[David]

fatherman, on Dec 3 2007, 07:14 AM, said:

Quote

Your struggle with fitting Jen's experience into your "theological understanding of the nature of God and the nature of Jesus" is something will can all respect and perhaps relate to. However theology is ultimately a story that we are working with that helps us make sense of the world and its relationship to its creator. And although our stories may be informed by what we accept as possible they cannot actually affect what it possible...except, perhaps, the life of the person who lives by that story. That is why your theological perspective in no way applies to what Jen is experiencing.

The mystics and the channelers of the world are a real pain in the ass to us because they force us to have to accept (or reject) that which may always remain a mystery to us.

Sometimes we just have to accept the gifts that are offered to us. Jen has accepted her gift. She has a gift to offer us. Accepting her gift does not require a theological perspective that supports it. It is what it is.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree that theology in part is a personal journey but I also would argue that theology is a communal activity and therefore I would make at least a partial claim that "what Jen is experiencing" is open to communal interpretation. "What Jen is experiencing" is being presented as some form of "The Word of God" although she presents it through the words of Jesus. Such direct dictation from the Divine has a long history. That history includes the claims of direct dictation of the Holy QUR'AN as well as the Holy BIBLE. It is ironic to have on the one hand some who would claim direct Divine dictation of the Songs of Solomon versus Jen who has received direct communication to the contrary (isn't it great when two mystics collide?). This raises the partial, communal theology that we have in common. Does the nature of God include the possible direct communication of very specific pieces of dictation? I agree that more is possible than I experience but that does not preclude the general theological claim that the nature of God does not include the possibility that the Prophet received the QUR'AN as a direct dictation or that God did not provide a literal interpretation of the Bible. I think these fundamental theological understandings are central to Progressive Christianity. I think that it is important during these times of fundamentalism to raise this theological objection to what drives much of the negative religious activity in our world today. Such attempts to bolster religious viewpoints with support from "direct communication with Allah/God" do require a theological perspective in response. In many ways Jen will always remain a mystery to me, however I am not sure that the way the gift is given does not at times work against the gift itself.

[David]

canajan, eh?, on Dec 3 2007, 06:21 AM, said:

David, I don't know you, and I don't have much framework for where you're coming from. All I know is that I'm saddened by what you've said about me, about your suggestion that I'm separate from my own personal existential situation.

I've worked very hard on and off over the last three years to earn a moderate level of trust from other Progressive Christians by being consistently honest, balanced, holistic in my approach to both science and spirituality, and faithful towards my fellow human beings in terms of my intense belief in their inner potential to be Christs-in-human-form. I continually advocate compassion, empathy, common sense, forgiveness, and inclusiveness. I rejoice in the gift of parenthood. I live a life of constant, ongoing, humble communication with God. The beauty of God's creation fills me daily with wonder. I love God. I love the souls of all my fellow beings. I will continue to be indignant when I see others show a lack of empathy for themselves, for others, and for God. I will continue to speak as honestly as I can. I am as fully whole as it is possible to be. I can't help it, David, if you find it troubling that I've worked very hard to learn how to do what I do (i.e. be a modern channeller), and that I do it well. If there is not a place in today's Christianity for an ongoing dialogue with God as well as an ongoing dialogue with each other, we're up shit's creek without a paddle.

Jen

Hi Jen,

I don't know you either and I have no reason to doubt your goodness. I know many persons who think that they are on a first name basis with God and who are very good people. My problem with this is theological in nature in that I do not see that it is possible for God to provide direct dictation. This theological disagreement is not a personal attack but this theological disagreement raises a fundamental difference between Progressive Christianity and those who would follow Pat Robertson or those who accept that the QUR'AN is a direct dictation from the Divine. I appreciate the opportunity to diaglogue with you, just don't tell me that I am talking to God/Jesus. That is quite a dialogue stopper.

This post has been edited by David: 03 December 2007 - 11:54 PM

[soma]

Great discussion, nice to feel the fire and passion. I took a vow of celibacy when I was a monk. I tried my best to unite the male and female inside me to become whole or holy. I now have been married for 26 years to the same woman and have raised two sons. I feel I have the genes of my mother and father both male and female. I feel many single people and clergy can unite the two and become holy. I am on a different path now having become united with the woman inside me with the woman I married outside myself. Both paths are difficult and valid. I think the key is to know ourselves as David said because when we accept who we really are we can accept who others are and enjoy where they are as they progress on the spiritual path.

