[McKenna]

Some really interesting thoughts on this thread...it made a good read

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on May 2 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

David K, I disagree that the above post is dry rot at all. This is a person's personal response to the sacred. I don't remember the Bible speaking about specifics of how a person's physical body is ensouled, except in the case where God breathed into Adam. This would be particularly healing to someone who felt unwanted by their human parents.

I think Canajan,eh? and I :-) agree on some basic truths, even though I have never used this language to talk about faith before.

I believe God wants us to be the best person we are capable of being, and that we are all born with gifts and challenges that make us different.

Each of us has the capacity to love with our huge hearts, even if we sometimes don't.

We are not alone. We are unique yet we have communal purpose, belonging, and responsibility.

I'll have to think more about the hierarchy of heart. It's new for me. Do you think it is similar to my belief that Jesus wants us to humble ourselves, look out for the disadvantaged, love our enemies, and forgive, forgive, forgive!!

For me, prayer is more about offering everyday life with its blessings and disappointments up to God, with no expectations of divine intervention into it, except for asking for God's strength, power, and energy to survive and to love. It is interesting to get your perspective on why God might not intervene.

Which cultural values might I hold that would be hurting the way my brain works? I'm not sure what you mean.

I don't have much to add, I agree pretty much 100% with the above post

However, I was wondering if you could provide a definition for "Hierarchy of the Heart," Jen? Maybe you already did but I was a little confused as to what exactly you meant by the term...Thanks!

[davidk]

minsocal, on May 4 2008, 03:40 PM, said:

Sometimes, the child refuses to become an adult.

"Yes; have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have prepared praise (established strength) for Yourself'?", "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You did hide these things from the wise and intelligent and did reveal them to babes."
-

[minsocal]

davidk, on May 7 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

"Yes; have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes You have prepared praise (established strength) for Yourself'?", "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You did hide these things from the wise and intelligent and did reveal them to babes."
-

1 Timothy 5:4

But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.

I you are quoting scripture, it would be proper to include the exact source.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 09 May 2008 - 03:52 PM

[canajan, eh?]

minsocal, on May 3 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

Now that I've become accustomed to your style of presentation, I think are quite right. Here in the U.S., research has tended to confirm rising levels of state (or status) anxiety during an extended period of somewhat regressive social practices. In other words, your second formula would counteract the first. That (the second formula) would be "progressive"? I hope I understand you correctly.

minsocal

Yes, that is correct. The first formula is a "cultural package" of beliefs and values that creates tremendous stress on all our relationships, including our relationship with God. If you're busy trying to copy all the latest trends -- i.e. if you're emulating the idea that there is only one "right" way to dress (oneness of body) and only one "right" way to think (oneness of mind) -- then you're not spending any time trying to understand what makes you unique from God's point of view, and you're not spending any time practising empathy for other people's way of dressing or other people's way of thinking.

The second formula, which is the Way of Jesus, is a complete inversion of the first formula. This idea of a societal and cultural inversion in the teachings of Jesus has been noted in the Synoptics by many New Testament scholars. The Beatitudes of Luke (Luke 6:20-26) and James 1:5-14 speak clearly to the two-formula paradigm I have presented here. It's important to recall that Jesus was teaching in a cultural milieu driven by the honour/shame value system. The ancient Mediterranean honour/shame value system is the label usually placed on the "cultural package" I have described as Status Anxiety. "Honour" -- i.e. status -- was usually achieved through bloodlines or wealth. In Jesus' Palestine, "honour" meant having status -- being rich or being from one of the aristocratic bloodlines. Yet the rich and the elite were the ones who owned human beings as slaves, who treated women as unworthy, who taxed Jewish farmers so heavily that many lost their traditional farms, who spent the tax money on lavish building projects (eg. Herod the Great's rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple; his building of Caesarea Maritima). The people who chose to pursue the cultural value of "honour" could only achieve it and retain it by treating other people like shit. They chose to take from others in order to build up their own status. They chose to be aggressive, competitive, and lacking in empathy towards others. Perhaps this sounds familiar . . .

