[FredP]

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 11 2005, 10:19 AM, said:

That's the "issue" I have with gnosticism overall. I don't believe this universe, this world, this existence is "fallen" - not in the way traditional Christianity (Augustine?) means it, and definitely not in the way gnosticism means it.

Really? Ignorance, suffering, and death, are simply part of the wondrous natural cycle of life, and it's just the ego that creates the illusion of separateness? If the universe is so shimmeringly radiant, why do we virtually universally "fall" from childlike union into selfishness and separateness? Why does the very fabric of the universe around us seem to tempt us to embrace this illusion?

Gnosticism dares to answer that the universe is itself already "fallen" from union with God -- or at least from awareness of it -- that the ignorance and illusion are part of what makes it what it is, not something inculturated, or socialized, or learned, but your cosmic inheritance for being born on this plane of existence, at all. Now, that may need to be qualified in certain ways, but I've still got to respect it for being willing to deal so unflinchingly and systematically with these aspects of reality.

Have you read Wilber's "Pre/Trans Fallacy," or his book-length treatment in The Eye of The Spirit? Here's the introduction: http://twm.co.nz/kwilb_eyspir.html. The last section ("Now, there is indeed a falling away from Godhead ...") sums up what I'm getting at about as well as anything could.

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 11 2005, 10:19 AM, said:

I'm not saying that there aren't truths to be found in the gnostic writings and in gnostic philosophy, but I don't think the average person that embraces gnosticism (ala The DaVinci Code) really knows what it is they think they love.

Well, what philosophy can't you say that about?

[FredP]

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 11 2005, 10:19 AM, said:

As I've watched "Lost Christianities" with Ehrman, I have been flabbergasted at the views towards life that the gnostics had. I've read a fair amount of "pro-gnostic" books that never touched on these views. They portray gnosticism as "fuzzy bunny mystical love" rather than discussing the asceticism and loathing of the flesh that many gnostics had.

There were most definitely sects within Gn. that naively regarded all matter as evil, and all spirit as good, and thus treated their bodies with abject hatred. As the movement matured, the more perceptive philosophers, like Valentinus -- who actually had a pretty good shot at becoming pope at one point -- grew to understand the light/dark polarity in a much more nuanced and subtle way. On the whole, Gn. ascetisicm was probably on par with the asceticism of orthodox spirituality. I think it's really difficult, from our cultural perspective, to understand what drove asceticism in pretty much all forms of spirituality up until modern times (17th/18th century, enlightenment, etc.). This was not just a western phenomenon, by any means... Anyway, we're almost unable to view it in any other way than as bodily hatred. The writings of the Desert Fathers (and Mothers), for example, make it abundantly clear that it was primarily about self-examination and self-understanding. The modern practices of poverty and chastity, in Christian and Buddhist monastics, still carry on that tradition today -- as well as people who practice Lent beyond giving up TV or chocolate.

[AletheiaRivers]

Quote

Really? Ignorance, suffering, and death, are simply part of the wondrous natural cycle of life, and it's just the ego that creates the illusion of separateness? If the universe is so shimmeringly radiant, why do we virtually universally "fall" from childlike union into selfishness and separateness? Why does the very fabric of the universe around us seem to tempt us to embrace this illusion?

I didn't say the cycle of life is "wondrous" nor did I say the universe is "shimmeringly radiant".

The whole reason I put the word "issue" in quotes was to "soften" it. It's really not an issue, but I didn't know what other word to use.

Also, the reason I put the word "fallen" in quotations was to highlight that I don't agree with the standard definition of "fallen" - I don't think humans were created perfect, unable to "sin", and then somehow sinned, and fell from grace (the standard Christian belief).

I actually lean towards the idea that Iraneaus had (as I understand it, I haven't read him) - that we are here to "learn" (nutshell version).

Quote

Gnosticism dares to answer that the universe is itself already "fallen" from union with God -- or at least from awareness of it -- that the ignorance and illusion are part of what makes it what it is, not something inculturated, or socialized, or learned, but your cosmic inheritance for being born on this plane of existence, at all.

