[des]

Oh gee, well summarizing chapters is what we do on a Harry Potter discussion group, I did express that I wasn't sure how well this would work for Borg's book. (And now that I have gotten past about chapter 1, I think it would not.) But in a more informal sense, as WDancer said, I think it would work.

As to your specific comments, I'd consider myself a panentheist. I have at least heard of this term before from Matt Fox, who goes into it in quite deeply. And I would consider that I at least have been thinking re the metaphorical aspects of the scripture. (Although I didn't even realize some of these descriptions existed.)

Quote

I'm moving more and more to a purely metaphorical approach to scripture, even towards those passages that were NOT meant to be taken metaphorically.    Doing so is the only way I can stay connected to Christianity. Otherwise I find myself saying: "I don't agree with that ... That isn't true ... " Etc ...

Hah, well Aletheia I think I do this quite a lot. I'm not sure what exactly is to be taken totally literally and totally nonmetaphorically. Borg talks about things would triple meanings, etc. Very interesting. And I never thought the Lord's Prayer could have a theo-political meaning. You know the UCC church has lately taken to saying "give us our debts..." I was thinking, oh gee you know sometimes we can be so political, as the rationale given had to do with Third world debt. Well accordign to Borg that could have been part of the original intent. (Though Jesus could not have predicted the concequences of actual debt of poor countries to rich ones.)

Quote

I've moved away from that form of prayer myself, except for one thing: I still pray for understanding. That is the only form of intercessory prayer I stll find myself doing: "Please help me understand you God. Please help me to see the meaning of life and the theory of everything."    Then I read, read, read and contemplate, contemplate, contemplate.

I do not pray for parking spots or for God to bless the USA.

I do not believe in intercessory prayer at all. One fo the traditions we had in my last church was to have individuals give prayers for specific people, and the congregation would say "Lord, hear our prayer". I would just never say that. The whole thing struck me as saying that 1. God only listens because you ask. 2. God will answer some people's prayers and not others. 3. God answers any intercessory prayers at all. (Of course you could interpret that as a way to get at those "thin places" as it is was repetitive enough. But I didn't know about that then. I don't know, I have prob. given them, just because "they make me feel better" as Borg says. I see prayer as more or less opening yourself to God versus God being tuned into you. So I feel the type of prayer you describe is about the only one I really feel comfortable with.

BTW, I just really hate this "God bless America" thing. Not because I am against God blessing America or that God hasn't already blessed her, but that I see the statement lately as being God bless *America* as opposed to those other nations.
I think I have already gone thru parking places. ;-)

The other problem with the whole intercessory prayer thing, si that well weren't there people who prayed for the end of the Holocaust? (And anything else this subject may cover.)


--des

[mgf50]

I do believe in intercessionary prayer but not in the sense that God will intervene. I do feel that intercessionary prayer gives me a spiritual connection to the person I am prayer about. It also gives me a sense of how to relate or respong to that person, especially when I am angry or working through conflict. Sometimes it helps me calm down and hadled the situation more graciously.

Marilyn

[mgf50]

I think transformation comes when we let go of our suffering and turn our attention towards Christ. It like the sun may be shining but a flower does not receive the sunshine unless it turns towards it.

MGF50

[AletheiaRivers]

Quote

I do feel that intercessionary prayer gives me a spiritual connection to the person I am prayer about.

That's a very good point.

I can pray to God for someone and at the same time realize that God won't necessarily do anything for that person, but I could.

And in the same way, prayer for myself can help me focus on changes I could make in my life.

The prayer is a connection to God, a way to tap into what some call Grace.

[WindDancer]

Aletheia, Thanks for the reply.

I don't know, I'm always kinda dissatisfied with answers I get to the question of prayer. Somehow, it just doesn't seem right. I do believe prayer makes a difference and that we are all connected somehow, so I do prayer for others. But it is more a visualization type thing than word requests. Shakti Gawain style. Or even Taoism's chi/energy makes sense to me. Or anybody ever read Larry Dossey on prayer? Sometimes I think Christianity holds me back spiritually and I should just give it up.

Another thing about Marcus Borg's panENtheism is I don't understand how Marcus can believe God is nurturing supportive loving when God doesn't do anything. Just doesn't make any sense.

