Sign In
Register
Help
Wow! What a great bunch of comments everybody.
PantaRhea - Yeah, get us right back into our heads with all those questions. Just picking on you a little bit. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily. Some people need to think more! Maybe it depends on the person and where they are at in the process. There is a time to be in the "cave" and a time to be out in the world. I sound like Ecclesiastes. LOL How do you know when you are overintellectualizing, need to let it rest, and go hug a tree and/or live life?
"Mystery" I think "ineffable" or anything I'm going to come up with is going to be metaphor and is limited.
And I do want to hear those opinions about prayer, PantaRhea.
Earl - You make so much sense. I like you. Boy, that's unusual for me to meet someone who is of similar mind! I forgot what that was like.
Aletheia wrote: "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?"
That's what I thought of Process Theology--so impersonal, why bother. Maybe we are on the same page. Wouldn't Taoism be considered impersonal too because it's nontheistic. And I like Taoism. Or how would you distinguish the two?
"Dialectic" - is that Hagel? Oh, my! I bet you can't explain it to me in 10 words or less.
Aletheia wrote: "I'm not trying to find a religion that perfectly fits me, but one that is on the same PLANET would be nice."
LOL! Yeah, me too. If you find one, let me know. The local UU is atheist social activist type. Didn't appeal to me at all. The local Episcopal and UCC didn't appeal to me either. It all depends on where a person lives what kind of people are going to be in those denominations.
Cynthia wrote: "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'd say intellectualizing about theology is easier to do than personal transformation--actually becoming christlike and living it. I observe most liberals get the social activism aspect, but then *some* (not all) don't see how they themselves contribute to the violence in the world by their rigid black and white beliefs and/or hostile behavior. You know what I mean?
XianAnarchist - A book entitled "armchair mystic" well, that was too obvious! I'll check it out.
"Apophatic" -- isn't that defining what God is not. Okay, how does that tie in with our subject here of overintellectualizing and hugging trees?
Borg, Marcus:the Heart Of Christianity Read and Discuss
MultiQuote
#42
- Master Contributing Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,346
- Joined: 21-December 04
-
- Location:
- United States
Posted 19 March 2005 - 03:30 PM
Quote
Wouldn't Taoism be considered impersonal too because it's nontheistic. And I like Taoism. Or how would you distinguish the two?
Taoism isn't Theistic, but it isn't non-Theistic either. Philosophical Taoism is fluid enough to incorporate either view depending on the individual. Plus, an individual can "import" their spirituality and not have conflict, for the most part.
What I like about Taoism is its view on the nature of Reality. Despite the fact that it says that "the Tao that can be named is not the Tao", it actually makes rather definitive statements about the Tao. LOL.
Quote
"Dialectic" - is that Hagel? Oh, my! I bet you can't explain it to me in 10 words or less.
Probably not in 10 words or less, no.
The dialectic method of philosophy can be traced back to Plato and Socrates who used it as a cross-examination method. I'm not particularly interested in this usage and meaning of the word.
Hegel gave the term new life and new meaning through his application of dialectical logic to history. Again, I don't believe that what I mean when I say "dialectic" is what Hegel might have meant, but it's probably got some similarities.
Over the past few months, from conversations on here and bnet, from reading and talking to my husband, I've had a few "A-ha!" experiences. As I often do, I took the terms and phrases that popped into my mind and googled them.
What I've found astounds me. It's nice to have thought up these ontological views on my own and THEN find others that have come to the same conclusions. At least I'm not completely nuts. Or I'm nuts, but not alone. 
Some people hold a dualistic view of Reality. Others hold a non-dualistic view of Reality. Arguments abound between these two schools of thought. Both have their problems and both have their merits. Over a period of time I came to decide that BOTH ARE RIGHT. Reality IS dualistic AND non-dualistic at the same time: duality in unity.
Since then I've found many a websight that explains it better than I can. One websight said this:
Quote
a point of view which recognizes that all is one, but this oneness can only be experienced in terms of duality and creative opposition. Adherents maintain that by understanding this viewpoint and its implications, one learns that "ultimate reality" and "everyday reality" are one and the same, and that existence itself is not only a pragmatic experience, but a deeply spiritual one as well.
So by understanding what has been called "dialectic monism", a person can come to see that this world (trees included) IS spiritual. We don't have to "transcend this world" or "get to heaven" or anything else that fosters the view that this "realm of existence" is just a way station. This life isn't about getting *out* of this life.
