PantaRhea

One more option, PantaRhea:

 

5.) It ultimately doesn't matter because we all have the Christ spark (Christ-self, divine-self, true self, god self, anything but ego-self) at our core. So whether Jen is channelling Jesus or calling on her own divine nature, she is still sharing Divine Truth.

 

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

 

I ask, good fruit or not?

 

 

P.S. - PantaRhea, sometimes I just want to say that "You Rock!" on this board.

Oh, yes! Very good! The old pragmatic option, eh?

Just what does "ultimately matter"?

I've got a book sitting in front of me (It is All One Truth )authored by a guy I know (Bruce Adams) who claims to be in touch with his "Higher Self" and seeks to share "Divine Truth". This guy also announced one day in a discussion group that it really didn't ultimately matter if someone cold-bloodedly murdered his grandmother - because according to his "Divine Truth", ultimately there are no real values because there are no true "others" and every event that we see taking place is really just one of God's thoughts about Himself. Hmmmm. What kind of fruit will that produce?

I also wonder about the kind of fruit produced by Christian fundamentalism. I suspect there is a connection between the worship of a "Holy God" and the war in Iraq.

How much does it matter if we don't have the necessary critical ability to distinguish the good fruit from the bad?

I don't know the answers to my own questions. I think it is important though to ask them and see if we can apply a "community hermeneutic" to help us with this stuff. Yes?

Don

"How can it be meaningful to take a single step, if the whole journey is meaningless?" - Charles Birch, Regaining Compassion for Humanity and Nature , p. 206

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.

OK, I'll bite. "Jesus" reminds me of Harvey the rabbit. (Remember the movie with Jimmy Stewart?) I also see a lot of similarity between your post and the magician standing in front of the audience providing information which it wouldn't seem possible that he/she would have access to. One of the criticisms that I've run into, from a person that was sympathetic to the New Age movement, is that it seems to be infected with too much narcisstic grandiosity and magical thinking.

You don't seem to be offended necessarily by skepticism and that is good. I have been in conversation with another channeler who believes that any skepticism toward his claims is a sign of "hard-heartedness". I think that skepticism is good also. As Paulo Freire says:

And only by developing a permanently critical attitude can men overcome a posture of adjustment in order to become integrated with the spirit of the time.  To the extent that an epoch dynamically generates its own themes, men [and women] will have to make "more and more use of intellectual, and less and less of emotional and instinctive functions..."

 

You realize that your claims are incredulous, right? I gather that you wish to try to overcome this by offering knowledge ordinarily unavailabe to ordinary human beings? I suppose that will be effective. I'm not sure what other tactics could be used by aliens from another planet or spirits from another dimension to establish credibility.

 

Anyway, one doesn't have to be cynical, right? For those with a supernaturalistic worldview, the claim that one is communicating with an angel or spirit may be accepted. I'm afraid that many Christians will immediately conclude that your "Jesus" may be the Anti-Christ. I'm sure you've run into this many times.

 

Those with a materialistic worldview wouldn't accept your claims at all. It would seem obvious that you're nuts.

 

I've got to do some thinking about how I would fit your claims into my worldview. I don't believe reality is divided into spirit/matter and I don't believe reality consists only of what can be perceived by the five senses. I do believe that it is possible to experience God at the conscious level and I believe that it may be possible for a "mind" to survive the death of a brain since they are ontologically the same but not identical. So, what are the options?

1) You are suffering from some kind of psychological pathology.

2) You have an agenda which motivates you to deceive others. (Like Candid Camera?)

3) You are having some kind of extraordinary experience which your conscious mind interprets in the manner you've presented.

4) You actually are channeling an angel named "Jesus" and we are missing the boat if we don't take your presentation at face value.

 

There are most likely many more options which I can't think of right now, but I'm kind of settling on #3 until I learn more. Can you think of any options I might have missed?

 

But... the world is much bigger than my imagination.

I know what you mean!

Enough of this folderol!! Can't we just have a simple faith?

"Give me that Ol' Time Religion, that Ol Time Religion. Give me that Ol' Time Religion, 'cause it's good enough for me!"

It almost seems too elementary to discuss doesn't it?

 

I'm trying to decide if you meant that as a pun or if you were being dismissively snide? It's so hard to tell someone's intentions in this medium. I hope it was the former and that I am misreading you.

 

To say that God knows the future as though all possibilities have been actualized, would be to say that there is no freedom

 

But this is what many believe, even unintentionally, because they don't "follow a thought to it's logical conclusion".