I also know there are different varieties of panENtheism. Non-process and process. Process Theology or Fox's Creation Spirituality are variations, but not exactly the same thing. Non-process flavors seem to include a God that acts.

[XianAnarchist]

Some thoughts on prayer:

This is always an interesting topic. Personally, It seems that one's understanding of prayer is often related to one's understanding of the God-world relationship. I generally consider myself to be a bit of an armchair mystic. Part of that for me means that I like to talk about God as "mystery." Our God-concepts simply will never do God justice.

Since I don't know that I'm willing to articulate God in theistic or a-theistic categories and would rather allow God to remain as "Mystery," I'm not willing to leave intercessory prayer behind. Quite the contrary, I think we are becoming more and more aware of the interconnectedness throughout the universe. Chaos theory and quantum physics (and I admit limited understanding here) show us that we participate in and affect the universe in ways that we cannot see or understand because the universe by nature is participatory.

I think we can understand prayer differently if we start with a focus on God-world relationship and then shift to a human-world relationship (and the following assumes that to be fully human is to be fully divine). Humanity has been called by God to be "stewards" of the earth. In a nutshell, I like to talk about the call to become other-centered, justice-oriented, self-giving creatures. From a modernist perspective, humans are called to work toward such things in their tangible daily lives. Hence, the push for such things as social justice. However, what if we look at the call to be fully human as a call to be wholistic humans who help to form this world not only on a physical level but also on a spiritual level? What if we are called to participate in the co-creative activity as spiritual beings to the same extent as we are as physical beings?

Meditative prayer seems to assume that the task at hand is to be spiritually transformed in order to bring about the physical transformation of this world as we become change agents. But what if prayer is also about being physically transformed (for example, taking time out of our schedules to devote to the service of others who are not nearby) in order to bring about transformation through spiritual connectedness in this world (such as healings)? Then we move into intercessory prayer.

Does this mean that I expect prayer to change the world in an instant? Maybe, maybe not. But for me, to engage in intercessory prayer is about participation in the greater scheme of things in a way that I recognize that I cannot comprehend. I do believe that we can make a difference in the world in this way. Perhaps the universe is even geared in favor of it.

But, who's to say for sure.

Well, that's my 2 cents for now.

[AletheiaRivers]

Quote

I don't know, I'm always kinda dissatisfied with answers I get to the question of prayer.

I am too, which is why I've moved away from intercessory prayer (via positiva) and more towards centering prayer, active listening or meditation (via positiva balanced with via negativa).

Quote

But it is more a visualization type thing than word requests.

I do visualization as well, ala Starhawk or Phyllis Currot. I think visualization and meditation is the heart of "magic". Where some who practice "magic" fall short (imo) is when the individual doesn't attempt to make concrete changes themselves. They just expect the "magic" to do all the work.

Rather than (as you say) word requests, I picture energy (insert quantum physics stuff here ) enveloping and changing that which I want changed. Then I proactively do what I can to affect the change as well. But I'm not comfortable saying "God, please help my husband get this job" or "God, please help my mom with her high blood pressure".

The visualization versus word prayer is a fine line, but it makes a huge difference in how I relate to God and what I'm comfortable with. I don't feel like I'm asking God to play favorites or be at my beck and call.

Quote

Sometimes I think Christianity holds me back spiritually and I should just give it up.

I'm having a hard time finding a place too, which is why I've been so absent from this board lately. I'd love to converse privately in email with you about Taoism and such if you are interested.

Quote

Another thing about Marcus Borg's panENtheism is I don't understand how Marcus can believe God is nurturing supportive loving when God doesn't do anything. Just doesn't make any sense.

Panentheism doesn't necessarily include a nurturing God, not in the way many define nurturing (as God intervening in human affairs). The fish exists in the ocean and would die without it, but the ocean doesn't intervene in the fish's life in a supernatural way.

One Christian author I've read likens God's involvment in human affairs to an underground aquifier or river that rises to the surface in springs or fountainheads. God is an abiding presence below, that "underrules" and sustains creation, rather than an presence that "overrules" or intervenes in creation.

I'm somewhere between personal and impersonal in my view of God. God is "impersonal" in that God WON'T interfere with human affairs, but has a very good reason (personal) as to why She won't.

I've come to think of God in a modified Taoist sort of way (since the Tao, in Taoism, isn't really GOD per se). My views have moved towards a dialectical monism (yin/yang, duality in Unity) point of view.