Many Christians want to inflict shame, guilt, repression and punishment on human sexuality. We don't have to be punitive for a natural part of life. Many Evangelists have preached against sex and have fallen to their own private sex scandals. We need a paradigm shift to the sacrament of the present moment in God presence. Are we Christians to become similar to the Muslims and support puritanical Taliban antangonism towards human sexuality?

The key is to make love, tune inside and see sex as a gift from God. God has designed sex to be physical, emotional, and spiritual, and in this thread people have talked about it being physical abuse, emotional abuse, and spiritual joy. I choose to see it as spiritual joy and a sacrament of love. It can be seen as just physical or mental union, but I choose to see it as spiritual union too. Deep within each of us is a deep desire for bonding with another, for intimate union. It's a gift that is an expression of an innate longing for intimacy with God.

Mystical Union is the Soul’s Union with God. Yes, we can meditate and experience union with everything, and yes union with another can bring the same experience because one escapes the small i to experience a larger spiritual existence. God rewards us for our love. God's presence can touch our hearts make us melt and let us expand in a world of love. The immaculate heart of Jesus can be shown to the world if we purify our own hearts with his guidance. Sex must be taken out of the darkness of Satan's put downs and condemnation, promoting abuse, sensuality and restored to God's light and love. The Song of Solomon is in the Bible. It is not promoting sex with parents, ministers, priest or nuns. I don't think it is describing a solely physical or carnal act, but the grand meaning and godly purpose of love and unity.

[fatherman]

McKenna,

Yes. This poetry is undoubtedly written from the context of the marital relationship between a man and a woman (at least the honeymoon part of it). Ooo...now I need to go back and read this thing again...now that I've been married for 13 years.


David,

I don't see Progressive Christianity is being the anti-Pat Robertson. It does not (or should not) exist solely to be against something. If it does, then it will not ultimately lead to peace or happiness. We have to be for something for that to happen. To me, Progressive Christianity is about breaking free from what this preacher or that preacher or this Sunday School teacher or this tradition says you must believe or experience. It's about reconciliation with the full body of Christ in the world (no one gets left out). Its about living the questions AND living the mystery. Its about deconstructing our faith, but being willing to reconstruct it into an honest, living faith. It's about...[ok, Fatherman, let's not get carried away here]

[WARNING: UNWARRANTED RANT] (ok...let's get a little carried away)

This is probably more directed to the adult sunday school class in my church that doesn't actually attend worship, but just loves to
talk about its irrelevancy.

I'm going to say this loud and clear so that all 6 members of our vital community (he he) can hear this. If you thought Progressive Christianity was the place where you can just stop experiencing God in a real way and just yak about her until Kingdom Come, you are mistaken! Whoa whoa whoa! Wait a minute here! We don't just talk! We serve at soup kitchens and protest the war! No! God is more than a theological idea and Christianity is more than good deeds and just causes. As for what a Progressive Christian is about? You will find the FULL range of Christian expression within the Progressive Christian community. The difference is that we have come to this expression not out of fear or by rote, but by critical thinking, study, spiritual discipline, and willingness to free our minds. We're here to find our own TRUE expression of faith.

[RANT OVER]

Ok, coffee is setting in. Soma, that was beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.

Jen! You just keep living out your true expression! Your writing here makes a real difference in my life (see Jen/Jesus's wonderful thread on forgiveness "From Jesus: Intro To The Practice Of Forgiving"). I'm blessed to be a witness...as am I blessed by all of you here.

Song of Solomon...good stuff.

[David]

fatherman, on Dec 4 2007, 05:10 AM, said:

McKenna,

Yes. This poetry is undoubtedly written from the context of the marital relationship between a man and a woman (at least the honeymoon part of it). Ooo...now I need to go back and read this thing again...now that I've been married for 13 years.
David,

I don't see Progressive Christianity is being the anti-Pat Robertson. It does not (or should not) exist solely to be against something. If it does, then it will not ultimately lead to peace or happiness. We have to be for something for that to happen. To me, Progressive Christianity is about breaking free from what this preacher or that preacher or this Sunday School teacher or this tradition says you must believe or experience. It's about reconciliation with the full body of Christ in the world (no one gets left out). Its about living the questions AND living the mystery. Its about deconstructing our faith, but being willing to reconstruct it into an honest, living faith. It's about...[ok, Fatherman, let's not get carried away here]

[WARNING: UNWARRANTED RANT] (ok...let's get a little carried away)

This is probably more directed to the adult sunday school class in my church that doesn't actually attend worship, but just loves to
talk about its irrelevancy.