What we need to do is cherish this life and hug trees. We need to fix this planet and our relationship to it rather than expecting God to do it for us. We need to realize that when we hug a tree we are hugging GOD because all that is, is God, but God is more (and I believe we are more as well).
#43
- Master Contributing Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,346
- Joined: 21-December 04
-
- Location:
- United States
Posted 19 March 2005 - 06:10 PM
PS - I felt the need to add that Dialectical Monism and the Universal Dialectic are rather pantheistic in flavor. However, I think panENtheism can be reconciled to these philosophies. (Actually, there is debate among pantheists as to whether Taoism and Dialectical Monism aren't more panENtheistic than pantheistic.)
This post has been edited by AletheiaRivers: 19 March 2005 - 06:16 PM
#45
- New Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 64
- Joined: 06-February 05
Posted 20 March 2005 - 09:17 AM
Aletheia - If I tell google to define dialectic it seems to indicate that it could either mean a reasoning/logic technique (Hagel/Plato?) or a process involving struggle of opposites (more similar to what you mean?). Hey, did I just define that term in 10 words or less?!
In Huston Smith's "The World's Religions" Taoism section where he talks about the yin/yang symbol. He says: "this polarity sums up all of life's basic oppositions: good/evil, positive/negative, etc. But though the halves are in tension, they are not flatly opposed; they complement and balance each other. Later he says that in the Taoist perspective even good and evil are not head-on opposites. The West has tended to dichotomize the two.
This point is very very difficult for western Christianity to get. It goes against it's very core theology. Everything is dichotomized into good/bad, right/wrong, black/white. I just recently had a little aha glimpse realization about it recently, like I could maybe wrap my brain around it a little. It's about balance, unity, harmony not playing one against the other. But still, it is something I will need to meditate on.
In fact Huston Smith says that very thing: "Those who meditate on this profound symbol (yin/yang), Taoists maintain, will find that it affords better access to the worlds' secrets than any length of words and discussions."
I'm going into my "cave" to meditate now.
In Huston Smith's "The World's Religions" Taoism section where he talks about the yin/yang symbol. He says: "this polarity sums up all of life's basic oppositions: good/evil, positive/negative, etc. But though the halves are in tension, they are not flatly opposed; they complement and balance each other. Later he says that in the Taoist perspective even good and evil are not head-on opposites. The West has tended to dichotomize the two.
This point is very very difficult for western Christianity to get. It goes against it's very core theology. Everything is dichotomized into good/bad, right/wrong, black/white. I just recently had a little aha glimpse realization about it recently, like I could maybe wrap my brain around it a little. It's about balance, unity, harmony not playing one against the other. But still, it is something I will need to meditate on.
In fact Huston Smith says that very thing: "Those who meditate on this profound symbol (yin/yang), Taoists maintain, will find that it affords better access to the worlds' secrets than any length of words and discussions."
I'm going into my "cave" to meditate now.
#46
- Master Contributing Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,346
- Joined: 21-December 04
-
- Location:
- United States
Posted 20 March 2005 - 11:26 AM
Quote
Aletheia - If I tell google to define dialectic it seems to indicate that it could either mean a reasoning/logic technique (Hagel/Plato?) or a process involving struggle of opposites (more similar to what you mean?). Hey, did I just define that term in 10 words or less?!
Whoo hoo! Good job!
The second definition you mentioned - "struggle of opposites" - is closer to what I mean. However, it's not just the struggle of opposites that is the point, but that these opposites are actually ONE THING, not two. Yin/Yang is ONE THING (the circle), within which the polarities swirl and blend and are always changing.
The Unity of reality can NEVER have just good or love. It's opposite always has the POTENTIAL of existing, even if it never actuates. And you're right, that thought is different than most religions teach. .
Taoism says - "The only thing constant is change." That statement is much more profound than it appears at first glance.
Some terms that are helpful when thinking of reality as "dialectic" are: complementary, interconnected, contradictory, dynamic, potentiality.
Quote
In Huston Smith's "The World's Religions" Taoism section where he talks about the yin/yang symbol. He says: "this polarity sums up all of life's basic oppositions: good/evil, positive/negative, etc. But though the halves are in tension, they are not flatly opposed; they complement and balance each other. Later he says that in the Taoist perspective even good and evil are not head-on opposites. The West has tended to dichotomize the two.