Quote

I also know there are different varieties of panENtheism. Non-process and process.

I have a modified process view; kind of a "lite" process view.

This post has been edited by AletheiaRivers: 15 March 2005 - 03:40 PM

[BrotherRog]

A.R, IMO, something that the evangelicals refer to as "Openness theology" is actually what I'd call "Process lite." The basic difference: For process theology, God cannot intervene in the world via breaking the laws of physics, etc; whereas for Openness theology, God will not intervene in those ways. They still wish to maintain God's ontological omnipotence, but speak to how God, wishes to allow His/Her Creation to have as much free will as possible - in order to allow for real, true, and genuine relationship with Him/Her.

Openness theology fails to satisfy the problem of theodicy (for me), but frankly, many American Christians probably maintain such beliefs even if they don't know it. Examples of proponents of Openness theology include Gregory Boyd, Clark Pinnock, etc. Use your favorite search engine, say http://www.google.com, and look up Openness theology to learn more.

[BrotherRog]

FYI, an excellent book (short and readable too!) about Intercessory Prayer from a progressive perspective is:

In God's Presence: Theological Reflections on Prayer, by Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki

Click here, the read the description and reviews:
http://www.amazon.co...=books&n=507846

[AletheiaRivers]

Thanks BroRog!

You've recommended a couple of OV authors to me in the past.

I need to do more research on which authors approach OV from more of a philosophical standpoint rather than a Biblical one. I appreciate certain OV proponents wanting to "prove" that the Bible supports an open view, but I'm not really interested in that.

I like that I came to a OV perspective on my own (a few months back) and THEN found out it had a name. The "God CAN'T interfere versus God WON'T interfere" is something I "worked out" long before I ever heard of process thought or OV.

That God won't interfere completely satisfies the theodicy problem for me, but I definitely appreciate the full process view.

This post has been edited by AletheiaRivers: 15 March 2005 - 08:57 PM

[des]

I think you guys are (once again) over my head. I guess, for someone who thinks of herself as smart this is a good humbling experience. :-)
Anyway, I can appreciate intercessory prayer as getting closer to God; aspects of not knowing all there is about God, so that maybe it is possible that it works sometimes.
The whole trouble I have with intercessory prayer is not the idea of becoming closer to God, but the problem of the nos. of people who have no doubt prayed and NOT gotten their prayers answered. Just as an extreme example, how many people prayed for the Holocaust to end, for their lives (and/or those they loved), etc. and it didn't work. I mean it eventually stopped but not before six million plus people died.

*IF* I believed that intercessory action works, then I have to take into account somehow that God chose not to answer these prayers (and thousands of others). Why would God chose to answer some prayers and not others? These are very troubling questions, imo.
I suppose it is the easy way out to decide that maybe God does not work that way. Perhaps there are other explanations.

I do think causality is an unknown thing. XianA mentioned some aspects of quantum physics that to my understanding really only works on a quantum level (subatomic). OTOH, I work guess my quantum physics needs work as well.

As for the panentheistic God not being nuturing, well I think the fish analogy is a very good one.


--des

[WindDancer]

XianAnarchist - "armchair mystic" is good. So what books do you read on that? I like Teasdale, which I think Aletheia already mentioned somewhere on this board.

"God as mystery" - yeah, that's what I liked about Taoism. It says the Tao is mystery and gets right into how to relate to that mystery. It does have it's metaphors to work with such as Tao being like water. But it's not about defining so much as about relating.

"Chaos theory and quantum physics" - That is a significant factor influencing some spiritual segments of society, like new thought or new age, but Christianity is lagging way behind.

I just need to stay centered in my own spirituality and go with what is right for me. That seems to take me further and further away from Christianity, however. Christianity is too rigid and archaic. I need to grow, breathe, move. Faith is alive and on the move. Not stuck rigidly in one position.

Des said "over my head." Well, that's just it. Why do we need a PhD in theology in order to have a relationship with God? I thought being christian meant being christlike.

About the reasoning that if God doesn't do what we want (heal or save from death etc) then that means God doesn't answer prayers. I think that just means we need a different viewpoint about the big picture. In other words, our understanding of the God-world relationship (as XianAnarchist mentioned) needs to be tweaked. I think Aletheia is on the right track when she talks about the duality in unity stuff. That means letting go of thinking in terms of right vs wrong, good vs bad. Thinking harmony, unity. That can take you some very different places theologically. Who else thinks that way, Aletheia? Wicca or what's called earth-based spirituality maybe?