I'm going to say this loud and clear so that all 6 members of our vital community (he he) can hear this. If you thought Progressive Christianity was the place where you can just stop experiencing God in a real way and just yak about her until Kingdom Come, you are mistaken! Whoa whoa whoa! Wait a minute here! We don't just talk! We serve at soup kitchens and protest the war! No! God is more than a theological idea and Christianity is more than good deeds and just causes. As for what a Progressive Christian is about? You will find the FULL range of Christian expression within the Progressive Christian community. The difference is that we have come to this expression not out of fear or by rote, but by critical thinking, study, spiritual discipline, and willingness to free our minds. We're here to find our own TRUE expression of faith.

[RANT OVER]

Ok, coffee is setting in. Soma, that was beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.

Jen! You just keep living out your true expression! Your writing here makes a real difference in my life (see Jen/Jesus's wonderful thread on forgiveness "From Jesus: Intro To The Practice Of Forgiving"). I'm blessed to be a witness...as am I blessed by all of you here.

Song of Solomon...good stuff.

Great Rant,
Thank you.
I am sorry that I did not say that I also would miss Jen if she did not participate.
I would also actually miss Pat Robertson if he did not participate fully.
I do have to disagree about the role of Progressive Christianity.
It is so, so true that too often this social movement is seen as being against something and not for something.
But, I am wondering how many Progressive Christians would be "for" direct dictation of scriptures.
That does not mean that those who do see the Divine working in that way are evil or not to be accepted.
It's just that we probably are not going to go to the same Sunday School class.

[soma]

I like to think of Progressive Christians with open minds watching God working magic and loving everything. They are not even against the people trying to close the door to their minds. They they keep the door to Truth ajar without resistance, just joyous contentment. Progressives don't need promises and guarantees because they have the compassionate heart of Jesus Christ.

[fatherman]

Quote

Progressives don't need promises and guarantees because they have the compassionate heart of Jesus Christ.

ohhhh...I like that!

[mystictrek]

Soma wrote: "I took a vow of celibacy when I was a monk. I tried my best to unite the male and female inside me to become whole or holy."

+++

You may find it interesting that I thought you were a woman up until now!

love, john + www.abundancetrek.com & www.abundancetrek.com/blog + We are intimately, intricately and infinitely connected by a matrix of unconditional, unlimited and uniting love which is miraculous, mysterious and marvellous.

[mystictrek]

soma, on Dec 4 2007, 12:25 AM, said:

Great discussion, nice to feel the fire and passion. I took a vow of celibacy when I was a monk. I tried my best to unite the male and female inside me to become whole or holy. I now have been married for 26 years to the same woman and have raised two sons. I feel I have the genes of my mother and father both male and female. I feel many single people and clergy can unite the two and become holy. I am on a different path now having become united with the woman inside me with the woman I married outside myself. Both paths are difficult and valid. I think the key is to know ourselves as David said because when we accept who we really are we can accept who others are and enjoy where they are as they progress on the spiritual path.

Many Christians want to inflict shame, guilt, repression and punishment on human sexuality. We don't have to be punitive for a natural part of life. Many Evangelists have preached against sex and have fallen to their own private sex scandals. We need a paradigm shift to the sacrament of the present moment in God presence. Are we Christians to become similar to the Muslims and support puritanical Taliban antangonism towards human sexuality?

The key is to make love, tune inside and see sex as a gift from God. God has designed sex to be physical, emotional, and spiritual, and in this thread people have talked about it being physical abuse, emotional abuse, and spiritual joy. I choose to see it as spiritual joy and a sacrament of love. It can be seen as just physical or mental union, but I choose to see it as spiritual union too. Deep within each of us is a deep desire for bonding with another, for intimate union. It's a gift that is an expression of an innate longing for intimacy with God.

Mystical Union is the Soul’s Union with God. Yes, we can meditate and experience union with everything, and yes union with another can bring the same experience because one escapes the small i to experience a larger spiritual existence. God rewards us for our love. God's presence can touch our hearts make us melt and let us expand in a world of love. The immaculate heart of Jesus can be shown to the world if we purify our own hearts with his guidance. Sex must be taken out of the darkness of Satan's put downs and condemnation, promoting abuse, sensuality and restored to God's light and love. The Song of Solomon is in the Bible. It is not promoting sex with parents, ministers, priest or nuns. I don't think it is describing a solely physical or carnal act, but the grand meaning and godly purpose of love and unity.

