Jesus - Inclusive?

[thormas]

Bill, good points all. I do accept that our language is metaphorical but I have begun to disagree with the understanding that God is so distance, so other than we can never say anything about 'him.' God is also 'part of us' and I think we can say things that, for a lack of a better way to phrase it, 'touch' the reality of God - but it is true that we will never know for sure.

[romansh]

Thormas, I, likewise, am not a pantheist in that my wife assures me that I am not God.

 

Your wife does not believe (likely when later scribes suggest) Jesus said I and my father are one?

 

Or that it is only true for select individuals?

We are reborn or resurrected when come to understand this is true for all of us. At least in my opinion.

 

ps ... my wife is a goddess -

Edited October 29, 2016 by romansh

[BillM]

Romansh, perhaps like many Christians, my wife believes that when Jesus declared his oneness with the Father, he was declaring his divinity, he was asserting that he is the second Person of the Trinity. So she would say that though we become God's children when we get saved, we don't share in divinity to the same degree that Jesus did and does. He is, according to this Christology, unique in kind. He was, and is, God in the flesh. We may be God's children, but we are not God. According to this theology.

[romansh]

So Christians with this viewpoint think Christ's words are somehow inapplicable to humanity ... ie far from being inclusive?

 

And here I mean John 10:30. This implies to me this Christian viewpoint cannot believe Christ was truly a man.

[BillM]

That's what I used to believe also, Romansh. We said that Jesus was both fully human and fully God. Some forms of this are Docetism i.e. believing that Jesus only appeared to be human, but was really God. Often, this is what the incarnation points to, that while Jesus had a human body (or flesh), he had a divine spirit or soul. This is pretty much "God in a man suit" or perhaps like Superman who looked human on the outside, but was an alien on the inside.

 

Obviously, when Christology is interpreted this way, Jesus loses his humanity. He then becomes an object of worship (a god) rather than someone to consider as a teacher or brother or guide or sage or leader.

[romansh]

Bill ... here is my take on reality, just ignoring the religious aspects for the moment.

 

• We are made up of stardust ,,, this appears to be almost an unassailable fact (well the hydrogen mostly appears to a product of a big bang like event)
• For most of our theories of "life" we don't have to assume supernatural causes.
• We don't know how life started (have a theory that is verifiable), But we have some interesting ideas.
• Evolution is as close to a verified fact as we can get, having said that we are continuing to learn and modify the theory, but at its core it's solid.
• Being stardust we, as individuals, bring in other stardust in the shape of meat, potatoes and veggies ... some gravy does not go amiss and a nice shiraz is a must.
• We shed energy giving and growth giving materials through the chemical processes we call life. Our daily visit to the bathroom is a testament to what is going on.

There is little to debate here ... a few unknowns but nothing serious ... being agnostic by nature I seem to cope with uncertainty.

We seem to be similar to other life forms on this planet, we can see where we fit in, in the great evolutionary unfolding. We share the basic building blocks with all life.

Here it gets a bit tricky:

• We have amazing capabilities in some ways compared to other life forms ... we can have complex plans, we can articulate them, and we can review and choose from several options.
• But as far as we can tell all this is in the confines of the chemistry we by and large understand. Having said that the options for the complexity are almost beyond imagination.
• This chemistry is the stuff or our thought and experience.
• The interesting thing is, in our daily lives we are totally oblivious to the underlying immensely complex chemistry that goes into a thought or an experience.
• We feel we somehow make these decisions/choices and are intrinsically responsible for them, again oblivious of the underlying processes that go into them. Similarly we hold others responsible for their chemistry. That is morally responsible.
• We think of ourselves unwittingly as first causes or as little gods, simply because we are unaware of the reality that props our choices.

When I discuss this with others they live and argue very simply from the easily available chemistry we call awareness or consciousness.

 

Your wife is right, you are not god, you are not a first cause generator, you don't get something for nothing when you make decisions etc. This is fair enough. But then I think this is more of a reflection of modern Christian thinking. I don't think this is pantheism. Pantheism is more of a realization that you are one with the universe that it took a whole universe to shape you and in turn you are shaping that universe.

 

Panentheism I have not got my head around. For me it is sticking in an unnecessary "en" simply on faith despite the complete lack of evidence for this god in things. It is, I think, the last duality.

 

There is no shame in being one with god. It is where the word atonement comes from. It is not about having sins forgiven ... it is about being at one.

 

 

Sorry that was a lot longer than I expected ...

 

 

[soma]

All in God and God in all things makes me a Panentheist. I think the definition is evolving with science and feel Jesus is a man who experienced this oneness in God and tried to share the experience with others who couldn't comprehend it so worshipped the man instead. I am sure science will clear up this unity with a formula showing a Quantum Soup of Unity and Wholeness.

[thormas]

Rom, it would be interesting to discuss many of your points at some time.

