Having Answers?

[thormas]

Tariki,

 

Popular science may indeed be more popular than the latest books by theologians or biblical scholars although I don't take that as a measure of their value. I guess we could also compare popular science books to the reading of Milton, Spencer, Shakespeare, Homer, Lawrence, the poetry of William Carlos Williams, histories of the world or the biographies of great persons of note. When presented with these names, many in the younger generations might google them rather than read them. Years ago, the late Andrew Greeley, a priest, sociologist and novelist wrote (in his book The Jesus Myth) that each of us needs at least some 'rough and ready answers' to the great question(s) of life. I sometimes wonder where moderns get such answers - but that is for another thread.

 

I have always looked on Truth or Meaning or Greeley's answers (if such exists) as that which, although the same for all humanity, must 'present' Itself to (or, conversely, be discovered by) men and women where they are found, in the great diversity of humanity. The Christian Story is one that has spoken to much of the world, while the same Truth has been presented in the Other Great Stories of humankind. Some like to hear and compare different stories or might be drawn to a story that resonates more profoundly in their lives wherever and whenever they live.

 

For me, the Christian Story is (or can be) highly relevant because like all of our Stories it attempts to speak Truth/Meaning about us. Even 30 years ago when I taught religion/theology, the typical response was, 'why didn't anyone ever explain this to us before in this way?" So, because Christianity is one of our Stories, because it is about us, because it attempt to provide answers to Greeley's questions, it must be salvaged/reformed/re-presented so it can he heard perhaps for the first time by ever new generations (and the older ones who now find it lacking in relevance).

 

To that point, you could say, "incarnational reality of the Living Word can manifest in ways beyond the wisdom of the wise" and, although true, I doubt it would speak to many of us in today's world. But there are ways to say it that could be heard, understood and therefore ‘give’ life.

 

In addition to Dunne, I have read the works of two Englishmen, one I discovered in the 70s, the other right before his death in 2012: John Macquarrie and John Hick. These are guys who 'passed over' into the thought worlds of philosophy, science, poetry, language, metaphor (and perhaps other Stories) to see with fresh eyes and explain in a new way what they knew or suspected was always there (in the Christian Story).

 

As for those who have called you "the son of satan", "the voice of satan", even "the anti-christ" - they never understood and sadly, perhaps never will. It is bullying, just like is done in all walks and ages of life and tells us more about the bully than the subject of their scorn (but you are in good company).

 

I do understand how one can get tired but just as you find peace in your grandchildren, you find what is new, what was there in your children - and the possibilities, all the possibilities of a truly Human life are presented again. I think there are always possibilities plus as a wise man once said to me of the bullies, ' you can't let the a--holes win!'

Edited December 10, 2016 by thormas

[tariki]

 

 

To that point, you could say, "incarnational reality of the Living Word can manifest in ways beyond the wisdom of the wise" and, although true, I doubt it would speak to many of us in today's world. But there are ways to say it that could be heard, understood and therefore ‘give’ life.

 

In addition to Dunne, I have read the works of two Englishmen, one I discovered in the 70s, the other right before his death in 2012: John Macquarrie and John Hick.

 

Hi Thomas,

 

Yes, that was my point, in that what IS heard, understood and gives life are those who, physically and mentally challenged themselves, pedal for the sake of others. As I see it, many hear such stories who will never have any further interest in a specifically Christian Story, however repackaged.

 

 

 

I was also famliar with John Macquarrie, I think it was his book on Systematic Theology I read about 30 years ago, and one on existentialism. Hick I read avidly (as he was a Universalist)

 

Thanks

[thormas]

If I understand you, you have an excellent point here Tariki.

 

As Soma said earlier about Eckhart, I pray to God to be rid of God, so too I often wonder if we speak of Jesus (and the Christian Story) to be rid of Jesus (to be rid of all Stories). By that I mean, the point is not to merely tell the story, however packaged (although that is necessary for it to be heard in the first place), the point is to be the Story. The point is not to worship Jesus, it is to be Jesus; the point is not to worship God, it is to be God: Divinity in Humanity, in each and every one of us (incarnation or giving flesh to Love in Man), so Humanity can be Divinity. Some Church Father (Augustine?) said, 'God became Man so Man can become God' and another spoke of deification (still not pantheism because what I am called to become, I am not, it precedes me).

 

I have Macquarie's Principles of Christian Theology here in my office (originally read in 76 and reviewing it presently) and now reading another Englishman, but this a woman, named Georgina Morley's book, 'John Macquarie's Natural Theology - The Grace of Being.' And Hick is/was a giant and one of my favorites.