Jesus, on the other hand, tells his followers not to seek this kind of "honour." It is a woe to be rich -- but not because money is inherently evil. Money can buy food for the poor as easily as it can buy marble for a temple column. The source of the woe is the internal choice people make to seek status for themselves instead of deep compassion for God's world. Status and deep compassion are mutually exclusive. One must choose. One can choose to try to diminish other people by eradicating what makes them unique (i.e. forcing them to accept YOUR idea of mind + YOUR idea of body + YOUR idea of talent as the only acceptable norm). Or one can choose to help create a society where compassion, inclusiveness, fairness, and mutual uplifting are the guiding principles.

A community based on the first formula will eventually reveal itself in its political governance. Totalitarianism, Stalinism, and Laissez-faire Capitalism are all excellent examples of societal structures built on Status Anxiety. It ain't pretty.

A community based on the second formula -- on Jesus' Way, on the values espoused by Progressive Christians (among many others) -- is a society where people contribute their unique talents to teams who are working to improve education, health care, access to services, and so on, regardless of class, regardless of income, regardless of race, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual orientation. This is the inversion spoken of by Jesus in the Beatitudes and in James.

It took us a while (a mere 2,000 years or so) to catch on to what Jesus was actually saying, but I think we're getting it now.

Jen

This post has been edited by canajan, eh?: 13 May 2008 - 07:07 AM

[canajan, eh?]

McKenna, on May 6 2008, 09:27 PM, said:

Some really interesting thoughts on this thread...it made a good read
I don't have much to add, I agree pretty much 100% with the above post

However, I was wondering if you could provide a definition for "Hierarchy of the Heart," Jen? Maybe you already did but I was a little confused as to what exactly you meant by the term...Thanks!

Hi, McKenna. Thank you for asking for a definition of "hierarchy of the heart." I've been thinking about your question, and I think the best way for me to answer is to tell you what Jesus helped me understand about five years ago about "oneness of heart," which is the opposite of "hierarchy of the heart." It was an epiphany for me, an amazing breakthrough in my understanding of God, and I've never looked at the world in the same way since then. It wasn't a Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus type epiphany. It wasn't words or visions coming at me (though as a channeller I hear words all the time -- every day, in fact!). It was an emotional insight, an emotional awareness of Truth at a very deep level, an emotional connection to my soul and to my Divine Parents. (At a scientific level, it probably would have shown up as a gamma brainwave burst in the temporal lobe, parietal lobe, and insula, if you're interested in the neurophysiology of the soul). On this particular day, I had what could be described as the opposite of a conversion experience. I had an "inversion experience." In a conversion experience, a person typically chooses in a powerful moment of decision-making to accept God and Christ as Lord and Master in the same way the apostle Paul did. After a conversion experience, individuals frequently describe themselves as "vessels" or "humble servants who receive God's grace because God chooses to bestow it, not because they actually deserve it." God is in charge, and they are meek and mild and grateful to be saved. There is much talk about the weakness and frailty of human beings, and the blessing of God's power and majesty. This is, in fact, the way theologians from Paul in the 1st century to Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century to Jurgen Moltmann in the 20th century have talked about our relationship with God. There is always -- always -- an underlying sense that human beings are lesser than God, that human beings don't really deserve to be loved, but gosh, aren't we lucky that God loves us anyway!

In an "inversion experience," the truth that Jesus taught -- as opposed to the "truth" that Paul taught -- suddenly becomes clear. The false, hierarchical understanding of God is swept away. Gone is the God who is "above." Instead, there is a God who is everywhere. Gone is the God who is "transcendent," unable to feel pain, and therefore unable to feel our pain. Instead, there is a God who weeps torrents of tears for our suffering. Gone is a God who thinks and acts in terms of power and majesty and might and judgment and obedience and salvation and namelessness. Instead, there is a God, an eternal Mother and an eternal Father, who cherish all their children equally, who do not place anyone, including themselves, on a throne. Heaven has no thrones. Our loving, eternal parents do not think they are "better" or "more important" than any of their children. They are humble. God is humble. They are shy and modest and quiet and kind and eternally vigilant on our behalf. They are a bajillion times bigger than we are in size (differentness of body). They are a gazillion times smarter and more experienced than we are (differentness of mind). They have talents with quantum energy that are completely beyond our comprehension (differentness of talent). Yet for all their size, and all their brilliance, and all their mind-boggling abilities to create, they don't think they're better than you, McKenna. If you were to invite them with an eager, open heart to your dinner table, to share a family holiday with you and your human family as two eager and excited -- if invisible -- guests, you would give them a more wondrous gift than your human mind can imagine (although your heart would be able to feel it).

