Fundamental (not -ist) Theology

[AletheiaRivers]

When I use the word "relate" I'm certainly not thinking that God was LONELY. It's a metaphysical concept I've come across time and time again in various places that ties in with "receiving in order to give".

 

Anyway, I don't think God created us because God NEEDED our love. Could God have WANTED to give love to someone or something other than himself? Could God have wanted to share Godself with other creatures? Could God have desired to share the dance of life with as many beings as possible (ala Eastern Orthodoxy)? Sure, why not? Seems as valid a reason for God to create as any other theory I've heard. It offers more hope and reason for living TO ME than thinking that I'm some dream of God that, when God decides to finally wake up, POOF! everything is gone.

 

I haven't been participating in any "deep" discussions because basically, I'm burned out. I'm willing to bet this comes across in my tone. I'm sorry if it does. I usually enjoy these discussions (as you probably have noticed).

[FredP]

It offers more hope and reason for living TO ME than thinking that I'm some dream of God that, when God decides to finally wake up, POOF! everything is gone.

Well that's not a fair characterization of anything I've ever said, but I'm willing to put it into the "burned out" category. I kind of am too... It's too nice out, and I'm too busy getting ready for the new arrival in a couple months.

 

On the topic of the Trinity though, check out my new necklace.

[AletheiaRivers]

Awesome necklace. I love Celtic knotwork. Actually, my avatar here for a while was a Celtic knot, although not the trinity one.

 

I didn't say what I said to characterize anything that you said. I said what I said to refer to when I've said that I "worked out" two ontological views - one monistic and one not monistic - that seem to be logical, valid views of reality. At that point in my ontological musings I decided to embrace the non-monistic view because it gives MY LIFE more meaning.

 

I seriously went down the monistic path for a while as I studied Hinduism and the Kabbalah and a little Buddhism. I felt meaningless. I imagine that my views and feelings could change toward that ontology someday. A lot of it I know has to do with ME and not necessarily with the ontological view.

 

On a side note, you said:

God didn't create us in order to relate, but in order to manifest and express the relationship that is already complete within the Divine Being itself.

 

This is actually pretty close to what I mean by "relate". Only in my view, God created life in order to SHARE this already complete relationship with beings that (maybe) need to grow into this "relationship".

 

Now look what you've done! You've made me discuss theology!

[FredP]

I seriously went down the monistic path for a while as I studied Hinduism and the Kabbalah and a little Buddhism. I felt meaningless. I imagine that my views and feelings could change toward that ontology someday. A lot of it I know has to do with ME and not necessarily with the ontological view.

I am not a monist in the sense that self is illusion, we are God's dream, etc. I've said before that we are (paradoxically?) truly divine and truly human. (Remember that good ol' Christology thread? ) I understand how this plugs into your personal feelings though. For me, I feel more meaningful knowing that my being is rooted in infinite Meaningfulness.

 

Now look what you've done! You've made me discuss theology! 

I seem to have that effect on people.

[FredP]

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopi...=4139#entry4139

 

Whoa, deja vu.

[cunninglily]

Well that's not a fair characterization of anything I've ever said, but I'm willing to put it into the "burned out" category.  I kind of am too...  It's too nice out, and I'm too busy getting ready for the new arrival in a couple months.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Feeling "burned out" seems to be "going around". In my case though it is not a burn out from study and discussion but of everything else that competes with this.

 

Another thing that is contributing to my silence is my attempt to get caught up in reading and I've been focusing on the "quest" scholars these last couple of weeks. I'm presently reading Burton Mack's "The Book of Q" and recently finished Michael McClymond's "Familiar Stranger". Borg's "Reading the Bible..." follows. Assimilating new material and new thoughts always shuts me up for a while. There is a sense in which both belief and disbelief are alike suspended and there is nothing much to say. Experience suggests that this won't last too long.

 

 

lily

[FredP]

I'm presently reading Burton Mack's "The Book of Q" and recently finished Michael McClymond's "Familiar Stranger". Borg's "Reading the Bible..." follows.

I tried to read Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth, but I just couldn't stomach the postmodern deconstructionist political propaganda. The amazon.com review "Politically-inspired fantasy" sums it up neatly. For a liberal historical-critical approach to Jesus, Crossan's The Historical Jesus is in a whole different league. I've never heard of McClymond. I tried to read Donald Spoto's The Hidden Jesus, which I sort of liked, but it just didn't keep my attention. Maybe it wasn't different enough from other stuff I've read, or maybe it was my last week on the train downtown and I just didn't feel like reading. Or maybe I've had my fill of historical criticism!