 

Enough theology for now, I have to go shopping for my wife as we attempt to finish decorating for Christmas weeks before the day, as opposed to finishing it, as we typically do, on 12/24. Such an accomplishment would be heaven!

Edited December 10, 2016 by thormas

[tariki]

 

Enough theology for now, I have to go shopping for my wife as we attempt to finish decorating for Christmas weeks before the day, as opposed to finishing it, as we typically do, on 12/24. Such an accomplishment would be heaven!

Ah ha! "She who must be obeyed". A retelling of the Christian Story with a feminist twist.

[SteveS55]

"As for where we end up, I admit I do have more than a passing interest." That's an easy one, Thomas. It's where we are in the moment!

 

Steve

[thormas]

Steve,

 

HOPEfully it is a bit more, especially since some/many in the world might not be in anyone's version of heaven. And, on a lighter note, my moment will soon be 'shopping' which I consider a little bit of hell:)

[romansh]

I pray to God to be rid of God

 

While not overly familiar with Eckhart I do like his sound bites.

This one made me smile ... there is a deep irony here. At least for me.

 

But I find it interesting the different writing styles of those participating in this discussion as we discuss a new reformation.

There seem to be varying degrees of certainty expressed by the various authors.

 

Interesting.

[soma]

"As for where we end up, I admit I do have more than a passing interest." That's an easy one, Thomas. It's where we are in the moment!

 

I like that quote Steve, thanks. I like Christians I just came back from Asia and met with a Catholic choir and Thomas you are right they were open and considered many options and paths in life. I was staying at one house and the owner a lady saw me meditating and invited her pastor, not Catholic to save me so we opened the Bibles and just when he was about to start the sale pitch, I said I have a question. If Jesus asked you to become Buddhist would you? He would not answer the question. I like this man, he was very sincere, but he was not brought very deep in his teaching to be so afraid to answer and show his devotion so I gave my answer. I don't blame him I hope he didn't answer because he was concerned about the lady's faith. It was a great ice breaker to discuss on another level and later to laugh on a different level.

 

We come back to the states and that lady and her sister come and stay with my wife and I for a few days. The sister said she wanted to meditate hinting she wanted to learn. I didn't teacher because it was not where we were in the moment.

[tariki]

I pray to God to be rid of God

 

While not overly familiar with Eckhart I do like his sound bites.

This one made me smile ... there is a deep irony here. At least for me.

 

 

Perhaps like the irony of those who spend so much time railing against a God they do not believe in.

 

But its good to smile. Apparently if we do not laugh when we hear of the Tao we do not understand it. So they say. Anyway, Eckhart's soundbite here should maybe be heard alongside others, where he speaks of needing more than "thinking of God at all times", this because "when our thoughts end, so too will our God". Also his Sermon 22, where he speaks of going well beyond keeping "a place" in our hearts for God.

 

I see this as all having to do with the observation by Thomas that we must BECOME the story and not just read, an observation found in the verses of Pure Land "saints" when speaking of the hard graft of Dharmakaya in training for Bodhisattvahood!

 

( Getting technical, this could also have to do with Eckhart's distinction between Godhead and God. But as my pal Merton says we must be "circumspect" about such ( being a good Catholic and wishing to pass the censors ) I will leave such alone.

[SteveS55]

"Perhaps like the irony of those who spend so much time railing against a God they do not believe in."

 

I’m not so sure about this. Those who seem to be “railing” are probably simply struck by the unbelievable nature of belief. That’s probably a bit ironic in itself.

 

As for Eckhart, he was for the most part a theologically orthodox Catholic, so it may not be quite fair to read him out of context. But, out of context is where he becomes most interesting. He changes from Neoplatonist to panentheist when his writing is taken out of context. He is most interesting when he leaves the land of orthodoxy and travels to the realm of heresy. What is also interesting is that he was writing in the 14^th century. It’s reasonable to understand why he wasn’t understood then, but it’s harder to see why he isn’t understood now.

 

As for “becoming the Story”, I simply have no idea what that means. It is, I think and as I pointed out in an earlier post, a clever idea conjured up by the intellect with no real substance. It is far too abstract for that. It is perhaps an attempt to administer an antidote for our dualistic perspective, but that is a perceptual problem and not an intellectual one.

 

Steve

Edited December 11, 2016 by SteveS55

[romansh]

Perhaps like the irony of those who spend so much time railing against a God they do not believe in.