The experience of cherishing God, of treating God with kindness instead of harsh rebuke, is part of what it feels like to live with Oneness of Heart. The opposite of this, "hierarchy of the heart," is the experience of loneliness, anger, grudge-holding, and self-victimization that comes with treating God (and, inevitably, your family, friends, and community) according to the honour/shame "principles" of Status Anxiety. Among Christians today, there is an extraordinary level of cruelty towards God. It is cruel and abusive to blame God for the choices we make that we are secretly ashamed of. Jesus knew that (James 1:13-14), and he clearly said so.

I hope this helps.

Jen

[minsocal]

canajan, eh?, on May 13 2008, 04:48 AM, said:

A community based on the first formula will eventually reveal itself in its political governance. Totalitarianism, Stalinism, and Laissez-faire Capitalism are all excellent examples of societal structures built on Status Anxiety. It ain't pretty.

A community based on the second formula -- on Jesus' Way, on the values espoused by Progressive Christians (among many others) -- is a society where people contribute their unique talents to teams who are working to improve education, health care, access to services, and so on, regardless of class, regardless of income, regardless of race, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual orientation. This is the inversion spoken of by Jesus in the Beatitudes and in James.

It took us a while (a mere 2,000 years or so) to catch on to what Jesus was actually saying, but I think we're getting it now.

Jen

Jen,

Thanks for your response. We are in agreement then ... any differences I might have would be minor when contrasted with larger picture.

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 13 May 2008 - 06:43 PM

[canajan, eh?]

minsocal, on May 13 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

Jen,

Thanks for your response. We are in agreement then ... any differences I might have would be minor when contrasted with larger picture.

minsocal

Cool.

[canajan, eh?]

Oops. When I wrote Post #24, I used a confusing phrase at the beginning. I wrote, "If you're busy trying to copy all the latest trends -- i.e. if you're emulating the idea that there is only one "right" way to dress (oneness of body) and only one "right" way to think (oneness of mind) -- then you're not spending any time trying to understand what makes you unique from God's point of view." I would like to edit that sentence to say "If you're busy trying to copy all the latest trends -- i.e. if you're emulating the idea that there is only one "right" way to dress (sameness of body) and only one "right" way to think (sameness of mind)." Jesus picked the terms for the two formulae, and I don't want to mess with the Big Guy .

I would use the edit feature to change it, except the edit feature disappears after half an hour.

Sorry for the confusion.

Jen

[canajan, eh?]

Russ, on May 3 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

I understand Canajan's thought completely. How can we, as Children of God, fully realize our potential a spititual beings? By looking at ourselves, by reaching within, we come in contact with the Beyond, the Deep, which lies beneath all of this intellectualizing and speculating that we do in order to try to understand what we cannot and will never. We sense something More, reach out, long for...and even our words are inadequate. How can we describe that which must be experienced first hand in order to be understood? It is not our thoughts or words or the thoughts and words of others that opens up the Infinite within ourselves, but the direct, inward seeking and the direct, personal experience resulting from such seeking. There is no such thing as second-hand enlightenment. We cannot know God in a hand-me-down way. If we are to ever come to experience the Deep within, we must do it alone, by ourselves, with ourselves, and with an empty mind. All of our formulations, theories, theologies and constructions amount to nothing more than speculation and guesswork. God is Within...here...now.

Russ, I've been reflecting on your post, and I'd just like to thank you for your words. Would you feel comfortable sharing more about your personal experience? Thanks.

Jen

[Wayseer]

The more I learn about myself the more I understand how little I know. Those who wish to 'reach within' are, I suggest, deluding themselves. Yes, I accept that all this new age stuff is very persuasive and pervasive - it leads to a belief that it is just a matter of tapping into some internal wellspring and all will be revealed. If such were the case then we would never need all those books telling us how inadequate we are because we just don't know 'how to do it'.