Aletheia - Thanks, for that nice reply. You wrote: "I'm having a hard time finding a place too, which is why I've been so absent from this board lately." Now here I thought you sounded all perky and enthusiastic yet, while I was bone weary and burned out! I've backed off from my involvement in online christian discussions, cuz it was having a negative effect on me. I feel a whole lot better for it too. Maybe I'll send you a private message, if I can figure out how to do that. I'm probably not very good company, though. I get too crabby when I talk about Christian theology a lot. I need to stop and go hug a tree, skip in the park, sing songs, and be one with Tao. Too bad we can't do that together! That would be way more fun. I must be a mystic at heart too, XianAnarchist.

Marcus Borg says prayer is one of the top 10 questions people ask him about. HOC pg 67. There. I mentioned the book. So I'm on topic, right. So doesn't anybody else have i-s-s-u-e-s or questions about Borg's book???

I saw Jeep mention the historical issue elsewhere. Yeah, how come Marcus Borg still talks about the stories in the Bible if they didn't literally happen? I mean, isn't that confusing about the two processions in his talk if you know Jesus didn't literally ride into Jerusalem on a colt? Now I did think Pontius Pilot rode into town with his calvary and that was the point of saying Jesus rode into town from the opposite direction. Like a political statement. But Jeep seemed to indicate that was not so?? Like Marcus says, "I don't know if it happened this way or not, but I know this story is true..." In actuality most Christians still believe those stories literally happened. And some protest against telling those stories at all and want to narrow down the New Testament to a few sayings of Jesus like some of the Jesus Seminar people. I say *some* because they don't all believe the same. Marcus Borg talks about the two processions in the "Two Visions" book, page 59.

[PantaRhea]

I have some opinions about prayer, but I have a few questions I need to ask first:

What are we talking about when we use the word "God"? What does it mean to understand God as Mystery? Are we saying that God is "Wholly Other"? Does this mean that there is nothing about God to which we can relate? Every word in our language points to our shared relation to reality, doesn't it? If so, and if we have no relation to God, the word "God" has no meaning, does it? Why would we use the term then? If there is nothing we can say about God which conveys meaning, isn't the term "God" irrelevant?

If the word "God" does have meaning, what is it? Is it strictly a private meaning which differs from person to person? If so, does it make sense to use the word in discussions with others if what we mean by our use of the term is not related in any way to what some else might mean?

If God is somehow related to all of us, what kind of relationship is it? I'm thinking that there are only two types of relationships (really only one) - an internal relationship where the "other" becomes somehow included within a subject, or an external relationship in which there is no subjective experience of any kind. Another way to ask this, does God have any awareness of our existence? Does our existence make any difference at all to God's actuality?

And finally, what do we understand about the nature of reality? Is it rational (understandable)? Is it benevolent or apathetic? Does it have anything to do with our concept of God?

It seems to me that our understanding of prayer is going to depend upon our answers to these questions. Eh?

This post has been edited by PantaRhea: 18 March 2005 - 09:45 AM

[Cynthia]

Interesting discussion folks.

I think the Muslims have it... in morning prayers they say, Only God is God.

To me (yeh, I know ), that means God = The More = The Mystery = Dharma = Tao = Allah = Christ = infinity.

As for the type of relationship, ahhhhh... that's not the stuff of theology, that's the stuff of experience. "The love that surpasses knowledge"

I think it is interesting to talk/write about theology and it has the potential to deepen our spirituality... BUT, it is also easier to do than praying/meditating/experiencing God. The key factor for me is remembering that people (ie religion) will always have shortcomings. The more time and energy you spend choosing a path that exactly fits you (impossible IMHO), the less time you have to practice on relationship building. Screwtape Letters lists this sort of focus as a primary tactic of personal temptors .

God is big; God is not petty; (People are small; people are petty ) I agree with Borg that choosing a path does not exclude you from the wisdom of other paths; Mythology, Christian or otherwise, is so deeply true that "historical fact" is irrelevant. Nobody has all the answers - except God. Ask Him.... breathe in.... breathe out.... relax..... wait..... ahhhh..... love..... quiet.... peace.