 

At first read, I agree with your first statements , especially that we don't have to go supernatural - but, again, I associate that term with theism alone.

 

Moving along, not sure of the comment that chemistry is the all, the stuff - perhaps the stuff we use, i.e. our brain but is it the stuff that comes our, especially when it is not stuff, like imagination? Have to noodle on that one. Agree though that we are usually oblivious but I would have to ask the unanswerable: is it only the chemistry that we are oblivious of or is there more that is missed? Also, understand some of the stuff that allows us to make decisions/choices but, given the variety of choices and decisions in the world, not sure, again that there is not more to our choices that the chemistry. This last does go to the point of first causers, although perhaps not little gods, in that we do say we 'own' our choices and by or through them, 'cause' newness. Ex. if you don't throw the first stone while others do somewhere else, what results is not only different but new.

 

If you say others use the chemistry to argue with you about the chemistry (at least I think that was your point), couldn't the religious man say, they use Being to argue about the very Being of which they are?

 

I do like the discussion of the 'en.' I guess, for me, in pantheism there is and always was unity, because the world and God are one. In pan'en'theism, there is the possibility of unity but it comes out of diversity. For the many to become Unity is, as Whitehead, the mathematician, in process philosophy says. a higher Beauty - than a unity that comes out of unity. In addition, Unity from diversity is more hard fought and seems to have some dependence on the 'first causers' as it is New. The former is true at-one-ment, the latter always was one. Perhaps semantics, perhaps not but fun to consider.

 

thanks

[soma]

thormas I feel diversity comes from unity as waves come from the ocean. I am on the crest of my wave and see you on the crest of yours so we see two different waves, but when we go deep into our ground of being we find unity deep in the ocean as Jesus said, "I and the Father our One."

[romansh]

Thomas

Is there a thought or a bit of imagination that you have had in the absence of "chemistry"?

[thormas]

I obviously don't deny "chemistry" and, as mentioned, acknowledge our brains consists of it - but still wonder if the same can be said of what comes from it, for example, imagination (or love). So does imagination exist or is it possible in chemistry's absence , no. But is imagination (or Love) perhaps more than chemistry, I think yes.

 

Then again, is it safe to assume that stardust came from stars (chicken before the egg or vice versa)? In either case, stars and stardust, are beings; they 'are' because Being 'lets (them) be.' This is not assuming a supernatural cause, it is merely allowing that there is a depth in (not above) and to all the 'pieces' of stardust, all the stars, all everything in which/by which they are: Being.

 

At least I think......................:}

[romansh]

My problem Thomas with things like imagination and love, we as human beings are pretty much oblivious to the "chemistry" that makes these things perceptible.

 

I must admit I find the immaterial ^TM an unnecessary concept which in of itself explains nada.

 

When we conjure up the immaterial we swap one I don't know for another.

[soma]

Imagination, love and compassion builds upon rather than destroys human nature so we can live with the needs, problems and demands of our time and find solutions. Freedom is immaterial, but I think understanding the material restraints can help us with the immaterial.

[romansh]

Freedom is immaterial, but I think understanding the material restraints can help us with the immaterial.

 

If you are saying that freedom is irrelevant I would agree. If you are saying immaterial freedom exists, this I find to be plainly nonsense.

 

This is not true at the quantum or the Newtonian levels.

[thormas]

My problem Thomas with things like imagination and love, we as human beings are pretty much oblivious to the "chemistry" that makes these things perceptible.

 

I must admit I find the immaterial ^TM an unnecessary concept which in of itself explains nada.

 

When we conjure up the immaterial we swap one I don't know for another.

 

Rom,

 

I think I understand your statement and if I do, I don't disagree with the first sentence. Actually, some philosophers and theologians say something very similar: we as human beings are pretty much oblivious to being that makes all things perceptible. By the way, that is just a commentary on being: to then equate, as some do, being with God is a faith statement.

 

And this is hardly immaterial: when the baby 'awakens' it does not matter if they behold a rattle or a rhinoceros (material), they are beholding being (also material for what is perceived is being - just as you would say things and the chemistry are present and perceived but the latter is not always obvious). It seems almost inevitable that we focus our attention on beings - some call this the forgetting of being - you might call it the forgetting of chemistry.

Edited November 5, 2016 by thormas

[thormas]

 

If you are saying that freedom is irrelevant I would agree. If you are saying immaterial freedom exists, this I find to be plainly nonsense.

 

This is not true at the quantum or the Newtonian levels.

Is Soma saying freedom is irrelevant? Thought he said it was immaterial.

 

As for immaterial freedom, I took it to mean immaterial as are love and imagination.

[romansh]

Is Soma saying freedom is irrelevant? Thought he said it was immaterial.

 

As for immaterial freedom, I took it to mean immaterial as are love and imagination.

 

Thomas

I am just clarifying which of the two broad meanings material and immaterial Soma is using. I suspect, as you do, that Soma is using immaterial in the sense without physical substance.