I appreciate that gnosticism dares to answer that the universe is fallen from union with God. I wasn't trying to say that it didn't.

I was trying to say, (as I said above), that I don't think that humans were created materially and spiritually perfect and then fell from perfection. I also don't think the universe is fundamentally flawed (created imperfect by a flawed god).

I do think that the universe was purposely set up to distance us from God. That was actually my sig line for awhile. I think we may be on the same page here (hence my confusion).

This post has been edited by AletheiaRivers: 11 November 2005 - 03:04 PM

[AletheiaRivers]

PS - The whole reason I chose the handle "Aletheia" was because of the idea of kenosis ... that creation was made in such a way as to make us forget God, forget the truth, forget knowledge and be immersed in "illusion" ... that we (or God if you prefer) emptied ourselves to live in this plane ... we drank of the river lethe and emptied ourselves. A-lethe-ia is the process of remembering, of un-emptying ourselves, of finding truth, of finding light.

[FredP]

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 11 2005, 02:48 PM, said:

I didn't say the cycle of life is "wondrous" nor did I say the universe is "shimmeringly radiant".   

I know, I was exaggerating for effect.

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 11 2005, 02:48 PM, said:

I was trying to say, (as I said above), that I don't think that humans were created materially and spiritually perfect and then fell from perfection. I also don't think the universe is fundamentally flawed (created imperfect by a flawed god).

I do think that the universe was purposely set up to distance us from God. That was actually my sig line for awhile. I think we may be on the same page here (hence my confusion).

We're definitely in agreement that humans weren't created materially and spiritually perfect, as traditional Christianity claims. As for being created by a literal "demiurge" or flawed god, as many ancient gnostics would have held, no, I don't believe this. But taken symbolically, the idea of the universe being the product of a more limited -- or self-limited -- creative impulse is starting to really make sense to me. The idea of God, in full knowledge and power, engineering a world of pain and suffering for us to awaken in, seems frankly cruel; but God utterly emptying himself, generating the very conditions of our existence out of his own supreme self-sacrifice... that's astounding. Talk about a God who is with us in our suffering, a God who upholds the downtrodden.

Maybe this is a different way of expressing what you mean anyway.

[FredP]

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 11 2005, 03:14 PM, said:

PS - The whole reason I chose the handle "Aletheia" was because of the idea of kenosis ... that creation was made in such a way as to make us forget God, forget the truth, forget knowledge and be immersed in "illusion" ... that we (or God if you prefer) emptied ourselves to live in this plane ... we drank of the river lethe and emptied ourselves. A-lethe-ia is the process of remembering, of un-emptying ourselves, of finding truth, of finding light.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Definitely on the same page there.

[AletheiaRivers]

Quote

But taken symbolically, the idea of the universe being the product of a more limited -- or self-limited -- creative impulse is starting to really make sense to me.

Actually, the idea of God self-limiting himself in order to create and relate is something I've had rattling around in my head for a long time. It's where my philosophical "open-view" comes from (as opposed to "biblical open-view").

Quote

The idea of God, in full knowledge and power, engineering a world of pain and suffering for us to awaken in, seems frankly cruel ...

I don't think God purposefully engineered a world of pain (I understand Irenaeus [and Jung?] did), but at the same time the "buck has to stop" with God because I do believe God has foreknowledge of all potential outcomes, and so knew full well what could come of such an emptying.

So when I say the universe was made to be the way it is, I don't mean to say that God created and forordained murderers or rapists or earthquakes to test us ... but that I believe God is the Ultimate Source, that there is nothing "beyond" God.

I believe WE have engineered a world of pain. I think we, the universe, God, are all "morally dual" (and by process of balance "neutral")(there is that yin/yang thing again). We have free will (otherwise God would be the direct author of evil) and that many choose death instead of life.

I think life is equal parts Grace (knowing that God loves us and nothing can seperate us from that) and "works" (not in the "law' sense, but picking up our cross, emptying ourselves, loving ourselves and then loving others as we do ourselves, and loving God). It is by this process of kenosis (of "works") that we learn (ala soulmaking, ala Iraneaus, ala Theosis).