Peace to you all. Cynthia

[earl]

WindDancer, on Mar 18 2005, 06:14 AM, said:

XianAnarchist - "armchair mystic" is good.   So what books do you read on that?  I like Teasdale, which I think Aletheia already mentioned somewhere on this board.

"God as mystery" - yeah, that's what I liked about Taoism.  It says the Tao is mystery and gets right into how to relate to that mystery.  It does have it's metaphors to work with such as Tao being like water.  But it's not about defining so much as about relating.

"Chaos theory and quantum physics"  - That is a significant factor influencing some spiritual segments of society, like new thought or new age, but Christianity is lagging way behind.   

I just need to stay centered in my own spirituality and go with what is right for me.  That seems to take me further and further away from Christianity, however.  Christianity is too rigid and archaic.  I need to grow, breathe, move.  Faith is alive and on the move.  Not stuck rigidly in one position.

Des said "over my head."  Well, that's just it.  Why do we need a PhD in theology in order to have a relationship with God?  I thought being christian meant being christlike.

About the reasoning that if God doesn't do what we want (heal or save from death etc) then that means God doesn't answer prayers.  I think that just means we need a different viewpoint about the big picture.  In other words, our understanding of the God-world relationship (as XianAnarchist  mentioned) needs to be tweaked.  I think Aletheia is on the right track when she talks about the duality in unity stuff.  That means letting go of thinking in terms of right vs wrong, good vs bad.  Thinking harmony, unity.  That can take you some very different places theologically.  Who else thinks that way, Aletheia?  Wicca or what's called earth-based spirituality maybe?

Aletheia - Thanks, for that nice reply.  You wrote:  "I'm having a hard time finding a place too, which is why I've been so absent from this board lately."  Now here I thought you sounded all perky and enthusiastic yet, while I was bone weary and burned out!  I've backed off  from my involvement in online christian discussions, cuz it was having a negative effect on me.  I feel a whole lot better for it too.  Maybe I'll send you a private message, if I can figure out how to do that.  I'm probably not very good company, though.  I get too crabby when I talk about Christian theology a lot.  I need to stop and go hug a tree, skip in the park, sing songs, and be one with Tao.   Too bad we can't do that together!  That would be way more fun.  I must be a mystic at heart too, XianAnarchist.

Marcus Borg says prayer is one of the top 10 questions people ask him about.  HOC pg 67.  There.  I mentioned the book.  So I'm on topic, right.  So doesn't anybody else have i-s-s-u-e-s  or questions about Borg's book???

I saw Jeep mention the historical issue elsewhere.  Yeah, how come Marcus Borg still talks about the stories in the Bible if they didn't literally happen?  I mean, isn't that confusing about the two processions in his talk if you know Jesus didn't literally ride into Jerusalem on a colt?  Now I did think Pontius Pilot rode into town with his calvary and that was the point of saying Jesus rode into town from the opposite direction.  Like a political statement.  But Jeep seemed to indicate that was not so??  Like Marcus says,  "I don't know if it happened this way or not, but I know this story is true..."  In actuality most Christians still believe those stories literally happened.  And some protest against telling those stories at all and want to narrow down the New Testament to a few sayings of Jesus like some of the Jesus Seminar people.  I say *some* because they don't all believe the same.  Marcus Borg talks about the two processions in the "Two Visions" book, page 59.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Haven't read this book but have read a number of articles by Marcus Borg I found on the internet-like his view. I've long felt uncnnected to a local Christian church/community simply because I couldn't relate to standard Christian theology as expressed in churches. Always missed being part of a community, though. I, too, find dwelling on the "theology" somewhat anti-life-giving & hugging a tree or skipping in the park would probably be more life-affirming for me, too. I find most Christian theology way too heavy on "head" and too light on "heart." If Christian theologians and pastors would simply focus on Jesus' life-giving "Good News" of living life with universal compassion and faith we are the children of God, (therefore even in the midst of pain, all is right with the world & us), instead of their emphasis on partisanism and judgment, we'd truly have a religion founded by Jesus. I've always believed, though, that if one needed to choose between what someone else told you was right for you, (including theologians) and what your own intuition tells you is right for soul-fulfillment, boy you'd better go with your soul, if you don't want to lose your soul. God put it there for a reason-your soul path is your path to God and the real Fall is learning not to pay attention to it. As I said in my intro piece, if i were to label myself it is as a "Christo-buddhist," but some days due to how majority of folks define Christianity I wonder if I need to drop off the "Christo" part, then I remember Meister Eckhart. Too bad Chrisitianity didn't take his sermons more to heart. Think I'll go worship a tree today. Have a good one, Earl