Dear SOMA,

Can I put this post on my blog? It is brilliant. You are brilliant!

love, john + http://www.abundancetrek.com & http://www.abundancetrek.com/blog + We are intimately, intricately and infinitely connected by a matrix of unconditional, unlimited and uniting love which is miraculous, mysterious and marvellous.

[mystictrek]

MOW, on Nov 23 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

In a lot of comtemporary gospel music some of the female singers sound as if they are singing to Jesus as a lover ; rather than saviour ,teacher or friend.

MOW

I have often thought that the popular heresy of Jesus-olatry appeals to women far more than men.

I have no problem with seeing God in an erotic way as a part of our appreciation of the immense variety of the divine attributes. For me, then, God needs to be a woman!

A Russian Orthodox priest told me that the Orthodox see the spouse as an appropriate and powerful icon. In that sense I adore my wife! But I also understand the limitations of icons. We see God through icons but the icon is not God, at least not God in all of her glory.

We all seek the face of God in our spiritual pilgrimages. I find the face of God in my wife and in many other human faces. My challenge is to find that face in all faces, not just some faces.

love, john + http://www.abundancetrek.com & http://www.abundancetrek.com/blog + We are intimately, intricately and infinitely connected by a matrix of unconditional, unlimited and uniting love which is miraculous, mysterious and marvellous.

This post has been edited by mystictrek: 06 December 2007 - 11:27 AM

[mystictrek]

David, on Dec 3 2007, 11:52 PM, said:

I know many persons who think that they are on a first name basis with God and who are very good people. My problem with this is theological in nature in that I do not see that it is possible for God to provide direct dictation. This theological disagreement is not a personal attack but this theological disagreement raises a fundamental difference between Progressive Christianity and those who would follow Pat Robertson or those who accept that the QUR'AN is a direct dictation from the Divine. I appreciate the opportunity to diaglogue with you, just don't tell me that I am talking to God/Jesus. That is quite a dialogue stopper.

I talk to God too and I take dictation!

I think the trick is to accept that you can disagree with God! God keeps changing.

As Walter Wink said: "Satan is yesterday's will of God."

Jacob wrestles with God. His name changes to Israel which means something like "struggling with God."

Abraham bargains with God.

God can change her mind!

God is dynamic, elusive, mysterious, surprising.

I like to talk to her!

She is far wiser than I am but sometimes she becomes humble enough to accept my wisdom. When that happens, I actually add to God's glory.

Is this something close to Process Theology? I think so but I am not an expert on Process Theology. I like it at an intuitive level.

Channeling Jesus is one way some people become one with God. There are many other ways. There are limits in all of our ways because we are only human.

The prophets often said: "Thus says the Lord." We are so impressed that we still say they speak "the word of God." Sometimes, I repeat sometimes, it is possible to take a few things literally rather than metaphorically. But I am usually in the metaphor camp!

Let Jen be Jen! It works for her and is her way of sharing wisdom with us (and foolishness whether she admits that or not!)

love, john + http://www.abundancetrek.com & http://www.abundancetrek.com/blog + We are intimately, intricately and infinitely connected by a matrix of unconditional, unlimited and uniting love which is miraculous, mysterious and marvellous.

PS: It's great to see this forum coming back to life! It has been one of the best and I see now that it has a present and, hopefully, a future. I am trying to catch up.

[MOW]

McKenna, on Dec 3 2007, 07:20 PM, said:

I think it's possible that the Song of Solomon isn't supposed to be about an ecstatic union of the soul with God but rather about two lovers; as you point out God is not mentioned in it. This also seemed to be Spong's opinion in his book Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism.

However, even if it is about God, I don't really have a problem with it. I don't feel the need to dismiss others' experiences with God if that is how they would describe it. I guess it's just not that big a deal to me. To each their own.

Hi Mckenna

I hope this is not to obscure a reference, but I'm a musician so I can't help but think this way sometimes. There
was a French composer named Claude Debussy. He's credited for creating the musical concept of Impressionism. Anyway , he wrote a series of piano pieces called Preludes. The interesting thing is that rather than putting the titles of the pieces in the front, he put the titles
at the end of the piece. That way the pianist had to learn the music first than discover what the suggested title was afterwards. Also the
the pianist would have no preconceived notion of what the music supposed to beabout.

Suppose there was no title to "The Songs of Solomon" and you didn't Know that it was from the Bible. what would our "impressions" of the writing be then .