[cunninglily]

Or maybe I've had my fill of historical criticism!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, i have a confession to make. I've tried to read these guys before...couldn't get through Spong, or Crossan, or Mack, or Borg. None of them held my attention. Elaine Pagels holds my attention, but her offerings are meagre and leave lots of room for the imagination to roam freely, which may be why I like her. Fact is, and I say this at the risk of sounding arrogant, that most of the conclusions these guys draw I've drawn and quatered long ago. In other words, they don't surprise me with their findings...some of it is good for a game of "religious trivial pursuit" type wellI'llbedamned did you know? stuff, but none of these guys seem too "on fire for God" to me... Borg...I dunno yet...I've yet to get through one of his books, but I can easily see how someone could get their "fill of historical criticism". It ain't historical criticism that sets a man on his head is it? but then the Muse can use anything.

 

lily

[FredP]

... none of these guys seem too "on fire for God" to me ... I've yet to get through one of his books, but I can easily see how someone could get their "fill of historical criticism". It ain't historical criticism that sets a man on his head is it? but then the Muse can use anything.

I'd say historical criticism is just one of many anchors holding the whole thing in place. It's a valuable check and balance against superstition (including jumping from a harsh superstition to another softer, gentler one).

 

I don't think everybody gets "on fire for God," or at least expresses their fire in the same ways. I think that's a personality trait to some extent. I'd say Spong is very much on fire for a modern, inclusive church. While I have a number of theological bones to pick with him, I still very much admire the tenacity with which he has stood his ground and presented his case. Crossan's fire is his dry, Irish wit, and sheer intellectual brilliance. I don't think I necessarily look to any of them for groundbreaking ideas anymore, but their influence has definitely made a mark on my spiritual outlook as it is today. But hey, if the stuff is old hat for you, why bore yourself with it.

[cunninglily]

  But hey, if the stuff is old hat for you, why bore yourself with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Touche.

 

There are a great many things that I don't know. Why I struck the pose I struck in my previous post is just one of them. Perhaps I'm on the defensive. I know full well that no one delves as deeply into these studies as these people have and do without a fire fueling them, just as well as I know that I would not be reading them, or wanting to, if it is truly all "old hat" to me. Forgive my arrogance and carelessness. I am actually quite proud of the courageous scholarship and questing spirit demonstrated in the whole endeavor to find the roots of our tradition and I do think its important.

 

lily

[FredP]

Well, you know I wasn't implying that you were being arrogant or careless. The stuff definitely isn't for everybody.

[cunninglily]

Well, you know I wasn't implying that you were being arrogant or careless.  The stuff definitely isn't for everybody.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're too kind. I'm actually going to keep chugging away at it. Burton Macks chapter on "Galilee Before the War" in his "The Book of Q" is actually quite interesting. What frustrates me is that I am sure there are those out there that would dispute every word he writes, (in fact, on the JesusMysteries discussion board there was a recent debate regarding whether or not Galilee even existed) and I, not being a scholar, can not always discern whether I am being fed another fiction or not. To seriously read "this stuff" one must seriously read this stuff, if you know what I mean.

 

 

lily

[AletheiaRivers]

I, not being a scholar, can not always discern whether I am being fed another fiction or not.

 

Since I hadn't heard of him, I looked him (Mack) up on amazon. You're right, there are people (many many many people) that disagree with what he says. Sounds like even historians who are NOT Christian disagree with what he says. Between what you, Fred and the amazon reviewers have to say, I won't put him on my reading list.

 

I'm loving my latest book "God, a Guide for the Perplexed". I recently watched a hour long interview with the author here: Keith Ward Interview on Meaning of Life TV

 

It's a really cool websight. There are interviews with Freeman Dyson, Arthur Peacocke, Steven Pinker, John Polkinghorne, Huston Smith, Brian Swimme, and lots of others.

[cunninglily]

(in fact, on the JesusMysteries discussion board there was a recent debate regarding whether or not Galilee even existed)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

sorry. correction in order. the debate on the jesusmysteries discussion board was on whether or not Nazareth existed, not Galilee. As far as I know, there is no debate over the existence of Galilee. Yet.