[PantaRhea]

Cynthia, on Mar 18 2005, 10:13 AM, said:

I think it is interesting to talk/write about theology and it has the potential to deepen our spirituality... BUT, it is also easier to do than praying/meditating/experiencing God.  The key factor for me is remembering that people (ie religion) will always have shortcomings.  The more time and energy you spend choosing a path that exactly fits you (impossible IMHO), the less time you have to practice on relationship building.  Screwtape Letters lists this sort of focus as a primary tactic of personal temptors .

Peace to you all.  Cynthia

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If theology is so much easier to do than praying/meditation/experiencing God, why do so few do it?

We can of course, retreat to the cave and spend our life in monastic silence, "experiencing God". But if we come out of the cave and into community, we enter the struggle with others to interpret or understand our experience of God. Furthermore, we discover that the interpretation of our experience affects HOW we experience God when we go back to the cave.

It is easier to pray/meditate/experience God than it is to struggle with the questions.

[earl]

PantaRhea, on Mar 18 2005, 12:34 PM, said:

Cynthia, on Mar 18 2005, 10:13 AM, said:

I think it is interesting to talk/write about theology and it has the potential to deepen our spirituality... BUT, it is also easier to do than praying/meditating/experiencing God.  The key factor for me is remembering that people (ie religion) will always have shortcomings.  The more time and energy you spend choosing a path that exactly fits you (impossible IMHO), the less time you have to practice on relationship building.  Screwtape Letters lists this sort of focus as a primary tactic of personal temptors .

Peace to you all.  Cynthia

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If theology is so much easier to do than praying/meditation/experiencing God, why do so few do it?

We can of course, retreat to the cave and spend our life in monastic silence, "experiencing God". But if we come out of the cave and into community, we enter the struggle with others to interpret or understand our experience of God. Furthermore, we discover that the interpretation of our experience affects HOW we experience God when we go back to the cave.

It is easier to pray/meditate/experience God than it is to struggle with the questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it's human to ponder the big questions. Ultimately, I'm unsure how helpful conceptualizing is and, therefore I embrace the apophatic. I think I need an avian theology. Who do birds worship? For birds, it's a "Zen thing:" when the wind stirs, they open their wings and are carried aloft. When they are tired, they perch, when hungry, they eat. They worry not of the morrow. Take care, Earl

[AletheiaRivers]

Wow! So many good posts, so many awesome thoughts. Lets see ... where to begin ...

WindDancer:

Quote

It says the Tao is mystery and gets right into how to relate to that mystery. It does have it's metaphors to work with such as Tao being like water. But it's not about defining so much as about relating.

The Tao is a mystery and the Tao Te Ching says whatever can be named is not the "eternal Tao". This is true. And yet Taoism gave us Yin/Yang with its dance of opposites in unified harmony. I'd imagine that whomever had the epiphany that brought us Yin/Yang, did so through a combination of observing nature, meditating, and thinking a LOT.

Quote

I think Aletheia is on the right track when she talks about the duality in unity stuff. That means letting go of thinking in terms of right vs wrong, good vs bad. Thinking harmony, unity. That can take you some very different places theologically. Who else thinks that way, Aletheia? Wicca or what's called earth-based spirituality maybe?

Not Wicca. In my opinion, Wicca is a pretty "shallow" religion (plus I'm not a polytheist). There are some former Wiccans or neo-pagans who have been moved to actually THINK about philosophy, theology and metaphysics that I could recommend: Starhawk. Phyllis Currott. Carol Christ. (Carol Christ is actually a Pagan Process Theologian. She wrote a book a couple of years back called "She Who Changes". I didn't much care for the book because I felt she painted a picture of a God/dess so impersonal that I came away from the book thinking "Why bother?" I might have a different opinion now. I should read it again.) Starhawks latest book is wonderful.

A Taoist based Nature Mysticism is what I would call a mature, "pagan", tree hugging spirituality.

Quote

I'm probably not very good company, though. I get too crabby when I talk about Christian theology a lot.