 

I figured that most people that come to forum like this might have thought about the (or are in the process of thinking about the) "big picture" and so maybe I might get more thorough, thoughtfull answers and opinions than if I went and posted the question on a fundie board.

 

Aletheia

Oh no,no,no,no!! Not dismissively snide!

Were you able to look at the url?

Alitheia,

Well, you know Einstein couldn't have gotten everything right, right? It almost seems too elementary to discuss doesn't it? Don't we experience the past as unchangeable, and the future as possible? To say that God knows the future as though all possibilities have been actualized, would be to say that there is no freedom and God is ignorant of the possible.

Anyway, Einstein's theory has been re-examined lately and it appears to be problematic.

Here's a site showing the problems:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/041...412/0412039.pdf

Don

I don't believe that John's writing is a revelation for our time. I'm just wondering if John believed his writing was for the far off future or for his contemporaries.

 

Again, thanks for the wonderful info you've shared!

 

Aletheia

 

PS:

I hope you'll share some of your discoveries in the book of Hebrews!

 

I'm going to attempt to study the Hebrew Scriptures, not the Bible book of Hebrews (although I'm sure I'll get to that soon enough).

Aletheia,

John writes that his revelation was given him to show "what must soon take place". With that and the fact that it was written to provide encouragement to the "seven churches in the province of Asia" - his contemporary brothers and sisters in the faith, I do NOT believe that John had any concept that his writing would be viewed over 2000 yrs. later as a prophecy of events yet to come.

Ahhhh, the Hebrew Scriptures, eh? All of them? Wow.

May I recommend the book by Leo Trepp - A History of the Jewish Experience? I thought it was an excellent view of Judaism from their perspective.

Don

Soma,

I'm not sure you are aware of it or not but the teachings of that book seem to be nothing more than a modern form of Gnosticism - popular with the New Age movement and with historical roots in Christianity. Before you swallow it hook, line, and sinker though, I think you would be wise to do some further research.

Do you believe that the Bible teaches "the end of the world" from a Process perspective?

 

Or do you believe that the Bible teaches "the end of the world" at all?

 

That is what I'm curious about. I've never looked at the Bible book of Revelation (for example) from any view except futurist. Did the writer intend it be applied to the future? If not, then what was its meaning?

 

Thank you for the web page recommendation. I'm looking forward to researching.

 

On a side note: I've studied a decent amount of Process thought, but haven't ever come across anything on a process view of eschatology. What does it teach?

 

At a "mundane", physical level, I would imagine it would be the same as what science teaches concerning the end of the universe.

 

I guess I'm asking, specifically, what Process Theology teaches. Was Hartshorne Christian? Did he look at things from that perspective? Or did he step outside all previous views and try to get a fresh, unbiased perspective?

 

Aletheia

Tough questions! I tend to stumble over the idea that the Bible is a teacher. So, with your permission I will rephrase the question so that it asks: What do I believe was the writer's belief who wrote the book of Revelation?

My answer is that I believe the writer believed he had a mystical experience in which he became privy to truths which are normally hidden. John of Patmos was so impressed with his experience that he felt compelled to write it down and share it with his brothers and sisters for whom he apparently. I also believe that John's experience was influenced by the apocalyptic expectations of his day.

Do I believe that John's writing is a revelation of events that are certain to happen? No, I do not. I believe the future is open. Not even God knows what events are certain to happen.

Does the book of Revelation have any relevance to our situation today - or can the Spirit of Jesus teach us important truths using the words of John today? Yes, very much so. Personnally, I have been influenced the most by the book of Revelation through the interpretations of the Mennonites.

John Cobb recently answered a question about the Process view of eschatology which you can find here: http://www.ctr4process.org/pandf//nucobb_faq.htm

Harshorne considered himself to be a philosopher - not a theologian and not even a Christian philosopher. If you get a chance to look at his book, "A Natural Theology For Our Time" you will find this in the first paragraph -

If the philosopher's system or method leads him to formulate a conception having at least some analoy with the central operative idea in the practices, not simply in the theological theories, of one or more of the high religions, he may call his conception by the religious name.

He used the term "God" for the conception to which he referred.

Did I answer all your questions? I hope you'll share some of your discoveries in the book of Hebrews!