I see this as all having to do with the observation by Thomas that we must BECOME the story and not just read, an observation found in the verses of Pure Land "saints" when speaking of the hard graft of Dharmakaya in training for Bodhisattvahood!

 

Tariki

I found your post less than your usually careful circumspection ... but then that is my problem not yours.

 

The atheistically minded that rail against a God that does not exist are in my experience are primarily recent Christian apostates. But I think you a referring to those that object to the fall out [withholding medication to loved ones, being against abortion, against euthanasia, etc] of believing the God that does not exist.

 

The second point that is highlighted ... must I become the story? Really? I am reminded of Nietzsche's dragon with the golden scales. On the underside of each scale is written thou shalt. I could argue this is the story ... might we become dragon slayers?

 

Why must we become this Christian story? Whose interpretation of the story should I align myself with? Why not my own story?

 

As far as I can tell I am writ large in the substance of the universe. This I think is my story.

Edited December 11, 2016 by romansh

[thormas]

No one becomes any Story unless they so choose. We began talking about Stories as providing Answers (or Truth or Meaning) to Greeley questions and, it would follow, if a Story resonated in one's life, it could be accepted - if not, it would not. No 'must' or 'should' is demanded. I think it would also follow that for the one for whom a Story resonates, it would be 'my' story.

 

The counter to Nietzsche's 'thou shalt' is Steinbeck in East of Eden, Timshel: 'Thou Mayest.'

Edited December 11, 2016 by thormas

[romansh]

Thomas there nature of choice is not what it seems. See you on the free will thread.

[romansh]

The counter to Nietzsche's 'thou shalt' is Steinbeck in East of Eden, Timshel: 'Thou Mayest.'

 

This in no way a 'counter' ... There appears not to be a need to slay dragons with Thou Mayest written on the underside of their scale. Unless we take on certain interpretations of our religious texts.

 

So any story that resonates is OK? Fair enough. Thou may resonate .. with anything you want Thomas. But "choosing" what you want is a little more difficult.

[tariki]

Sorry, for better or worse my mind just interrelates one thing with another and sometimes sees the substance. All talk of "stories" relates for me with the Buddhist call to UNDERSTAND, i.e. to LIVE truth beyond any conceptual or intellectual grasp. I do not relate it to any particular "story". (Even my talk of irony relates to the same point)

 

And yes, for me being able to LIVE truth goes far beyond any "choice" and instead involves the reality of Grace, a mercy that often makes a mockery of our "choices".

 

Again, this all involves having no "answers" ( which often seem to preclude any possibility of LIVING truth )

 

Anyway, better stop before I muddy the waters any further.

[thormas]

Rom,

 

Wasn't talking about dragons, was talking about, as you indicated, 'must' become a story as captured in thou shalt (seemingly a command) as opposed to thou mayest (definitely a choice for or against). If it is about dragons - what dragons?

 

If a Story didn't resonate why would one 'become' it? Thou may presupposes choosing, so not sure of your point.

Edited December 11, 2016 by thormas

[thormas]

Tariki,

 

"to LIVE truth beyond any conceptual or intellectual grasp. I do not relate it to any particular "story."

 

I understand this to suggest that all the great stories speak to Truth, not exactly sure what you mean by 'beyond any conceptual or intellectual grasp.' Seems that is always part of truth although it is a reality that must be lived not merely thought about.

 

Also, I think I get your emphasis on the 'mercy of God' but still seems to me that the mercy must be 'met and accepted' by man (i.e. choice).

 

Just some questions while watching football.

[tariki]

Tariki,

 

"to LIVE truth beyond any conceptual or intellectual grasp. I do not relate it to any particular "story."

 

I understand this to suggest that all the great stories speak to Truth, not exactly sure what you mean by 'beyond any conceptual or intellectual grasp.' Seems that is always part of truth although it is a reality that must be lived not merely thought about.

 

Also, I think I get your emphasis on the 'mercy of God' but still seems to me that the mercy must be 'met and accepted' by man (i.e. choice).

 

Just some questions while watching football.

Being a Spurs supporter I have had enough of football for today......

 

As I see it, we can have a conceptual/intellectual understanding yet not LIVE it.

 

The ultimate "story" is Reality itself.

 

I am a non-theist. My understanding of "grace" is derived from Pure Land Buddhism.

 

Sorry, I do seem to strain words to their limits - and perhaps beyond! "Mercy" and "leaving all paths and becoming lost" are one and the same to my mind, as is the recognition that I have often been "saved" in spite of my choices and beliefs rather than because of them.