MOW

[McKenna]

MOW, on Dec 6 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

Hi Mckenna

I hope this is not to obscure a reference, but I'm a musician so I can't help but think this way sometimes. There
was a French composer named Claude Debussy. He's credited for creating the musical concept of Impressionism. Anyway , he wrote a series of piano pieces called Preludes. The interesting thing is that rather than putting the titles of the pieces in the front, he put the titles
at the end of the piece. That way the pianist had to learn the music first than discover what the suggested title was afterwards. Also the
the pianist would have no preconceived notion of what the music supposed to beabout.

Suppose there was no title to "The Songs of Solomon" and you didn't Know that it was from the Bible. what would our "impressions" of the writing be then .

MOW

Exactly. I doubt anyone would tie the piece to God if it wasn't in the Bible. Then again, the fact that someone put it in the Bible might say something about it. I think I remember Marcus Borg being of the opinion that it was about God, while Spong disagrees. So even between scholars there's disagreement.

mystictrek, on Dec 6 2007, 11:24 AM, said:

A Russian Orthodox priest told me that the Orthodox see the spouse as an appropriate and powerful icon. In that sense I adore my wife! But I also understand the limitations of icons. We see God through icons but the icon is not God, at least not God in all of her glory.

Wow, I really like that concept!

[soma]

Mystictrek, Yes please put it on your site. Thank you I take the thought of Soma as a woman as a compliment.

The Sufi's poetry is very sensual and it is all about God. I find The Song of Solomon is sensual, but it makes me think of God too.

[flowperson]

Yes...It is so good to see and correspond with old friends again isn't it ?

I view sensuality as an ultimate utilization of our G-d given sense gifts. These gifts enable us, through the utilization of our bodies, minds, and emotions, to experience the inner and outer environments which the Creator endowed us all with.

Our oppositive sexual partners, or sexual partners in general, allow for more complete experiences for us all and a sense of companionship along these necessary journeys. This was all meant to be from our beginnings, if the meanings of Genesis have any validity. These journeys may be the most important parts of our existence, for these experiences inform us at our deepest depths as to the realities in which we exist.

flow....

[mystictrek]

soma, on Dec 7 2007, 12:10 AM, said:

Mystictrek, Yes please put it on your site. Thank you I take the thought of Soma as a woman as a compliment.

The Sufi's poetry is very sensual and it is all about God. I find The Song of Solomon is sensual, but it makes me think of God too.

I knew you would see it as compliment.

I have posted your remarks on my blog. Thanks.

[minsocal]

Rabbi Abba Aricha is quoted in the Talmud as saying "Man will have to render an account to God for all the good things his eyes beheld but refused to enjoy" (Jerusalem Talmud, Quiddushin 4:12). This quote is from a book written by the psychologist David M. Schnarch who devotes a whole chapter to Sexuality and Spirituality. He goes on to say the Rabbi Aricha considered the Song of Solomon to be the "the holiest book in the Bible." According to a story in the Talmud, Rabbi Aricha was "the only teacher who saw God in this life and survived" (Sebastion Moore, 1989).

[soma]

It is nice to correspond with old friends as we go in and out of this forum, breath in and out, go in and out of consciousness and try to figure out if we are in or out with God.

[MOW]

minsocal, on Dec 7 2007, 10:38 AM, said:

Rabbi Abba Aricha is quoted in the Talmud as saying "Man will have to render an account to God for all the good things his eyes beheld but refused to enjoy" (Jerusalem Talmud, Quiddushin 4:12). This quote is from a book written by the psychologist David M. Schnarch who devotes a whole chapter to Sexuality and Spirituality. He goes on to say the Rabbi Aricha considered the Song of Solomon to be the "the holiest book in the Bible." According to a story in the Talmud, Rabbi Aricha was "the only teacher who saw God in this life and survived" (Sebastion Moore, 1989).

Thank you minisocal

I love that quote from Rabbi Aricha. As an admitted introvert, I found it very challenging . As a liberal/progressive Christian, this thread has me taking a second look at some of the Old Testament(Hebrew Bible).


MOW

[soma]

We are all introverts in some way and it isn't bad. We are alone with God for long periods of time. We go for long walks with God, slowly through nature. We are so fortunate to have such an understanding companion, not worrying about anything. Mow, you are right Our Lord puts joy in our heart, and we need to express it. I think that's what Song of Solomon is all about. We can use different words words to reveal different ways to send our joy to God. Music opens up the mind and heart. A powerful song can move us, allowing us to lose ourselves in God and enjoy the power of the thought of the Almighty. As the emotions run through us, we express our love of God in different ways. There is no one way to praise, as long as our praise comes from the heart. Our praise, music, love songs and worship can inspire others. The Song of Solomon leads me to connect with God through the powerful imagery.