Don

There are all sorts of issues here, but I think it may boil down to this:

The fundamentalist movement is a line of defense against the modern worldview. As such it is a retreat to pre-modernism. The fundamentalists find themselves in the conflict between the authority of their interpretation of the Bible, and the authority of science. So called "Higher Criticism" is understood as a direct threat against the authority of the Bible, and to concede to the points made by this "science" would mean, to the fundamentalist, to give up this last line of defense. Not seeing any other options, other than accepting the modern worldview which has no place for any kind of spirituality, they are not going to be convinced by rational arguments.

Today though, there are basically four options presented to us in accepting a worldview.

(1) We can retreat from the modern worldview, close our minds to the facts, and hold on to the premodern worldview.

(2) We can accept the modern worldview with its underlying atheistic and materialistic philosophy and lose God.

(3) We can accept the deconstructive postmodern worldview along with its claim that it is true that there are no true truths.

Or (4), we can accept the premise that there are certain "hard core asumptions" upon which we can build a constructive postmodernism and which, I believe, can help us to recover an understanding of God even while acknowledging that we will never be able to claim, as the fundamentalists do, that everything we need or can know about God can possibly lay between the covers of a book.

I had never heard the term preterism until this week and now I am intrigued.

 

Most biblical interpretation is at least partly preterist.

 

Some scholars like NT Wright are heavily preterist, but still believe that some prophecy is pointing to our future.

 

Pacigoth (or anyone), can you recommend a book that looks at the bible through preterist lenses? I know I can do an amazon search, but I wondered if anyone had any recommendations?

 

Aletheia

 

 

PS: I was just at Barnes and Noble this week picking up a book from CS Lewis and watched about 6 people come down the same isle, go straight to the Christian fiction section, and pick up LeHayes books. Unfortunately it's still going strong.

I was associated with a sect of Christianity which was connected to the root of dispensationalism and J.N. Darby. However, after some study I moved to the preterist position. Back then it was a very minority viewpoint but apparently has gained in popularity. Now, at this point in my theology, I view eschatology from a Process perspective.

I would suggest, if you want more information or some good sources for preterism, you check out:

www.theologyweb.com

and some of the topics by Dee Dee Warren.

"And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds." - Hebrews 10:24

Thanks, BrotherRog!

I'm entirely too fond of dictionaries!

 

Let's step back for a moment.  This is a very politically and emotionally charged issue because we all have a deep desire that everyone be welcome.  It's possible that a religion can welcome every person, but it is not feasible for a religion to consist of every belief.  It would be truly meaningless.  Let's drop the word "boundaries".  I'm not talking about walls that keep people out or separated.  If someone entirely foreign to Christianity (also illiterate) asked you to introduce the religion to him.  What would you say?

Well, you know, dictionaries and Bibles are often misused because their limitations are not recognized. Scholars have debated the meaning(s) attached to the term "religion" for centuries and the discussion has yet to come to an end. It's not very likely that a dictionary can settle the issue, is it?

I like the challenge you present and I'm anxious to see how others might meet it. I'll probably be thinking about it for the next few days, but here's what pops into my mind at the moment (you forgot to set a parameter as to how long we had to make the introduction):

Christianity might be understood as the view of one of the blind attempting to describe the proverbial elephant. And like the blind men in the story, many who call themselves "Christian" are convinced that their's is the only true description.

It is important then, to understand that although the description is incomplete, the blind man did have a true experience of the elephant (God). That experience was that in the life and teachings of a man called Jesus, God was revealed. Christians then, are those who have met Jesus and discovered God. Christianity is a broad term for the many organizations, institutions, and systems of belief which have been formed by those who commonly share this same experience.

To my mind, Christ's message is a relatively simple one:  Love others as you would love yourself, let no one be excluded from God's table, abhor oppresion, and care for those who are downtrodden.  To walk through the world in this manner, as much as is humanly possible, is what it means to me to be Christian. 

I'm not sure I've ever seen it put so simply and succinctly! We need someone to put your words into a song - yes?

Apparently, it feels like risky business for many of us to just let things be what they are without trying to fold all of our views into some unified, labeled system of thought.

I'm not exactly sure of your meaning here but it is important for me to have a unified (coherent) worldview.

Having said that, I will quickly add that not everything labeled "religious" by one group or another need have a basis in truth, and there are certainly things people believe as part of their religion which will more properly fall under the heading of religious delusion.

I'm glad you added that. I'm not so sure that delusion is the problem so much as the misinterpretation of spiritual experiences. If we could only accept the idea that our interpretations are always limited or incomplete we might be open to more truth. There is a lot in Hinduism and Buddhism, for instance, that is true and valuable.