In order for 'hot' to exist, so must 'cold.' The existence of 'hot,' in fact, is wholly dependent on the existence of 'cold' and ultimately arises from it, just as the existence of 'cold' in turn arises from that of 'hot' and is wholly dependent upon it.
The potential for evil HAS to exist, but that doesn't mean that evil actions have to take place. It's a fine line. I think evil actions exist and humans should work to overcome these thoughts and actions. That is where I shift away from Taoism slightly.
Taoism teaches going with the flow, which can be good, unless it leads an individual to tolerating the injustices humankind inflicts on each other. I completely appreciate the "Ultimate Reality" insights that Taoism has to offer on the necessity of opposites, but I still believe mankinds purpose or goal is to bring love and harmony to the world. That is where I appreciate Christianity.
This post has been edited by AletheiaRivers: 20 March 2005 - 11:27 AM
#47
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 598
- Joined: 15-January 05
Posted 20 March 2005 - 11:33 AM
"in order for hot to exist, so must cold..."
actually, I read an interesting proof attributed to Einstein recently that stated that cold is the absence or heat and evil is the absence of God. It struck a chord with me... I'll see if I can find the whole proof to post.
found it in time to edit
Does evil exist?
The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"
"God created everything? The professor asked.
"Yes sir", the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"
"Of course", replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."
The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
The young man's name — Albert Einstein.
actually, I read an interesting proof attributed to Einstein recently that stated that cold is the absence or heat and evil is the absence of God. It struck a chord with me... I'll see if I can find the whole proof to post.
found it in time to edit
Does evil exist?
The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"
"God created everything? The professor asked.
"Yes sir", the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"
"Of course", replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."
The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
The young man's name — Albert Einstein.
This post has been edited by Cynthia: 20 March 2005 - 11:38 AM
#48
- Master Contributing Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,346
- Joined: 21-December 04
-
- Location:
- United States
Posted 21 March 2005 - 12:15 AM
Yes, cold is the absence of heat.
If everything was hot all the time, everywhere, with no variation in temperature, could we truly know what "temperature" means? Would we truly know what "heat" means?
Along the same lines, darkness is the absence of light.
If everything was light everwhere all the time, with no variation, not even any shadows, would we truly know what "light" means?
Heat is heat because it dispells the "absence of heat" (cold) and light is light because it dispells the "absence of light" (dark).
Opposites aren't usually things that exist in and of themselves. The opposite of an "apple" is "no apple". The opposite of "good" is "no good" and the opposite of "evil" is "no evil".
But if evil is the absence of God, does that mean that if God didn't exist, all would be evil?
If everything was hot all the time, everywhere, with no variation in temperature, could we truly know what "temperature" means? Would we truly know what "heat" means?
Along the same lines, darkness is the absence of light.
If everything was light everwhere all the time, with no variation, not even any shadows, would we truly know what "light" means?
Heat is heat because it dispells the "absence of heat" (cold) and light is light because it dispells the "absence of light" (dark).
Opposites aren't usually things that exist in and of themselves. The opposite of an "apple" is "no apple". The opposite of "good" is "no good" and the opposite of "evil" is "no evil".
But if evil is the absence of God, does that mean that if God didn't exist, all would be evil?
#50
- Regular Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 206
- Joined: 12-December 04
-
- Location:
- North Port, FL
Posted 21 March 2005 - 10:01 AM
Quote
If God didn't exist, would there Be???
Ah Hah! Now Cynthia is asking the big questions!
One of our cats which has owned us for over 16 yrs. died this morning.
Not now, but I've got some thoughts about death I think I'd like to share sometime.Anyway, several comments:
Does anybody else think it is funny that we would argue whether it is easier to think than it is to meditate? It seems to me that both require discipline and we can be just as slack in one as the other. But, perhaps some of us are more "feeling" oriented than "thinking" oriented so we find it easier to do what seems to come naturally - for us. But, this is why we need one another.
Someone said that they find Process Theology too impersonal. It may be presented impersonally - that is, it is most often presented in the dry, impersonal, intellectual language of philosophy, but it is THE most pesonal theology I'm aware of - anthropomorphic, no; personal yes.
Quote
The second definition you mentioned - "struggle of opposites" - is closer to what I mean. However, it's not just the struggle of opposites that is the point, but that these opposites are actually ONE THING, not two. Yin/Yang is ONE THING (the circle), within which the polarities swirl and blend and are always changing.
This is one of the best description of God/dess as understood by process thought that I've seen. God is BOTH infinite and finite, absolute and relative, personal and impersonal...
