually was on to something. He was correct to surmise that the laws of logic are grounded in a mind, but just not the temporal, changeable human mind he was advocating. Since the laws of laws of logic are timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and unchangelable, they seem to be grounded in a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and unchangeable Mind. Laws only come from lawgivers. That’s what all experience shows us. Why think the laws of nature and the laws of logic are exceptions? If we follow the evidence where it leads, it takes us right back to the same eternal Mind that created the universe. The same is true about the reliability of our minds and our ability to discover truth. If this universe is the result of a cosmic accident as atheists assert, then why isn’t everything chaotic? Why is reason so orderly? Why can’t we think, do science and mathematics, and arrive at true conclusions about the orderly external world?”
God, Sexuality and the Self, and not even once mentions the Gays! ... Absurd Is it okay to be gay? I think so but I'm an Atheist Ex-Christian. But i do still enjoy reading Theology as a philosophical exercise. I would love to see Theology deal a lot more with class, as a Socialist myself. As well as Animal and Environmental Rights.
@@justchilling704 she is part of the liberal catholic part of the CofE represented by the group Affirming Catholicism. So she views the quality of the relationship, ie that are "permanent, faithful and stable", as more important than the sex of the people in the relationship.
Coakley seems like a great example that someone can be a true intelectual without becoming detached to ones own emotions.
I would just love to sit in and listen to a dinner conversation between Rev. Sarah Coakley and Bishop Robert Barron.
from this lecture we can even FEEL the trinity
I just started this book, just finished the first two methodological chapters. :)
She's amazing.
I have never been so convinced of someone’s genius in so little time. Shut up and take my money!
This is incredible
This woman has genuinely meaningful things to say. But I would add to them that we need to create a more balanced view of the reality of the physical and non-physical aspects of the human being. The physical human body is in fact not more inclined to sin than the non-physical aspect. Gluttony is indeed a serious sin, but no more so than spiritual pretense or neglect. Christianity is not Platonism. In the Christian view a human being is not an immortal soul trapped in the inferior realm of a material body. A human being in its reality is equally physical and non-physical with an eschatological promise that these opposing aspects will be unified in the Kingdom of Christ into a single sinless whole. But again, I like what this woman has to say. And I share her affection for Gregory of Nyssa.
Well said
I have heard that Rev Dr Sarah Coakley is visiting New Zealand very soon as January 2019 (next year)
Fascinating
Thank you, Dr. Coakley.
45:05...so we need the arts...one of humbling arts to the intellect in the journey of discovery of Truth, God and Spirit, if I may, is Alchemy.
Sadly, no information was actually provided about transformative practices resulting from true contemplation in prayer.
Rosanne Read her book on Asceticism
Spiritualy speaking, sexual wisdom can begin with a fundamental understanding of the cyclical nature of reality (God).
Represented by the snake in many creation myths, the living cycle has a trinity of a beginning (head), a middle and end (tail). As above so below, the sexes were created in the image of God's cyclical nature where Mother is the head and opening to all beginnings and Father holds the tail to all endings (through which the sowing of seeds allow for the next great matriarchal rebirth).The joining of the two (symbolized by the Ouroborus or the marriage ring) is the sacred union needed in assuring the creation and continuation of new life cycles. To speak of the present day God as "Our Father" is simply an admission to our collective positioning within the bigger cycle.
As all mothers have direct experience with the creator quality of birthing, so is the direct experience of rebirthing the divinity within (baptism) belong to that which is spiritually matriarchal. (John 3, verse 3-8).
Sekhmet statues (ancient Egyptian) carry most of their weight in symbolic memory of what was a mother culture dedicated to the direct experience of baptism. As the leg shaped hairlocks extend from maternal breasts to the womb of rebirth, the lioness's head proportions are such that they highlight the bust of a second animal figure. The Lioness's ears as eyes and eyes as nose (nostrils) brings to life the figure of a reptile. 'Neath the halo headress of the solar egg, the lioness's egg fertilization process being internal (Set) and the reptile's egg fertilization process being external (Setting), such being key components to the safety of entering the trans-egoic or "born again" state. The life threatening fear associated with the predatory nature of a lion and/or crocodile encounter are reflective of the intense ego death experiences associated with the transpersonal awakening process.
In spiritually matriarchal times, illumination could be seen as wearing the false beard (ancient Egyptian funerary ego death mask) as the high state of cyclical self knowing; high cyclical awareness of both our upper matriarchal half and our lower (later) patriarchal half (compared with a mini lower body replica, an "as above so below" tail end beard extension); in full recognition of her civilizational Underworld; her inevitable cyclical destiny. The male pharaoh wears his beard tapered in reverse, indicating a pointing upwards towards the patriarchal head, divine representative of God's tail end cycle.
To carry the Ankh was perhaps to symbolically carry that upper and lower understanding. As the upper matriarchal womb symbolised the fertile birthing of civilization, below, the now Christian cross is carried to place emphasis on the lower (later) "End Times" Father principle of the great cycle.