 

 

lily

[FredP]

(in fact, on the JesusMysteries discussion board there was a recent debate regarding whether or not Galilee even existed)

In fact, this is my biggest beef with the excessive "Mysteries" side of the discussion: they often go so far as to claim that there was no historical aspect to Christianity whatsoever. I felt that Alvin Boyd Kuhn's A Rebirth for Christianity, for example, was really excellent in every way, except for this one thing. (He didn't adamantly reject the historicity of Jesus, but basically made it a moot point, saying that everything important about Jesus came from earlier Egyptian sources anyway.) I think this is just as historically careless as saying that every word in the Gospels happened exactly "as it is written." Perhaps part of my aforementioned appreciation of historical criticism is that it helps to steer between these camps, with at least some attempt to draw on germane evidence. I do disagree with the Jesus Seminar camp that Jesus' ethical sayings and teachings (as determined by the Jesus Seminar, of course) should form the core of the Christian message; but a historically/critically determined life of Jesus has much to say to Christianity.

[cunninglily]

I do disagree with the Jesus Seminar camp that Jesus' ethical sayings and teachings (as determined by the Jesus Seminar, of course) should form the core of the Christian message; but a historically/critically determined life of Jesus has much to say to Christianity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do they mean by the 'ethical sayings and teachings' of Jesus as those that are not "apocalyptic" in nature and tone? Or does this also include the sayings attributed to Jesus that identifies him as the Son of God? There does seem to be a trend (and I haven't read enough historical origins books yet to really judge) toward strengthening Jesus the Sage and relativizing Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet and Jesus the only Son of God. Maybe this only seems so because Jesus the Sage is perhaps easier to substantiate historically and discretely and some of these guys are writing as academics. But what would you say Fred should form the core of the Christian message? Christ in you the hope of Glory? If so, I tend to agree...but reading this stuff does make it seem that this particular aspect of the Christian message evolved after the death of Jesus and generations after the first followers of Jesus and so raises some important questions. Such as, "what is a religion and how does it grow?" "Do any religions enter history fully formed from its beginnings or do they all, as my boyfriend would say, enter history as a grain of sand in the oyster of time, and accrete until they become pearls?"

 

lily

[FredP]

Do they mean by the 'ethical sayings and teachings' of Jesus as those that are not "apocalyptic" in nature and tone? Or does this also include the sayings attributed to Jesus that identifies him as the Son of God?

Well, the apocalyptic sayings, or anything that identifies himself as the Son of God, are obviously a later layer of theological interpretation, so they can be redacted away from the original social/political/ethical content with the convenient stroke of the scholarly pen. See how it works? Here are your scissors, now you try it...

 

The multi-layer "redaction" approach probably does reveal some interesting insights from time to time, but I think it requires far too much optimism to apply across the board. There are so many unchechecked and unfounded assumptions lurking in these types of analyses, that it's hard to come away from it really sure you've got a feel for how everything came together. I mean, there are some clear, obvious cases of it -- Matthew, for example, contains more than 600 of the 661 verses in Mark, almost verbatim -- but when you're looking at a single text for development over time, I can't see how it's possible to come away with an objective judgment. Crossan is probably the clearest about his methodological assumptions, and he usually has the courage to admit when he's jumping out onto a limb! But none of that makes the problem go away.

 

There does seem to be a trend (and I haven't read enough historical origins books yet to really judge) toward strengthening Jesus the Sage and relativizing Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet and Jesus the only Son of God.

Yep.

 

But what would you say Fred should form the core of the Christian message?

A long time ago, in a topic far, far away I said that "The goal of Christianity is to be a witness to, and a sign of, the good news that the world comes from God, and is restored to God, and that a particular kind of life -- personal, social, spiritual, etc. -- necessarily flows from that." Perhaps that's the "Christian message" that we go tell on the mountain, as it were: the "Good News." Beyond that is the mystery of what all that means.

 

... but reading this stuff does make it seem that this particular aspect of the Christian message evolved after the death of Jesus and generations after the first followers of Jesus and so raises some important questions. Such as, "what is a religion and how does it grow?" "Do any religions enter history fully formed from its beginnings or do they all, as my boyfriend would say, enter history as a grain of sand in the oyster of time, and accrete until they become pearls?"