Actually, I'm not much in the mood to discuss Christian Theology (which is why I don't quote scriptures and such). I do however, love philosophy, which is why I'm drawn to philosophical Taoism and terms like "dialectic".

Quote

I need to stop and go hug a tree, skip in the park, sing songs, and be one with Tao.   Too bad we can't do that together!

Sigh. That would be too cool. If you are ever in or near Utah ...

Cynthia:

Quote

I think it is interesting to talk/write about theology and it has the potential to deepen our spirituality... BUT, it is also easier to do than praying/meditating/experiencing God.

I like to talk about philosophy, theology, ontology because my experiences of God are so wonderful that I like to find out how others experience God. I'm not trying to find a religion that perfectly fits me, but one that is on the same PLANET would be nice.

Earl:

Quote

I've long felt uncnnected to a local Christian church/community simply because I couldn't relate to standard Christian theology as expressed in churches. Always missed being part of a community, though.

That is exactly where I'm at. I miss community. I'd like to think that my local UU could offer me the community I want along with a vital spiritual home. There is so much infighting on the UU webpages though, I wonder if it carries over to the congregational level.

Panta:

Quote

But if we come out of the cave and into community, we enter the struggle with others to interpret or understand our experience of God. Furthermore, we discover that the interpretation of our experience affects HOW we experience God when we go back to the cave.

EXACTLY!

This post has been edited by AletheiaRivers: 18 March 2005 - 04:40 PM

[XianAnarchist]

Quote

XianAnarchist - "armchair mystic" is good.  So what books do you read on that? I like Teasdale, which I think Aletheia already mentioned somewhere on this board.

Actually, I like Armchair Mystic by Mark Thibodeaux. (Obviously, I didn't coin the term.) Any contemplative stuff is good in general for that. The "apophatic" tradition has already been noted. A great text for that is The Cloud of Unknowing. It's from the 14th century I believe. Also, check out Thomas Keeting.

Quote

Des said "over my head." Well, that's just it. Why do we need a PhD in theology in order to have a relationship with God? I thought being christian meant being christlike.

I agree. But I also think that "theology" is pretty much any thinking about God. It is the task of making sense of God and the world we live in.

Quote

What does it mean to understand God as Mystery? Are we saying that God is "Wholly Other"? Does this mean that there is nothing about God to which we can relate? Every word in our language points to our shared relation to reality, doesn't it? If so, and if we have no relation to God, the word "God" has no meaning, does it? Why would we use the term then? If there is nothing we can say about God which conveys meaning, isn't the term "God" irrelevant?

I think that there are two different ways to "know" God (which are not exclusive of one another). There is "comprehension," which is being able to offer up an articulation of experience. The focus is on formula and language. The emphasis is on coherence and shared understanding. Another way to "know" something is through "apprehension." This is more like "depth resonance." This is more about a state of being in experiential relationship with that is beyond words and conceptual descriptors.

So, when I talk about "God as mystery," I am talking more from the perspective of knowlege based on "apprehension" than "comprehension." But, if for a more "comprehension" approach, I would offer the following:

God is the...
Life-Giving Source of Creativity
Unifying Way of Interconnectedness
Abysmally Absolute Other

Perhaps language that is meaningful for one person won't be meaningful for another. Personally, I prefer a fluid understanding of God that preserves God's freedom from the confines of my own mind. Yes, the above "formula" is rife with contradiction and paradox. But, the very fact that it doesn't "have a single meaning" is one of the reasons that it is "meaningful" for me.

[Cynthia]

Aristotle made the point better than I did:

For as bats' eyes are to daylight so is our intellectual eye to those truths which are, in their own nature, the most obvious of all. Aristotle, Metaphysics, I.


As for so few people talking about theology... remember that very few people identify themselves as "not smart", or people who don't think thngs through. Even W has a theology that he apparently feels is in line with God's will. There are many truely religious people who agree with him and the line of theologians behind him.... I can't see it, myself. That does not make it wrong, no matter how obviously wrong I may find it.

In the deep south, most people know quite a bit of scripture. Many participate regularly in bible studes. Many come to a literal approach to the Bible. It's still theology.

As for sharing experiences of God, that is wonderful. I find myself reticent to do this and others' on this board seem the same given some previous threads. I'm not sure why... seems very personal and impossible to put into words.