Ganesha, the elephant headed Hindu diety, displays a cyclical head to trunk symbolism and points to the Mother head of his matriarchal elephant society.
A whole temple was dedicated to the ancient Egyptian goddess Hathor, who is the matriarchal "Uterus" personified. ua-cam.com/video/J0m0zJSEFK0/v-deo.html
In the name of the Father, the Son and the holy ghosted... ? ... inevitability.
Why is she bent sideways?
Who cares?
@@englishlanguagewithnina5965 It's the devil I tell you! She's lopsided.
Who the hell is god
The God of the bible the trinine God
Father son (Jesus) and holyspirit
In this video, at least, she ignores the strongest challenge to systematic theology: that it is talking about things you can't define and can't measure/observe while ignoring logic. This is the spirit of David Hume's quote "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school of metaphysics, for instance; let us ask 'Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
If we are strictly material logic cannot exist logic is immaterial it has no physical shape it is not compatible on the laws of biology or chemistry at all it is strictly immaterial. so first of all logic will rhave to come from an immaterial being which is technically what we call a God so she has basis for logic on her worldview not yours
@@damilolataiwo7750 It is not true, prima facie, that we are strictly material beings since we have a mind. "laws" of science are a product of inductive reasoning, and thus products of the human mind as well. If theology wants to sit around and speculate about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin with no connection to the world in which religious people live, it can do that. But it's no more useful than a fairy tale at that point. There are a number of theologians who have realized that theology needs square itself with the context in which religious inquiry takes place. When you can't define what you're talking about, when you can't model it mathematically, when you can't observe it, there is a real risk you are making things up or trying to rationalize hopes and emotions.
@@edtrob pysical laws cannot account for logic it is immaterial the laws of logic like the laws of non - contradiction is immaterial. Even Charles Darwin acknowledge this in his letter to William graham saying our brain is a bunch of random molecules, undermines the rational reasoning behind science.
@@damilolataiwo7750 "physical laws" have no ontological being. They are a product of inductive logic, so it's not surprising they can't "prove" logic. It would be circular in the extreme. Logic is a product of the human mind. So is science and all its "laws." But you seem to be suggesting "science can't explain X" therefore God must be the cause of X. Ockham's Razor suggests we look for a natural explanation first. Consider Newton's famous "hypotheses non fingo." That is prudent metaphysics! If he had assumed God caused gravity he'd look pretty foolish today, wouldn't he?
@@edtrob the laws of logic are not mere conceptions of the human mind, then where do they come from? Most atheists avoid even asking that question. It’s like asking about the origin of the laws of nature.
…They don’t want to talk about it because it’s an impossible question to answer from an atheistic perspective. That’s because the laws of logic are certainly not material. You’re not going to find the law of noncontradiction made of wood in your workship somewhere. The laws of logic are immaterial realities that don’t change. All physical things change, but the laws of logic do not. They are fixed, immaterial, eternal laws that would not exist if the purely material world of atheism were correct. While atheists use them, they cannot exist them.
“Oh, but give science more time!” If any atheist suggests that, I would suggest giving theatheist more time- more time to think. Science can’t in principle discover the origin for the laws of logic because science can’t proceed without using the laws of logic! The scientific method can’t discover metaphysical principles anyway. All it can do is use them.
But can’t atheists use other arguments to explain reason?
No. Any defense of reason by reason would be circular. Reason is a starting point. The question is, what grounds that starting point? Why do the laws of logic exist?
I think Michael actually was on to something. He was correct to surmise that the laws of logic are grounded in a mind, but just not the temporal, changeable human mind he was advocating. Since the laws of laws of logic are timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and unchangelable, they seem to be grounded in a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and unchangeable Mind.
Laws only come from lawgivers. That’s what all experience shows us. Why think the laws of nature and the laws of logic are exceptions? If we follow the evidence where it leads, it takes us right back to the same eternal Mind that created the universe.
The same is true about the reliability of our minds and our ability to discover truth. If this universe is the result of a cosmic accident as atheists assert, then why isn’t everything chaotic? Why is reason so orderly? Why can’t we think, do science and mathematics, and arrive at true conclusions about the orderly external world?”
She single?
Sadly not. Very much married
God, Sexuality and the Self, and not even once mentions the Gays!
...
Absurd
Is it okay to be gay?
I think so but I'm an Atheist Ex-Christian.
But i do still enjoy reading Theology as a philosophical exercise.
I would love to see Theology deal a lot more with class, as a Socialist myself.
As well as Animal and Environmental Rights.
Sarah Coakley is very much pro-gay and supports women in ministry.
@@adrianj78 Pro Gay? What do you mean by that? If you mean what I think you mean that’s sad to hear she’s a heretic.
@@justchilling704 she is part of the liberal catholic part of the CofE represented by the group Affirming Catholicism. So she views the quality of the relationship, ie that are "permanent, faithful and stable", as more important than the sex of the people in the relationship.
Just another charlatan. Heidegger must be turning in his grave right now. :(