I don't know if those questions have really exact answers, but I'd be pretty confident about saying that no religion enters history fully formed. But that's not a bad thing.

[cunninglily]

Well, the apocalyptic sayings, or anything that identifies himself as the Son of God, are obviously a later layer of theological interpretation, so they can be redacted away from the original social/political/ethical content with the convenient stroke of the scholarly pen. See how it works? Here are your scissors, now you try it...

 

But that the apocalyptic sayings are obviously a later layer of theological interpretation is an important consideration. Why it is important and in what way seems to determine the attitude of any conclusions drawn. What fascinates me is the human creative dimension in the making of the scriptures and especially the parallels drawn from the traditions of the larger Greco-Roman culture. Burton Mack makes good use of these in his explanations of how these accretions may have occurred and in what context. Concepts such as "ethos", "heuresis" and "conversatio" suggest a whole different world in which "mythmaking" and "learning" were not so far apart, and in which truth and falsehood had completely different connotations than they do today. Part of why this particular aspect of the scholarship fascinates me so much is that it rings some of the same bells that Peter Kingsley's descriptions of the sons of Apollo and the ancient Greek philosophers such as Parmenides does in his book, "Reality". There is a totally different attitude toward what it is to be a human being that rises up in some of these hellenistic Greek references that attracts me as something that has become distorted by sin consciousness in Christianity over time.

 

I have to cut this shorter than I'd like...

 

...be back later,

 

 

lily

[FredP]

But that the apocalyptic sayings are obviously a later layer of theological interpretation is an important consideration. Why it is important and in what way seems to determine the attitude of any conclusions drawn.

It is an important consideration. And I suppose it will be up to history (the history of historical criticism) to see how well the theory holds up. I wouldn't say it's so much incorrect, necessarily, as notoriously susceptible to the philosophical and political committments of the ones doing the studies. I do basically agree with the current trend, that there are good textual reasons to put the "sagely" sayings of Jesus in the earliest layer of historical development; but at the same time I'm always trying to ask myself what hidden agendas I and others may have for wanting to put them there so badly. Just a little healthy postmodern self-skepticism, you know?

 

Where I differ from the trend, though, is in the fact that I regard the "later layers of textual development," not primarily as the attempt to squash dissenting voices and create a centralized theological regime, but as the attempt to unravel the fundamental implications of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. (Not that I'm naive enough to think that creating a theological regime hasn't been on the agenda ever since Christianity became uneasy bedfellows with the dominant political power, but anyway...) I don't see development as degeneration, but as evolution, driven by the fundamental impulse of all things towards higher and higher forms. Maybe part of the difference lies in the fact that accorting to scientific "orthodoxy," any appeal to such an impulse is teleological nonsense. Things don't get better, they just get different. So that's my "Yes, but...," as always.

 

... Concepts such as "ethos", "heuresis" and "conversatio" suggest a whole different world in which "mythmaking" and "learning" were not so far apart, and in which truth and falsehood had completely different connotations than they do today.

It is true, as I've said before, that the dominant modern mode of consciousness does equate truth with facticity to a degree that would not have made sense to the ancients. But "a whole different world ... in which truth and falsehood had completely different connotations" sounds a little extreme to me. That sounds like what a person says just before they're about to deconstruct something they don't agree with.

[AletheiaRivers]

Where I differ from the trend, though, is in the fact that I regard the "later layers of textual development," not primarily as the attempt to squash dissenting voices and create a centralized theological regime, but as the attempt to unravel the fundamental implications of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

 

As a JW I was basically taught that the church fathers were part of a "great apostacy" created by Satan to turn Christians from the "original" teachings of Jesus. I've had that idea in the back of my mind since I left JW's in 1999.

 

This past year I've had occasion to learn (thanks Teaching Company) a bit about the views of many "heretical" Christians. Some of the ideas they had were pretty cool, but overall, I came away from the lectures thinking "Good grief, no wonder the church fathers called them heretics, some of them were really WEIRD!" I'm coming to appreciate why they made some of the choices they did in what books to put in and what books to leave out.

 

I do think it's sad, however, that so many of the "heretical" books had to be hidden so that they weren't destroyed. Especially since some books that make up the canon (imo) walk the "heretical line" when compared with the rest of the Christian scriptures.