For true Seekers, the words of others are their guide. For Seekers also realise our dimished existence and therefore accept such along with their personal reservations. For the Seeker, uncertainity is intergral to the path. Those Seekers who dwell alone do so after years of study - not because of some whim of individualism or in pursuit of the latest in spiritual fads. Most Seekers go unrecognise because they look just like you and me - rather ordinary really. You might get an idea of their true potential if you happened to engage with them in some meaningful conversation or catch a glimpse of their personal library. Otherwise they live in this world alongside all us 'followers'.

'We cannot know God in hand me down ways". Really? I would suggest there is no other way to begin.

This post has been edited by Wayseer: 16 May 2008 - 05:49 PM

[October's Autumn]

Wayseer, on May 16 2008, 05:43 PM, said:

'We cannot know God in hand me down ways". Really? I would suggest there is no other way to begin.

I disagree. I inherit students from other teachers. One of the frequent pitfalls in teaching is to accept the student's previous teacher's assessment of them. I have to get to know each of my students, myself. I have to look at them with my eyes. I think the same goes for God. I have to find God and know God from my experiences. I can't use other people's experiences to know God.

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on May 16 2008, 03:43 PM, said:

The more I learn about myself the more I understand how little I know. Those who wish to 'reach within' are, I suggest, deluding themselves. Yes, I accept that all this new age stuff is very persuasive and pervasive - it leads to a belief that it is just a matter of tapping into some internal wellspring and all will be revealed. If such were the case then we would never need all those books telling us how inadequate we are because we just don't know 'how to do it'.

For true Seekers, the words of others are their guide. For Seekers also realise our dimished existence and therefore accept such along with their personal reservations. For the Seeker, uncertainity is intergral to the path. Those Seekers who dwell alone do so after years of study - not because of some whim of individualism or in pursuit of the latest in spiritual fads. Most Seekers go unrecognise because they look just like you and me - rather ordinary really. You might get an idea of their true potential if you happened to engage with them in some meaningful conversation or catch a glimpse of their personal library. Otherwise they live in this world alongside all us 'followers'.

'We cannot know God in hand me down ways". Really? I would suggest there is no other way to begin.

Ethically, if there are two different "kinds" of people, those who search "within" and those who search "without", both are "true seekers" .... they just don't see each other in the same way. The differences are ancient in origin. Progressive thought seeks to reach beyond this false dichotomy.

P.S. Both views are represented in the Bible.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 16 May 2008 - 09:16 PM

[grampawombat]

On the one hand I think of myself as an "inner directed" person, whose convictions come from using reason and experience. On the other, I am also influenced by my community; mostly that means the congregation to which I belong, but also means those whose opinions I respect in the wider community as well.

[Wayseer]

You all miss the point I was making. You have gone on the defensive. I was not speaking about 'experiences' - whatever they may be.

My premise is -

Learning originates from others.

then-

Others (including their books) are therefore important.

then -

Important because we have something by which to understand what we might call 'internal experiences'.

If my premise is wrong then you have to prove that we do not learn from others.

I am just as intuitive as the next person but that intuition is informed by a particular learning curve which developed through my early years and sustained and nourished in my teens and ealy maturity. That learning did not fall out of the sky - others were implicity involved. To ignore that involvment defies reality. That we might reach a point were one might act 'intuitively' is the result of accumulative learning process over many years. If one is honest then I suggest we will all find that we have learnt off others. That we later learn to modify that learning through our own experience is part of growing up - maturity. To deny that learning process is an act of grand arrogance in my view and is more in keeping with the popularist contemporary promise that the individual is the measure of all things.

I am probably doing more reading now than I have ever done in the past. Wonder why.

This post has been edited by Wayseer: 17 May 2008 - 07:32 PM

[grampawombat]

Gee, I though I was (more or less) agreeing with you.

[canajan, eh?]

grampawombat, on May 16 2008, 11:36 PM, said:

On the one hand I think of myself as an "inner directed" person, whose convictions come from using reason and experience. On the other, I am also influenced by my community; mostly that means the congregation to which I belong, but also means those whose opinions I respect in the wider community as well.

That sounds reasonable and balanced to me. We need be both inner-directed and outer-directed, which, as Minsocal points out, is not a dichotomy. Ideally, we're constantly comparing and contrasting the information we get from other people and the information we gather from our own unique experiences. We're sifting and sorting, trying to figure out who we are as part of God's family.