But right now I'm out of time.
#51
- Master Contributing Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,346
- Joined: 21-December 04
-
- Location:
- United States
Posted 21 March 2005 - 10:33 AM
Panta,
I'm so sorry your kitty died! Two of my kitties are in the 15 year range, so I'm starting to get nervous and worried. I don't want to lose any of them! 
Thanks!
It's funny, I've struggled and do struggle against some of the conclusions in process philosophy (leaning a bit towards open theology as a halfway point), but I've realized that as I've tried to describe my personal musings about God/dess that I've been describing much of process thought.
I'm seriously considering re-reading the book I mentioned: She Who Changes by Carol Christ.
I was at Barnes and Noble last night and found myself so frustrated. I wanted so much to find a book that incorporates metaphysical musings on the nature of God/dess. One that balances apophatic and kataphatic theology and mysticism. One that incorporates Christianity.
Perhaps I need to read more of Matthew Fox's books? Any recommendations anyone?
I'm so sorry your kitty died!
Two of my kitties are in the 15 year range, so I'm starting to get nervous and worried. I don't want to lose any of them! Quote
This is one of the best description of God/dess as understood by process thought that I've seen. God is BOTH infinite and finite, absolute and relative, personal and impersonal...
Thanks!
It's funny, I've struggled and do struggle against some of the conclusions in process philosophy (leaning a bit towards open theology as a halfway point), but I've realized that as I've tried to describe my personal musings about God/dess that I've been describing much of process thought.
I'm seriously considering re-reading the book I mentioned: She Who Changes by Carol Christ.
I was at Barnes and Noble last night and found myself so frustrated. I wanted so much to find a book that incorporates metaphysical musings on the nature of God/dess. One that balances apophatic and kataphatic theology and mysticism. One that incorporates Christianity.
Perhaps I need to read more of Matthew Fox's books? Any recommendations anyone?
#52
- Master Contributing Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,346
- Joined: 21-December 04
-
- Location:
- United States
Posted 21 March 2005 - 11:36 AM
Quote
If God didn't exist, would there Be???
LOL! Nope!
Perhaps another way to put the question would be "If God didn't exist, would there Be-coming?"
One websight I like put it thusly. It is a little long, but worth reading.
Quote
"An infinite whole cannot possess finite qualities in and of itself. It may contain or encompass finite aspects within itself, but when taken as a totality, no finite qualities can be assigned to it. As a result, the only form which existence can take (in the ultimate sense) is the form of pure potential. Potential, unrealized, is infinite by nature - it is all possibilities with no defined outcomes.
This unlimited potential, by necessity, brings about the constant change in form and structure we observe around us. This occurs due to the fact that the infinite must produce finite manifestations (such as our universe and its myriad forms), for if it were not so, there would be no true potential. Potential must be capable of actualizing, or it is not potential at all.
If the ultimate sense of existence does not consist of pure potential, it consists of nothing at all, which constitutes non-existence, a violation of the second existential principle [establishing that non-existence cannot, by definition, exist]. Therefore, existence in the ultimate sense is not physical (for 'potential' is the opposite of 'actual'), but physicality must necessarily flow from it.
This can be somewhat difficult to understand at first glance, but with due contemplation, the meaning becomes clear. The nature of existence is, by necessity, such that the infinite will always produce finite (physical) manifestations which are subject to the overriding principle of physicality, which can best be described as 'constant change.'
This principle is most fundamental because if the finite (physical) were not subject to change, it would posess a quality of infinity and could no longer be called finite at all."
This unlimited potential, by necessity, brings about the constant change in form and structure we observe around us. This occurs due to the fact that the infinite must produce finite manifestations (such as our universe and its myriad forms), for if it were not so, there would be no true potential. Potential must be capable of actualizing, or it is not potential at all.
If the ultimate sense of existence does not consist of pure potential, it consists of nothing at all, which constitutes non-existence, a violation of the second existential principle [establishing that non-existence cannot, by definition, exist]. Therefore, existence in the ultimate sense is not physical (for 'potential' is the opposite of 'actual'), but physicality must necessarily flow from it.
This can be somewhat difficult to understand at first glance, but with due contemplation, the meaning becomes clear. The nature of existence is, by necessity, such that the infinite will always produce finite (physical) manifestations which are subject to the overriding principle of physicality, which can best be described as 'constant change.'
This principle is most fundamental because if the finite (physical) were not subject to change, it would posess a quality of infinity and could no longer be called finite at all."