Quote

but God utterly emptying himself, generating the very conditions of our existence out of his own supreme self-sacrifice... that's astounding. Talk about a God who is with us in our suffering, a God who upholds the downtrodden.

I found this earlier today and your words just now seem very serendipitous:

Quote

The "exoteric" direction of Christianity is "legalistic" and "egocentric"; in this version, the Christian seeks God hoping for the reward of eternal life.

In the mystical esoteric tradition, however, the Christian seeks God without concern for reward and without hope of establishing his merit before God. He seeks God for God's own self.

In the exoteric tradition, it is important to believe that rewards and punishments will be distributed equitably.

In the esoteric tradition, there is no need for discernable justice in rewards and punishments.

The exoteric tradition equates God's justice with a rationally defensible distribution of rewards.

The esoteric tradition says that God's justice and goodness transcends all human standards of justice. For the esoteric tradition, there is no hope for external victories, which are partial and impermanent in any case; rather, we hope for "interior victory in outer defeat," an interior victory that opens us to love for the world through the experience of suffering.

Creation is set up to encourage people to seek God without hope of reward. Creation is read through the cross, and like the cross it is an act of kenosis, self-emptying.

When He created the world, God "surrenders himself to necessity, a force indifferent to the good and therefore foreign to his own nature."

More provocatively still, Weil suggests that the doctrine of creation ex nihilo means that God opens "a void" within Himself "in a voluntary act of self-emptying or withdrawal."

Subjected to the blind forces of a fate that has no concern with our moral character, and recognizing that the world does not reward the good, we are forced to be good for reasons other than reward. We are forced to seek God for his own sake.

His self-emptying withdrawal forces us to take the same kenotic pathway as we return to Him. What is required of us is a participation in the cross that involves "a horrific voiding of the personality in all its natural dimensions."

God's goodness, in short, does not exclude but "necessitates a world where unmerited misfortune is a continual and serious possibility for every human being."

The cross, an event of suffering innocence, is the key to understanding Christianity in its essence and purity. The world manifests God's goodness and justice in that it "facilitates self-sacrificial love between man and God." If the world was set up differently, we should be ever distant from God, and would not participate in the Son's kenotic love.

Weil thus sees total coincidence between the tragic vision and a cruciform-shaped theology of creation. As Brueck summarizes, Weil believes that two conditions must be met to establish the tragic vision and to support human love for God: "(1) The human race, by virtue of its very existence, is subject to blind forces indifferent to the good. These forces take the shape of suffering and evil. (2) Defeat by the exterior world provides the occasion for the human being's greatest victory. This is an inner victory which shines triumphantly in outer darkness."

Weil's account is valuable not because it is good or true. In most respects, it is utterly bad. It is valuable, though, for displaying the inner connections between tragic vision and beliefs about creation, for highlighting the eschatological issues inherent in tragic vision, and perhaps for showing that heterodox beliefs about the Trinity underly any conception of Christian tragedy. Weil demonstrates that making a case for Christian tragedy (necessarily?) requires steps, large steps, in the direction of gnosticism.

This post has been edited by AletheiaRivers: 11 November 2005 - 05:32 PM

[AletheiaRivers]

PS - And what's utterly weird is that about a year ago I was discussing "creation ex nihilo" with my hubby and I literally said to him that the only way I could conceive of it happening would be if God created a "hole" in himself and put us there, because is there any "where" that God is not, for him to put us there instead?

[flowperson]

These observations are precisely why issues of scale are so important in discerning and understanding the universe as possibly an "intelligent project" of G-d.

The example I like to use is the scale of a hydrogen atom. Think of a bowling ball perched atop the Sears Tower as the nucleus of the atom. The atom's electron would be a BB whizzing around it at a distence of 19 miles. From this it should be evident that the material realities around us are mostly filled with space and only appear to be solid. Lots of nooks and cranies for spiritual beings to sneak around in and and create new stuff.