Wayseer, I don't see October's Autumn, Minsocal, and grampawombat's responses as being defensive. You presented this unequivocal statement: 'We cannot know God in hand me down ways". Really? I would suggest there is no other way to begin.' I think there are some here, including myself, who disagree with the one-sided nature of this comment. None of us disputes the importance of outside education, books, or learning. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a group of people more in favour of education (please count me in this group). But people are not like tabulas rasa, blank slates to be filled exclusively by other people's ideas. We each have a unique, inherent, and integral nature given to us by God. That is the soul. The soul is within. When we speak of inner-directed spiritual learning, we are speaking about the soul.

Your soul is unique to you. You are the only one (apart from God) who can truly know your soul's inherent nature. That is the part of the journey that nobody else can know, and nobody else can participate it. That is your unique experience. It is an experience that is separate but complementary to the knowledge you find from others in community.

If, however, you do not believe in the existence of an inner self or soul, then I can see why you would be upset by the "inner-directed/outer-directed" way of understanding our relationship with God.

Jen

[davidk]

Respondants to Wayseer have not only radicalized his position to being unrecognizable, but, in reading the responses, I found they perhaps did not take enough time to understand what he said.

Wayseer is on the right track. Learning begins from external inputs.
---

Finite man is well able to find different perspectives through communication with other finite men, and should; but all answers will ultimately fall insufficient if finite man is our highest source. Man cannot find the answers for knowledge and effort beginning with himself, he is finite, the ultimate answers will always be wanting.

Jean Paul Sartre put it this way, if a finite source does not have an infinite reference point, it is meaningless and absurd.

If we begin only with finite man's knowledge and effort, all answers are absurd and meaningless. It is only an infinite-personal God's initiating effort and knowledge that can provide us sufficient answers. When we finally begin to absorb this reality we will begin to have God's Spirit residing in our hearts. From that inspiration, that source of knowledge, we can search our selves for our finite personal cooperation with the infinite personal God.

[Wayseer]

canajan, eh?, on May 18 2008, 09:55 PM, said:

But people are not like tabulas rasa, blank slates to be filled exclusively by other people's ideas.

I think this is where our disagreement lies. I would suggest that is exactly what we are like - a dry sponge ready to soak up any information coming within range of our senses. Reality is really a social construct - it all depends on where you are born. If any of us had been born in the Sudan we would not be having this conversation.

That initial learning process is later moderated by our own perceptions.

I accept that there is some 'divine spark' or whatever you might term it, lying within all sentient beings. But the existence of that divine spark can only be ignited by outside intervention. If we don't learn about it we will never know of its existence. Even Jesus was ignited by that spark from beyond himself. But of course I tread on many philosophical toes here.

Thank you Davidk.

This post has been edited by Wayseer: 18 May 2008 - 05:04 PM

[McKenna]

canajan, eh?, on May 13 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

The experience of cherishing God, of treating God with kindness instead of harsh rebuke, is part of what it feels like to live with Oneness of Heart. The opposite of this, "hierarchy of the heart," is the experience of loneliness, anger, grudge-holding, and self-victimization that comes with treating God (and, inevitably, your family, friends, and community) according to the honour/shame "principles" of Status Anxiety. Among Christians today, there is an extraordinary level of cruelty towards God. It is cruel and abusive to blame God for the choices we make that we are secretly ashamed of. Jesus knew that (James 1:13-14), and he clearly said so.

I hope this helps.

Jen

Thanks for the explanation!

[McKenna]

Wayseer, on May 18 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

I think this is where our disagreement lies. I would suggest that is exactly what we are like - a dry sponge ready to soak up any information coming within range of our senses. Reality is really a social construct - it all depends on where you are born. If any of us had been born in the Sudan we would not be having this conversation.

That initial learning process is later moderated by our own perceptions.

I accept that there is some 'divine spark' or whatever you might term it, lying within all sentient beings. But the existence of that divine spark can only be ignited by outside intervention. If we don't learn about it we will never know of its existence. Even Jesus was ignited by that spark from beyond himself. But of course I tread on many philosophical toes here.

Thank you Davidk.

Hey Wayseer,

Man, I'm just gonna be the person on this thread asking all the basic questions I guess...oh well I see where you're coming from, but could you explain the relation of your comment to this thread? Were you just responding to Russ?

Thanks