To All:
I am starting a discussion of the book,"The Heart of Christianity" by Marcus Borg. I would like to initiate the process on 1 April with suggestions of how we might proceed. Suggestions are welcome, of course.
Jeep

I am actually reading another book by Mr. Borg now. Sorry, wish I'd read this thread earlier.

To All:

My copy of "The Heart of Christianity" has arrived. I have perused the title page, the loc data, the Table of Contents, the Index, and the Preface.

I was immediately attracted to the issues and authors listed in the Index, and the paradigmatic approach chosen by the author. As a personality prone to thinking "In my Head", I am anticipating an experience "in my heart".

My first posting will be a commentary on Chapter 1; "The Heart of Christianity in a Time of Change"

Mzmolly: Have you completed the book of Borg's you were reading? How about pitching in on this one?

I'll be getting my copy of this book soon. Look forward to the discussion! : )

To All:

Welcome, Bro. Rog.

Here are my comments on Chapter 1:

1 (pg 2) Yes, I am deeply divided about the heart of the Christian faith. As noted in footnote 3 for 2001, 27% believed in Bible-Literalism. That did not include me.

2 (pg 18) I have not read the references noted in footnote 4, but I have read Thos. Kuhn's seminal book,"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", which popularised paradigmatic thinking.

3 (pg 19) The Western World was the subject of "The Great Conversation" of the 20th century, embodied in the "Great Books of the Western World, and its 102 "Great Ideas". The "unending conversation" referenced here became real to me as I fascilitated "Great Books Discussion Groups" over the years.

4 (pg 20) For me this is the task of the 21st Century, "the ongoing construction of what it means to be a Christian." Does the Bible define Christianity, or are there more modern forms of expression. The invention of writing seems to have triggered the first Axial Age, largely replacing the "Story Telling" of the earlier years in the evolution of man. Are we triggering a Second with the digital revolution and Cyberspace?

Jeep

To All:

Here are my comments on Part 1, Chapter 2...

I Faith:the way to the heart. I heard Dr. Borg speak on "Faithing, not Believing" before a packed St. John's Cathedral here in Denver. I had gone there disillusioned with "I believe", and came away with "I Trust In God" as a mantra.I was tired of the arguments over beliefs,and concerned about the "Wars over Faith". I heard his views of faith as "fiducia", and came away trusting in God.

2 (pg 31) Here I found that earlier experience affirmed. Faith is trust. "Growth in faith as trust casts out anxiety"(pg 32).

3 (pg 33) Fidelius: A radical centering in God: No more centering on Jesus as God. I am no longer Trinitarian in the "Earlier" sense. In the emerging paradigm, Jesus is my brother and mentor in the "Way"to God, a "Categorical imperative" if you will to embrace in "Faithing".

4 (pg 34) "The Vision Thing: "Holy" becomes "Wholeness" for me! I trust there can be wholeness in life in time as Borg seems to affirm here.

Jeep

ToAll:
I have just reviewed the thread as to reading and discussing Marcus Borg's Book,"The Heart of Christianity". While many checked out the page, no replies were forthcoming.
How am I to translate this?
Did all of you find it of no import?
Did any of you get the book and begin reading it, as I did? if so, was it not challenging enough to comment?
If any of you have been reading it, what do you suggest we do at this point?

Jeep

I'm not sure if it is even possible or credible to make this claim, but Borg's book is one of the best books I never read. My former pastor preached a sermon series on this book and I was deeply touched and stirred by the content that she presented.

I was particularly interested in the notion of the paradigm shift from holiness to wholeness. It seems that holiness (which still has meaning to me) has been used since before Jesus entered the scene as a way of keeping the world separated (this is holy, this is not).

I'm quite aware that it is absolutely ridiculous for me to comment on this book given that I have not read it (like high school english when I didn't read Madame Bovery!)

Hi Jeep!

I'm just about through the book myself. Didn't even know this discussion existed.
I think I will start where you left off on p. 35. My sense of God/dess or the Whole (as a Process Theist I don't understand God to be "Wholly Other") gives me that cautiously optimistic view. God/dess's power is not all-controlling or coercive, so I have to face the fact that "s--t happens", that life does involve tragedy, that evil does really exist and it's not simply an appearance of evil based on our ignorance of God/dess's plan.

At the same time, I see the influence of God/dess in everything. The universe is literally filled with God/dess's love.