 

In many respects, I see "free will" as a red herring.

[romansh]

Sorry, for better or worse my mind just interrelates one thing with another ...

 

No problem Tariki ... everything is interrelated at least to some minimal degree.

 

But sometimes Joseph likes to keep things on topic. You said observation by Thomas that we must BECOME the story and here taken in context with a Christian story ... I don't see the must or thou shalt.

 

The universe is unfolding and we in it unfold too.

[romansh]

Rom,

 

Wasn't talking about dragons, was talking about, as you indicated, 'must' become a story as captured in thou shalt (seemingly a command) as opposed to thou mayest (definitely a choice for or against). If it is about dragons - what dragons?

 

If a Story didn't resonate why would one 'become' it? Thou may presupposes choosing, so not sure of your point.

 

 

A bit of context for dragons

[tariki]

No problem Tariki ... everything is interrelated at least to some minimal degree.

 

But sometimes Joseph likes to keep things on topic. You said observation by Thomas that we must BECOME the story and here taken in context with a Christian story ... I don't see the must or thou shalt.

 

The universe is unfolding and we in it unfold too.

You seem to be saying that we ARE the story whether we like it or not. (I would put a smiley face here but I' m on my kindle and can't see how)

 

What does "on topic" mean? ( Another smiley )

 

Though if all things are inter-related..........

[thormas]

I agree that we can have a conceptual/intellectual understanding yet not LIVE it and that the ultimate "story" is Reality itself.

I also am a non-theist. Perhaps at some point you can explain Pure Land Buddhism grace. For a 'neo-thesit' or pantheist, grace is simple Reality giving being (Self), so that all might be.

I think theology and these kinds of discussions must, of necessity 'strain words to their limits - and perhaps beyond.'

 

I will have to think on your 'recognition that I have often been "saved" in spite of my choices and beliefs rather than because of them.' However, for me, if a moment of being saved is presented, there is ultimately a decision to take it and thus be saved.

I guess I differ in that without "free will" there is no possibility of real 'dialogue' or relation with/to Reality. There is a bit of a paradox though in that I recognize that I am both from and of the very being I choose in order to be (my truest self and More).

[tariki]

Hi Thomas, just to say that perhaps twenty or so years ago* in one of the letters of Thomas Merton ( in this case to Aldous Huxley ), Merton spoke of true mysticism as being necessarily "the contact of two liberties". Much water has passed under the bridge since, as that little phrase has been discussed and debated and thought about on various Forums, initiated by my own questions. (I would really love to hear just what Merton would say now about this were he alive today, given his own "unfolding")

 

Pure Land Buddhism speaks of "self power" and "other power" ( Japanese "jiriki" and "tariki" ) and one of its myokonin ( "saint" ) wrote.....

 

O Saichi, will you tell us of Other Power?

Yes, but there is neither self power nor Other Power.

What is, is the Graceful Acceptance only.

 

I really do not want to dredge over old ground but you can find a few old threads on the "Other Wisdom Traditions" section of this Forum.

 

Thanks.

 

EDIT:- *I meant when I first read the letter, it was actually written in the 1950's.

Edited December 11, 2016 by tariki

[romansh]

You seem to be saying that we ARE the story whether we like it or not. (I would put a smiley face here but I' m on my kindle and can't see how)

 

What does "on topic" mean? ( Another smiley )

 

Though if all things are inter-related..........

 

There I added the smiley.

 

Sort of ... I (and by inference we) are not what we seem. I would delete the definite article between the ARE and story. We are story. Ultimately there no separation between you, me, other, animate and inanimate.

 

On topic ... the general idea behind this thread is agnosticism and what we can say with certainty. The 'benefits' of doubt and certainty. cf my byline from Douglas Adams.

 

While I do find that topics do wander ... one outcome of keeping them "on topic" is a particular idea can be explored more coherently but on the other hand my might not go to interesting places.

 

Also ... Stephen Batchelor argues strongly that Buddhism is agnostic in nature.

Edited December 12, 2016 by romansh

[romansh]

I agree that we can have a conceptual/intellectual understanding yet not LIVE it and that the ultimate "story" is Reality itself.

 

I agree ... I can have a reasonable understanding of chemistry ... and still fall in the trap that it is the chemistry that drives me and not realize it.

 

I was under the impression that you had panentheist leanings Thomas. Did I miss something?

 

I have often been "saved" in spite of my choices and beliefs In my book it is the recognition that there is nothing to be saved (or need for forgiveness).

Edited December 12, 2016 by romansh