Then there are little hints and clues in the ancient tales such as the belief among the early Hebrews in "Tzim-Tzum". This means that G-d creates from the nothingness and then leaves the stage before his/her creation is allowed to begin its cycles of existence.

Anyone who does creative work will tell you that the process is alot like giving birth. It comes forth from the light and darkness of one's soul, and after it is in the outside world as a creation in its own right, it may still be edited, touched-up, revised to an extent; but, a spiritual content exists in it from that time on to inspire those who partake of its meanings to also partake in a portion of the spiritual substance of its creator.

Monster huh? GRRRRR!!!

flow....

[FredP]

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 11 2005, 05:14 PM, said:

I don't think God purposefully engineered a world of pain (I understand Irenaeus [and Jung?] did), but at the same time the "buck has to stop" with God because I do believe God has foreknowledge of all potential outcomes, and so knew full well what could come of such an emptying.

That is correct, but there is another important difference, with respect to the buck having to stop with God. In the case of God foreordaining murderers, rapists, and earthquakes to separate and/or test us, God still remains essentially outside of us. However, if the cosmos is truly a divine self-emptying, then God also experiences each and every moment of suffering immediately and directly in us -- in such a way that God doesn't have the knowledge of divine infinity as a comfort. The "problem of evil" looks a lot different when God takes the whole of universal horror and suffering on himself in the process.

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 11 2005, 05:14 PM, said:

I believe WE have engineered a world of pain.

This is actually one interpretation of the meaning of the demiurge in Gn. cosmology. The demiurge represents the very same attributes that characterize "fallen humanity": power, competitiveness, jealousy, self-assertion, cool detatchment, etc. Ayn Rand's self-made hero, basically. Not that there attributes are necessarily "evil" per se -- there is a certain egalitarian impartiality to them, for example -- but the point is that they perceive a separated world, and act on it as such. When Gn. claims that we humans and "our world" are created by this being, I see that in one way as a symbolic statement about who we are and where we "come from," psychologically speaking. We've seen the demiurge, and he is us. But even more than that, it suggests that this archetype transcends merely human psychology to grasp something truly cosmic about our situation.

This post has been edited by FredP: 14 November 2005 - 12:47 PM

[AletheiaRivers]

Quote

However, if the cosmos is truly a divine self-emptying, then God also experiences each and every moment of suffering immediately and directly in us -- in such a way that God doesn't have the knowledge of divine infinity as a comfort. The "problem of evil" looks a lot different when God takes the whole of universal horror and suffering on himself in the process.

I still think we are pretty much on the same page (but I could be wrong).

What I meant about God having foreknowledge was from the perspective PRIOR TO the emptying. Unless you mean that there wasn't ever a time when God hadn't emptied himself? (A Process view I think.)

Is God completely "exhausted" by emptying himself in your view (pantheism) or is there still transcendant mind?

Do we lose ourselves completely when we go back to the source or do we join in the dance of God?

Quote

We've seen the demiurge, and he is us. But even more than that, it suggests that this archetype transcends merely human psychology to grasp something truly cosmic about our situation.

Ah yes. I believe the "rulers, world authorities, principalities in high places" refers to the same thing and that Jesus conquered them on the cross. It wasn't just literal persons or institutions that he conquered, but the very situation of mankind.

[AletheiaRivers]

Quote

in such a way that God doesn't have the knowledge of divine infinity as a comfort

PS - I guess that answers the question of pantheism or panentheism actually.

[FredP]

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 14 2005, 03:09 PM, said:

I still think we are pretty much on the same page (but I could be wrong).

Yes, substantially, eerily, so! That's why it's possible to nit-pick such fine points with you, because we're of such similar mind about the generalities.

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 14 2005, 03:09 PM, said:

What I meant about God having foreknowledge was from the perspective PRIOR TO the emptying. Unless you mean that there wasn't ever a time when God hadn't emptied himself? (A Process view I think.)

Ah ha! But time came into existence WITH the emptying. Chew on that one...

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 14 2005, 03:09 PM, said:

Is God completely "exhausted" by emptying himself in your view (pantheism) or is there still transcendant mind?