 

I find ultimately the asserted concept of freedom to be a nonsense, at least in the philosophical sense of the word freedom. You claim (assert) that love and imagination are immaterial. For you it would appear 'concepts' like love (hate) and imagination (ignorance) to be without form. For me they are writ large in the physical ... chemistry etc.

Edited November 5, 2016 by romansh

[soma]

The myth of free will empowers us because we investigate the causes of our behavior, instead of saying that the supernatural caused our actions. Understanding why we behave increases our ability to control ourselves as we seek peace in our life and society . It creates a situation where we are not exempt from influences so we guard our selves against manipulation and become free from outside control. Rudolf Steiner explores the nature of human freedom by agreeing with the statement, "that an action, of which the agent does not know why he performs it, cannot be free," but when a person becomes conscious of the motives for acting, for example Buddha then freedom is obtained, enlightenment. He says through introspection we become come conscious of our motivations through observation; therefore' we have the possibility of freedom. Steiner explains by observing nature's manifestations within our subjective nature we can see the unity in duality and become free because we renounce the autonomy of free will as B.F. Skinner said. Science is showing us to ourselves, but is up to us to become aware of the natural enlightenment and freedom from free will as we are propelled towards freedom beyond our group thinking to become free to meet the world directly beyond religion, family, country and other limits to experience the freedom of our potential as unique individuals.

[thormas]

 

Thomas

I am just clarifying which of the two broad meanings material and immaterial Soma is using. I suspect, as you do, that Soma is using immaterial in the sense without physical substance.

 

I find ultimately the asserted concept of freedom to be a nonsense, at least in the philosophical sense of the word freedom. You claim (assert) that love and imagination are immaterial. For you it would appear 'concepts' like love (hate) and imagination (ignorance) to be without form. For me they are writ large in the physical ... chemistry etc.

 

Rom,

 

I merely meant that literally he said freedom was immaterial not irrelevant as you indicated.

 

Regardless, I was saying that , for example, imagination comes from or is born in the brain, the physical, chemistry - but in 'itself' seems to be something more/other: writ large in the physical but not physical.

 

As for freedom, are our choices, predetermined or merely determined by circumstances?

[romansh]

Regardless, I was saying that , for example, imagination comes from or is born in the brain, the physical, chemistry - but in 'itself' seems to be something more/other: writ large in the physical but not physical.

 

I would strongly argue against imagination comes from the brain ... at least just from the brain.

 

Billions of years of evolution have shaped the human brain and its capability to imagine.

Every scrap of "chemistry" that forms our brains has come from elsewhere.

Every bit of information that has been recorded in our brain chemistry has come from the environment.

Our chemistry manipulates these recorded experiences and recombines them in potentially novel forms.

 

We describe these as imaginings ... but they are just the universe unfolding.

 

So if they are not physical can you point out a non-physical imagining?

[thormas]

Be it from just the brain or only the brain, I agreed on chemistry

 

 

Was it my imagination or did I already say that imagination is base in the physical?

[romansh]

I thought you were implying it was something more than just the physical?

 

Is immaterial equivalent to non-physical for you?

If so how do we access this non-physical?

Edited November 6, 2016 by romansh

[thormas]

Again, from the physical or accessed from the physical.

 

I have a picture in my mind and I also have imagined a unicorn. Neither, are physical although one might say they have a physical likeness - but still they are not physical yet I have accessed them. They are both non-physical: neither has physical material or is matter. Both are ideas but ideas can be material on which to build. Neither exists but they are in my mind, so they do exist? Or have I imagined them?

 

BTW, how did this series begin? I can no longer imagine it.

 

Given all this, beings are physical, we can pretend beings. So, if beings participate in Being - what does that say about Being? That it is?

[romansh]

Ok .., the concept of the unicorn is in the mind, or at least supposed mind. Are we agreed?

Is this mind what you point to when you think of the non-physical?

 

This is part of classical dualism as proposed by Rene Descartes and by others...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)#Cartesian_dualism

 

Now this supposed mind must interact with physical brain ... are we agreed here?

ie this non-physical mind must react to the physics of what the eyes see and then in turn guide the chemistry to simulate thinking in the chemistry of the brain and in turn send impulses to our muscles?

 

Is this roughly the map you have of how the non-physical interacts the physical universe?

 

How did we get here? When some ancient scribe likely said on Jesus's behalf, I and my Father are one ... is clearly a monistic sentence. And yet we point to a dualistic universe?

Edited November 6, 2016 by romansh

[thormas]

Have to re-read the last but I was asking how we got to the latest part of the thread not how we got HERE!

 

One thought though since I don't accept the traditional (supernatural) understanding of incarnation as God in one particular man, but rather humanity 'incarnating' Divinity (but this opens up a whole other thread). Despite appearances, I don't buy into dualism but do recognize a paradox: One in the many or diversity becoming Unity.