#53
- Regular Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 206
- Joined: 12-December 04
-
- Location:
- North Port, FL
Posted 21 March 2005 - 02:16 PM
Uh-oh. It's getting really deeeeep in here! Cool!!
So, you identify God with Pure Potentiality - or in process terms, 'Creativity'. This would make, as you've implied, actuality a derivative of potentiality. And yet, as Aristotle discovered, there can be no potentiality apart from actuality. Potentiality must follow actuality - as the possibility of the tree can only follow from the actuality of the acorn, or the possibility of the adult can only follow from the actuality of the child. And yet, the acorn or the child existed as potentials before they existed as actualities. If all potentialities are derived from actualities, and all actualities were potential before they were actual, we can't really say that either pontentiality or actuality is ultimate.
Maybe there are TWO ULTIMATES? And neither of them is derived from the other? Now we're talkin' Process!! And, as you say, it is difficult to understand.
So, you identify God with Pure Potentiality - or in process terms, 'Creativity'. This would make, as you've implied, actuality a derivative of potentiality. And yet, as Aristotle discovered, there can be no potentiality apart from actuality. Potentiality must follow actuality - as the possibility of the tree can only follow from the actuality of the acorn, or the possibility of the adult can only follow from the actuality of the child. And yet, the acorn or the child existed as potentials before they existed as actualities. If all potentialities are derived from actualities, and all actualities were potential before they were actual, we can't really say that either pontentiality or actuality is ultimate.
Maybe there are TWO ULTIMATES? And neither of them is derived from the other? Now we're talkin' Process!! And, as you say, it is difficult to understand.
This post has been edited by PantaRhea: 21 March 2005 - 02:21 PM
#55
- Regular Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 173
- Joined: 10-May 04
-
- Gender:
- Male
-
- Location:
- Rockford, IL
Posted 21 March 2005 - 04:36 PM
Phanta: I too am sorry to hear about your cat died. Sometimes pets are more like "family" than "pets."
As an aside, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on death.
I agree. Since I score as an INFP (and apparently an extreme one at that) in the Myers-Briggs, I think I'll just sit around and soak up the vibes from all this thinking.
Which reminds me of David Tracy (who I believe is a process theologian) talks about "di-polar theism."
As an aside, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on death.
Quote
But, perhaps some of us are more "feeling" oriented than "thinking" oriented so we find it easier to do what seems to come naturally - for us. But, this is why we need one another.
I agree. Since I score as an INFP (and apparently an extreme one at that) in the Myers-Briggs, I think I'll just sit around and soak up the vibes from all this thinking.
Quote
Maybe there are TWO ULTIMATES? And neither of them is derived from the other? Now we're talkin' Process!! And, as you say, it is difficult to understand.
Which reminds me of David Tracy (who I believe is a process theologian) talks about "di-polar theism."
"According to Christian anarchists, there is only one source of authority to which Christians are ultimately answerable, the authority of God as embodied in the teachings of Jesus. Christian anarchists believe that freedom from government or Church is justified spiritually and will only be guided by the grace of God if men display compassion and turn the other cheek when confronted with violence." (From Anarchopedia)
#56
- Master Contributing Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,346
- Joined: 21-December 04
-
- Location:
- United States
Posted 21 March 2005 - 05:42 PM
I created a new thread to discuss, well, much of what has been discussed on this thread. LOL! It's under Christianity "Hybrids". It seems we've gotten a little off topic regarding "Heart of Christianity".
Hope that's ok.
It's under Christianity "Hybrids". It seems we've gotten a little off topic regarding "Heart of Christianity".Hope that's ok.
This post has been edited by AletheiaRivers: 21 March 2005 - 05:50 PM
#57
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 598
- Joined: 15-January 05
Posted 21 March 2005 - 05:52 PM
Panta - apologies! Got caught up in the thoughts and neglected condolences. Just imagine cat heaven... lots of mice, no one to get mad when you bring them in... birds that are slow, all the adventure you could want and then all the quiet, warm milk, lots of petting...
#58
- Master Contributing Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,187
- Joined: 08-January 05
-
- Location:
- New Mexico
Posted 24 March 2005 - 01:37 AM
Oh PantaR, sorry to hear about your kitty. I have a 16 year old cat too. I'm trying to prepare myself somehow.... After one of my cats died, I did feel her presence around me if I was paying attention. Prob. a feeling of being attuned to her memory or something.