 

I think of the Eastern Orthodox idea of Theosis and I can't remember where that idea is "taught" in the Bible. It's "funny" that the concept is something I thought of while I was pagan. I ask myself, why did some of the church fathers conceive of such an idea? Is it an idea possibly borrowed from paganism? I highly doubt it because paganism (as I understand it) during that time was polytheistic.

 

Anyway ... I guess what I'm trying to say is that I've come to appreciate that some of the church fathers, by todays "fundamentalist" standards, would probably be called heretical if they were alive and writing today.

[FredP]

... I ask myself, why did some of the church fathers conceive of such an idea? Is it an idea possibly borrowed from paganism? I highly doubt it because paganism (as I understand it) during that time was polytheistic.

Surprise! Neither of the dominant religious systems (Gnosticism and Pagan Neoplatonism) were polytheistic. The church fathers rejected Gnosticism because, among other things, it claimed that the World was the product of an inferior "half-god" (demiurgos), which was inconsistent with the doctrine of the goodness of creation. They rejected Pagan NP because it claimed that the mediator between God and the World (Logos, i.e. Reason, Intellect, Pattern, etc.) was a mere creation of God, and not Very God, which was inconsistent with the doctrine of the two natures of Christ.

 

I find it very curious, in light of the silliness of much of today's popular Wicca craze, that most of what Wicca rejects about Christianity was also true of classical Paganism, especially Neoplatonism. I generally roll my eyes whenever somebody tells me that they're a "pagan." If they're lucky, I won't be in the mood to call them on it.

[AletheiaRivers]

I guess my point was that the early church fathers were probably more influenced by "pagan" ideas than they would have cared to admit (and I don't mean that in a bad way). Whether the Gnostics or the Neoplatonists (which ISN'T what I had in mind) were polytheistic or monotheistic really doesn't matter, other than I was "giving credit" to the early church fathers for possibly coming up with an idea on their own, rather than "borrowing" it.

 

Did they "borrow" it (theosis)?

 

In my mind, some of the ideas that the "orthodox" early church fathers had were quite "unbiblical" and I APPRECIATE that. Here they were, arguing against "heresy", when much of what they were dialoguing about would be considered heretical by much of Christianity today.

 

that most of what Wicca rejects about Christianity was also true of classical Paganism, especially Neoplatonism.

 

What does Wicca reject about Christianity that was also true of classical Paganism?

 

I generally roll my eyes whenever somebody tells me that they're a "pagan." If they're lucky, I won't be in the mood to call them on it.

 

Hmmm. Guess it depends on how someone defines pagan. I was pagan in that I wasn't Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, etc ... etc ... etc ... I believed (believe) in God/dess. I was (am) monotheistic. I was (am) panentheistic. I was (am) experiential/mystical. Only difference now is that I am relooking at what Jesus might have been and who he might have been.

 

I admit that I am trying to fit Christianity into my "naturalistic" ontology. Doing that makes Jesus something very different than what many Christians believe Jesus to be. That brings me back around to a "theosis" idea. LOL.

Edited June 15, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[FredP]

I guess my point was that the early church fathers were probably more influenced by "pagan" ideas than they would have cared to admit (and I don't mean that in a bad way).    Whether the Gnostics or the Neoplatonists (which ISN'T what I had in mind) were polytheistic or monotheistic really doesn't matter, other than I was "giving credit" to the early church fathers for possibly coming up with an idea on their own, rather than "borrowing" it.

 

Did they "borrow" it (theosis)?

The church fathers were very explicit in their adoption of many pagan ideas (Augustine regarded Plato with as profuse a reverence as one could muster), and just as explicit in their rejection of others. As for the theosis question, I'm not really qualified to pontificate on the history of that idea, as I don't have a strong Eastern Orthodox background. But my feel is that the New Testament was more their inspiration for it than anything else.

 

What does Wicca reject about Christianity that was also true of classical Paganism?

Well, monotheism, for example. Neoplatonism is fiercely and robustly monotheistic. Not that you couldn't, in theory, embrace Wicca and be a monotheist, but... well, I've yet to see someone do it. It also elevates nature and natural processes as such to a nearly divine status. (Not to be confused with the idea that nature participates in the divine being, and is divine by virtue of that participation... hence the "as such" part.) While NP rightly regards nature very highly, it considers the realm of universal forms to be closer to God. (I mean, it is Plato-nism we're talking about after all! ) That would be the top two things I'd point out.