There is a real struggle for people to connect with God who seems to be hidden beneath all kinds of theological and cultural baggage. I talked to a friend recently whose view of reality was as Borg described - hostile and threatening. He had been brought up in a rigid Christian home and had projected onto God the image of his father. He now calls himself an atheist but I think that he may be still rebelling against his father even though he's more than 50 yrs. old. Anyway, we've been discussing different views of God but he can't grasp any other concepts. As long as the term God is used, he associates it with all the baggage. If I can avoid the use of the term and just talk about the Whole, maybe he can make a connection. I'm trying to get used to substituting the term God/dess just to perhaps shock some into taking another look.

I have to be careful also, not to mistake my theological baggage for Reality. I have to remember that my conscious mind will always use symbols to point to reality, but the symbols can become false idols if I don't recognize them for what they are.

I bought the book a couple of weeks ago and am really enjoying it. I'm about 2/3 the through.

I also highly recommend "The God You Never Knew" and "God at 2000". The first is by M. Borg, the second is a compilation and is edited by M. Borg.

Panta said:

Well, it looks like I am getting the book a year too late. *g* But hey, at least I am getting it!

Great book - I heard Borg speak just after I read it and the defining idea that I came away with was that you can be a passionate christian without needing to take away from or denigrate any other faith. Somehow, for me, that took away my perceived hyprocrisy of going to church, believing, but not believing exclusively.

Hi all:

I just got the book on interlibrary loan. I'm hoping to start reading it tonight.

I've read several books by Marcus Borg and found that all of them spoke to me. Perhaps this is because his experience of faith is similar to mine in that I grew up in a Christian faith, left due to being unable to reconcile what I was supposed to believe with reality, and then discovering the wonderful reality of Christianity without the silly stuff.

I'll comment once I have got into the book.

Funny thing I ordered this book and didn't look at the date fo the discussion which was for April 2004!!! Wow I'm a year late. Anyway I am really glad I ordered (off the used books in Amazon). I have started it and I think it is wonderful.

I'd also recommend this one to conservative readers on this forum who want to know how we think. The reason is this is the least polarizing of any of the books I have read, validates the conservative position without taking it. And is much less liberal than, say, Spong. I like the way it itemizes the differences AND similarities.

This is also the most "spiritually oriented" book that I have read at the progressive wing (or new paradym) For those who don't like the word "paradym" don't get the book! :-)
Anyway I am going to really enjoy this and I just started.

I'm recommending this one to our church book club.



--des

Too bad this book discussion didn't really get off the ground.
I have the book and am willing to chat about it if anyone wants to.

It looks like several of us like Marcus Borg:
Jeep, Des, Cynthia, Aletheia, me, etc.

Hey we could try for a date of April 1 *2005*. It might give anyone else a chance to get this book if they haven't gotten it. I also bought "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time".


The way we do a book discussion in the Harry Potter for adults group is that someone summarizes the chapter, and then presents some questions for discussion. (of course someone could add questions). This has worked out very well for HP, not sure how well it would work out for Borg (a little different subject matter). Still it might be worth a go.

--des

Gee only Des pounced on that idea?!

Summarizing chapters and asking questions can get to be a lot of work. Unless we get a bunch of really enthusiastic responses, maybe just be more casual about it?

How about just mentioning some of the questions or issues that come up for people when reading Borgs books?

I think the implications of some of his ideas don't sink in sometimes. Like his panENtheism belief. That's huge. And I haven't found anybody that actually *uses* his metaphorical approach to scripture. It seems like people tend to stay stuck in the way they use the Bible. Practices don't seem to change.

One question for me is I just don't get his prayer requests when I know he doesn't believe in a God that actually does anything or actually responds. Yeah, he explains it somewhat in the book.

Anybody got thoughts on that one? Aletheia, I think you are a panENtheist. Do you believe that God responds to prayer requests or how does that work do you think?

I think Taoism and the energy/chi stuff makes more sense.

I have read and studied Marcus Borg's "The Heart of Christianity" and found it affirming and refeshing. What I particularily like was the emphasis transformation: the idea that you could focus on changing and transform your life rather than focusing on guilt, punishment and reward.

For me the way of transformation has been the acceptance and working with suffering. One aquires the grace to do this when one lets go of preoccupation with one's own ego and focuses on Christ. Unlike the self-absorbtion that comes with guilt, I find this liberating.

mgf50

MGF, but does Borg really state that "we" are the ones who make this transformation happen? Or, does he maintain traditional Christian thought that it is God Who initiates and provides the impetus and means for such transformations via Grace?

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.)

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

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

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.

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.

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).



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.



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.



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.



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

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.

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.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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!

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.


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.


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:

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.

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.

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?

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.


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:



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).

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.)

Today the planet is the only proper "in group." Participate joyfully in the sorrows of the world. We cannot cure the world of sorrows, but we can choose to live in joy.

Â

Joseph Campbell

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.

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.



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.

"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.

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 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.



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.