No, G-d remains transcendent and inexhaustible; but veiled in manifestation. If you're asking whether the infinite G-d peers into the world of time and observes, or maybe even influences, it... Well, do you pray and act? And did you think it was you?

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 14 2005, 03:09 PM, said:

Do we lose ourselves completely when we go back to the source or do we join in the dance of God?

Well, I'm not much of a dancer.....

Actually, that's a completely different question. My immediate thought is that we lost ourselves to come here, so I suppose we'd gain ourselves to go back. But of course you mean do we lose our personality, right? I think so; but my certainty on that one hovers between 49% and 51% on a daily basis! I have faith that union with G-d will make up for whatever I sacrifices I make along the way.

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 14 2005, 03:09 PM, said:

Ah yes. I believe the "rulers, world authorities, principalities in high places" refers to the same thing and that Jesus conquered them on the cross. It wasn't just literal persons or institutions that he conquered, but the very situation of mankind.

Indeed!

[FredP]

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 14 2005, 03:09 PM, said:

Is God completely "exhausted" by emptying himself in your view (pantheism) or is there still transcendant mind?

To be more specific concerning your question, God is self-limited with respect to the cosmos, but not in God's essential nature, which is inexhaustible. Don't know if that helps in any way.

[AletheiaRivers]

Quote

Yes, substantially, eerily, so! That's why it's possible to nit-pick such fine points with you, because we're of such similar mind about the generalities.

Ahhhhh! LOL! And here I've been thinking I keep missing your point because you seem to be saying the opposite of everything I say, even when I think I'm agreeing with you.

Quote

Ah ha! But time came into existence WITH the emptying.  Chew on that one...

Crap I hate this one. Pppbbbll

Hmmm. Was God timeless or has God always been eternally temporal? Is there even such a "thing" as time?

I think it's a given that God is "in time" now, but how could there be a "time" when he was not? What I mean is: If "x" is the state of God's being timeless (and "full") and "y" is the state of God emptying himself (giving birth to time), then non-emptiness came prior to emptiness in a sequence.

I say time doesn't exist. It's just the way we measure change. It's easier and it doesn't give me migraines. (Kidding) That's why I think God IS change. In essence, God IS time.

Quote

No, G-d remains transcendent and inexhaustible; but veiled in manifestation. If you're asking whether the infinite G-d peers into the world of time and observes, or maybe even influences, it... Well, do you pray and act? And did you think it was you?

Quote

(AletheiaRivers @ Nov 14 2005, 03:09 PM)
Do we lose ourselves completely when we go back to the source or do we join in the dance of God?

Well, I'm not much of a dancer.....

Actually, that's a completely different question. My immediate thought is that we lost ourselves to come here, so I suppose we'd gain ourselves to go back. But of course you mean do we lose our personality, right? I think so; but my certainty on that one hovers between 49% and 51% on a daily basis! I have faith that union with G-d will make up for whatever I sacrifices I make along the way.

Brat!

Am I me AND God, or am I JUST God?

Did God empty himself to "experience for experiences sake" and there is no us? Or did God empty himself by "creating" us and when we "go back" we are both God and us?

I'm not worried about loss of personality or ego, but I do long for union. I think the very nature of God (being emptied to create us) creates that longing within us?

This post has been edited by AletheiaRivers: 14 November 2005 - 04:40 PM

[FredP]

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 14 2005, 04:38 PM, said:

Hmmm. Was God timeless or has God always been eternally temporal? Is there even such a "thing" as time?

Yes, there is. (See below.) God is eternal -- that is, God infinitely transcends time -- in God's essential nature, but temporal with respect to the cosmos. This is part of the separation involved in the divine self-limitation.

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 14 2005, 04:38 PM, said:

I think it's a given that God is "in time" now, but how could there be a "time" when he was not?  What I mean is: If "x" is the state of God's being timeless (and "full") and "y" is the state of God emptying himself (giving birth to time), then non-emptiness came prior to emptiness in a sequence.