 

Hmmm. Guess it depends on how someone defines pagan. I was pagan in that I wasn't Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, etc ... etc ... etc ...

That was really the point I was trying to make. If it's just a negative label, it's not that useful. If it's a positive label, then it has a particular history, some of which sits rather uneasily with the contemporary practice of Wicca. Once again, in theory, it's possible to embrace this practice and have your head on spiritually and theologically. But I don't see much of it happening, and I imagine you don't either, or you wouldn't be looking to Christianity now. Of course, one could object that the average Christian isn't doing much better, and that's probably pretty accurate. Guess that's why we're here.

[AletheiaRivers]

That was really the point I was trying to make. If it's just a negative label, it's not that useful. If it's a positive label, then it has a particular history, some of which sits rather uneasily with the contemporary practice of Wicca.

 

That's why I think Neo-Paganism is a more honest label for most of what is practiced today. There is so much that has been changed (most don't practice human sacrifice for example) and so much that has been lost. I too get a laugh at those that think their tradition has survived intact from "ancient times".

 

Thank goodness that Wicca isn't synonymous with either paganism or neo-paganism. Most pagans I know wouldn't EVER call themselves Wiccan. To Wicca's credit, there is a HUGE movement within to clear out the "fluffiness". Either way though, as started by Gardener, Wicca is hardline polytheistic (despite what many authors write), and I could never embrace polytheism.

 

Once again, in theory, it's possible to embrace this practice and have your head on spiritually and theologically. But I don't see much of it happening, and I imagine you don't either, or you wouldn't be looking to Christianity now.

 

I don't find much within modern paganism (in my state (Ut) at least) to compel me. If I did, it's very possible that I might still be there. It was my philosophical meanderings that made me unhappy with the "empty-headedness" I found in most of the books I was reading. I'm glad to find many of my ideas are at home (and have been all along) in Christianity.

[cunninglily]

Fred wrote:

Once again, in theory, it's possible to embrace this practice and have your head on spiritually and theologically. But I don't see much of it happening, and I imagine you don't either, or you wouldn't be looking to Christianity now.

 

Aletheia wrote:

I don't find much within modern paganism (in my state (Ut) at least) to compel me. If I did, it's very possible that I might still be there. It was my philosophical meanderings that made me unhappy with the "empty-headedness" I found in most of the books I was reading. I'm glad to find many of my ideas are at home (and have been all along) in Christianity.

 

All religions share this in common, that there are those who embrace it who have "their head on spiritually and theologically", and those that don't. What compels me in modern paganism and which stays with me even now is the frank experimentation with the simple, and often sparse materials of its traditions. Christianity has accrued a lot, much of it an embarrassment if I can be blunt, and so we have more to work with and much more to work against. The Pagans are in the midst of a reconstruction unhindered (for the most part) by dogma, literalism, and institutionalism and so they are free to create rituals and traditions and initiations which accord with their own inner authority and aesthetic sense. But I do agree that there is a lot of romanticizing concerning what Paganism actually was before Christianity and a tendency to define itself according to what it is not, namely Christianity. What attracts me in what I find best in Paganism is its endeavors to commune with the Otherworld through the Land (which naturally includes ones' own physicality and bodily realities) and ones own connection with it and to be transformed by that. There is much less emphasis on being "good" and much more on simply being Aware on every possible level of where and how this world and the Otherworld meet and influence one another and acting appropriately according to that. Paganism is much more chthonic and oftheearth...their Gods are "here" in a way that Christianities God has traditionally not, except of course in Jesus and too much exclusively and uniquely in him in my opinion. I think the potential in Christ Jesus is to be very much "here" and of the earth and I can share with the Pagans this instinct to search for Him, or a glimpse of Him, like a roebuck in the thicket, in the Land and in my own encounters with it. The Land as metaphor represents the mysterious, unknown and darkest, deepest aspects of our own psyches and I believe that Jesus is there. I also appreciate the simplicity and therefore creativity of some of the Pagan rituals, and the freedom to find ones own way, with the raw materials of essential religion or religious impulse, to guide you.

 

But we are getting way off topic, aren't we? A question that keeps popping up for me as I am reading these historical quest books, is where is God in all this? How does our understanding of scripture and revelation unfolding in time through the creativity of man affect our understanding of God? Any ideas or thoughts?

 

lily