On a different note, so XianA you are also a INFP. Haha, I'll bet there are at least 10 or so of us in here. :-)
--des
On a different note, so XianA you are also a INFP. Haha, I'll bet there are at least 10 or so of us in here. :-)
--des
"I used to operate at the Crabapple Cove Presbyterian Hospital and Christian Science Reading Room. It was a very small town." Hawkeye Pierce M*A*S*H
#59
- Guest Member
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 04-May 05
Posted 23 May 2005 - 09:42 PM
Hi folks,
I've read Borg's book "THOC" and it has greatly encouraged me in my faith in moving more progressive in my Christianity.
As to his comments on prayer, I, too, am a little puzzled as to how he sees intercessory prayer.
One of the things that I really appreciate, though, is his ability to offer a new perception on something that I have often taken for granted. Take his comment on spirituality for example: "Spirituality is paying attention to our relationship to God." What a wonderfully simple explanation that goes so much further than praying the Prayer of Jabez, finding a Purpose Driven Life, or asking perpetually, "What Would Jesus Do?" Christianity has made spirituality so complicated.
Similarly, I appreciate the concept that prayer is a variety of ways that we pay attention to God. Whenever I am concentrating on Him, that, I believe, is a form of prayer -- it is God and I in communion.
As to intercessory, Borg doesn't believe in an intervening God. Yet he still seems to pray in a manner that is asking God to do something. Maybe such requests are more acknowledgements of "thin places" or the unity we have with all other Christians rather than trying to get God to show up in our circumstances.
The bottom line for me, new as I am to PC, is that I am undecided as to what form my prayers should take while still being convinced that prayer is part of what it means to know God. At this stage in my faith quest, I don't try to get God to do anything. I ask, but maybe because my asking, rather than getting God to show up, simply reminds me of my place in the overall scheme of things.
trek
I've read Borg's book "THOC" and it has greatly encouraged me in my faith in moving more progressive in my Christianity.
As to his comments on prayer, I, too, am a little puzzled as to how he sees intercessory prayer.
One of the things that I really appreciate, though, is his ability to offer a new perception on something that I have often taken for granted. Take his comment on spirituality for example: "Spirituality is paying attention to our relationship to God." What a wonderfully simple explanation that goes so much further than praying the Prayer of Jabez, finding a Purpose Driven Life, or asking perpetually, "What Would Jesus Do?" Christianity has made spirituality so complicated.
Similarly, I appreciate the concept that prayer is a variety of ways that we pay attention to God. Whenever I am concentrating on Him, that, I believe, is a form of prayer -- it is God and I in communion.
As to intercessory, Borg doesn't believe in an intervening God. Yet he still seems to pray in a manner that is asking God to do something. Maybe such requests are more acknowledgements of "thin places" or the unity we have with all other Christians rather than trying to get God to show up in our circumstances.
The bottom line for me, new as I am to PC, is that I am undecided as to what form my prayers should take while still being convinced that prayer is part of what it means to know God. At this stage in my faith quest, I don't try to get God to do anything. I ask, but maybe because my asking, rather than getting God to show up, simply reminds me of my place in the overall scheme of things.
trek
#60
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 598
- Joined: 15-January 05
Posted 24 May 2005 - 05:08 PM
Welcome Trek! CS Lewis says that he doesn't pray to change God, he prays because it changes him.
Lots of people here don't believe in intercessionary prayer... I think . I do. I don't think that I will always, or even often, get what I ask for... but sometimes I do. Listening to myself pray helps me to "hear" myself.... I try to cut off the smiting prayers and check my heart - same for the greedy ones. So, I don't know... perhaps I'm there with CS. I have experienced what I know (can't prove, but Know) are answered prayers.
There is a lot of really great research with double blind studies on prayer that are pretty amazing. Many are summarized in a book called "Mind Body Health" - I'll look for it to give a better id.
Anybody else have experience with answered prayers?
Lots of people here don't believe in intercessionary prayer... I think
. I do. I don't think that I will always, or even often, get what I ask for... but sometimes I do. Listening to myself pray helps me to "hear" myself.... I try to cut off the smiting prayers and check my heart - same for the greedy ones. So, I don't know... perhaps I'm there with CS. I have experienced what I know (can't prove, but Know) are answered prayers. There is a lot of really great research with double blind studies on prayer that are pretty amazing. Many are summarized in a book called "Mind Body Health" - I'll look for it to give a better id.
Anybody else have experience with answered prayers?