Prior in an ontological sequence, but not a chronological sequence: strictly speaking, it's incoherent to talk about anything coming "before time" in a chronological sequence.

It sounds like you're trying to imagine a chronological sequence of events wherein God empties himself into the temporal realm; hence the question whether God is in time "now" as opposed to.... "before"? But the cosmos is a self-contained spatio-temporal manifestation -- it's unrelated to God's essential nature -- or to any other possible spatio-temporal manifestation -- as far as space and time are concerned. The emptying of God into this universe has nothing to do with where God is "now" in relation to time, because there is no "now" outside of time! Beyond the cosmos we can talk about logical relationship, but not chrono-logical relationship.

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 14 2005, 04:38 PM, said:

I say time doesn't exist. It's just the way we measure change. It's easier and it doesn't give me migraines.    (Kidding) That's why I think God IS change. In essence, God IS time.

Time indeed is the way we measure change, but God is not time. Time is a contraction of eternity -- a self-emptying of eternity, the same way the cosmos is a self-emptying of God. Eternity, of course, isn't a far-off future time; it is the state of being that both negates the separateness of temporality, and gives the character of true presence to each moment of time.

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 14 2005, 04:38 PM, said:

Am I me AND God, or am I JUST God?

Did God empty himself to "experience for experiences sake" and there is no us? Or did God empty himself by "creating" us and when we "go back" we are both God and us?

Keep in mind that, in a trinitarian model, God is dynamic, related being. The cosmos -- and by extension, we -- are individual expressions of the infinite depth of relatedness at the heart of God's being. You say "JUST God" as though this were somehow a limited form of something. This is like asking whether the value of x is infinity plus one, or JUST infinity!

[flowperson]

" We've seen the demiurge, and he is us "

Pogo would love this.

It is interesting to note that the ancient Sumerians ( following the Ubaidians as the beginners of civilization in what is now Iraq) believed that the hidden Gods were known as "the people".

flow....

This post has been edited by flowperson: 14 November 2005 - 05:58 PM

[AletheiaRivers]

Quote

... strictly speaking, it's incoherent to talk about anything coming "before time" in a chronological sequence.

Right. My point exactly.

Quote

It sounds like you're trying to imagine a chronological sequence of events wherein God empties himself into the temporal realm; hence the question whether God is in time "now" as opposed to.... "before"?

No, not really. I was trying to say that time is a way that change is verbalized, discussed, comprehended and that if for God one thing was one way and then was another way, then there was "change" for God. WE would say that x happened before y because that is how WE talk. I'm saying that perhaps NOW is all there IS and that time is just as much of an illusion as our seperateness from God.

Quote

You say "JUST God" as though this were somehow a limited form of something.

I don't know what to say to that. I'm trying to express my yearning for a union, theosis-like relationship with God and I don't feel I'm using the best language to express it. I capitalized "just" because, based on prior conversations, I thought you would get what I was trying to say. I certainly didn't mean "just God" as if it were a limited form of something.

I don't find meaning in monism or pantheism. Perhaps that is just my hang-up. I believe God created life in order to share it with us. I know God didn't need to and because of the Trinity was complete, but I believe God wanted to. I think God enjoys giving so much that he wanted to move "outside" himself to do so and so created sentient life.

Sorry I'm so touchy. There is only so much nit-picking I can take.

[FredP]

AletheiaRivers, on Nov 14 2005, 09:42 PM, said:

Sorry I'm so touchy. There is only so much nit-picking I can take.   

Fair enough. I just get all excited when these topics come 'round again.

[AletheiaRivers]

I'm extremely excited to talk about these things. I was expressing that to my husband this morning and that I hoped the conversation could continue.

I do get frustrated with bulletin boards as a medium for conversation. It's not helping that Opera (as a web browser) doesn't like ipbhost's interface and makes it difficult to deal with the formatting tools. It's easier to put things in ALL CAPS or in "quotes" instead of italicizing, and I think it makes the emphasis come out wrong.

I also don't deal with "Devil's Advocates" well. Just ask my hubby. It's his favorite role too.