Going back to the beginning of this post, though, I guess I would say that I currently believe that the teachings on inclusiveness and loving-kindness are possibly the most important or relevant points that Christ had to make.  From there, so much else flows.

We must belong to the same religion!

Fatherman,

Much better to be a fatherman than a "girlieman", eh?

I'm not so sure that I agree that religion by its nature must have boundaries. Many agree that the term 'religion' comes from an old term which meant "to bind". I like this idea. Religion is what binds us together or serves as a source of social cohesion. I think of this 'binding', not as a cord to which we are attached and prevents our escape or inhibits our freedom, but as an attractor - something to which we are drawn. Rather than boundaries which separate those who are 'in' from those who are 'out', I think there are relative differences which can perhaps be pictured as distances from a center.

I wonder about your motivation for asking the question you wish to have discussed. Why is it relevant or important? If you admit that no one has the right to judge whether someone who self-identifies as a Christian really IS one, then why should there be a concern about whether or not there is some kind of belief which REALLY qualifies one to be a Christian? Do you think that there is some kind of advantage or something to be gained by REALLY being a Christian rather than simply relating to the tradition?

In my view, there is no such thing as a "Christian" and therefore one can't become one. To think so, it seems to me, is a form of "essentialism", the philosophical doctrine which mistakenly (imo) holds that abstract terms have some kind of concrete existence.

Hmm.. seems to me that there may be two forms of pantheism; e.g the manifold pantheon of deities such as sound in Norse, Greco-Roman, Hinduism, and in Mahayana Buddhism; AND the other form being, the specific theological perspective on God that suggests that God is found in all of creation - if not that God actually IS all of creation (that God is fully immanent within creation).

 

Whereas, with PanENtheism (e.g. in Process Theology), God is understood as fully immanent within the world/creation AND as being fully transcendent from the world/creation. To this extent, PanENtheism radicalizes traditional Christian orthodoxy.

Yes, there are many forms of Pantheism, but - and I'm open to correction on this - they all share in one way or another the idea of the primordial ONE. The philosophical problem has always been (since Parmenides probably), how are the Many derived from the One? Also, it would seem that logically there is no ultimate source for values either.

As for Process Theology, I see it as a correction of traditional Christian orthodoxy which adopted the philosophy of Aristotle through the influence of Aquinas.

Both Pantheism and traditional Christian orthodoxy understand God as a non-relational impassive Being.

OK - this needs to be developed more. It's a rambling form of what I'm thinking but I want to express it before I lose it.

Yes, I have many comments. First, I think what you have here is great stuff. Keep working on it. Second, I have much to say about it myself, but don't really have the time to develop it now. (sorry) Maybe another thread ("Divine Love/Religious Identity...working with God in the rubix cubicle...")?

Tease.

fails to meet rational standards of coherency.

That sounds like something akin to what David Tracy would say. As a process theologian, by chance are you familiar with his work? Righ now I'm reading A Blessed Rage for Order.

No, I'm not familiar with David Tracy. Is he a Process Theologian? It doesn't matter... I'm a promiscuous reader. I'll try to remember to add him to my list.

Uh... I am currently of the opinion based on personal research, that Huxley's Perennial Religion and Panentheism are not compatible systems. The Perennial Religion is Pantheism. I don't know if anyone is familiar with Ken Wilber's thought, but it is the difference between Panentheism and Pantheism which led him to reject the latter.

Is it a big deal? I don't know. Most people don't follow a concept through to its logical conclusion. However, the historical complaint against Pantheism is that it provides no foundation for ethics. IS = OUGHT.

And this is not my hobby horse! (Disclaimer offered just in case it is needed.)

I read this thread a couple days ago and thought about it yesterday and EUREKA! Today I had an epiphany of sorts. Of course the question of this thread was not the only stimulus for my thinking.

Anyway... and this may take a little while to develop... my feeling is that as soon as we become exclusive in any way we move away from the Spirit of Jesus.

I begin with the basic premise that God's love is not exclusive. Following from Process Theology, God is the All-Inclusive Whole. There is absolutely nothing which is excluded from God's sympathetic awareness. Also, I accept the premise that, contrary to the modern worldview, the whole universe - all actuality - is related and interdependent. I won't go into any scientific and/or philosophical arguments to support those premises at this point.

So, taking this understanding to the text of Matthew 5:48, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.", and ignoring the sexism for the moment, I paraphrase it as, "Have an all-inclusive love, even to the point of loving your enemies, because God's love is all-inclusive."

This presents several problems, however. For one thing, our enemies can hurt us. This fear of our enemies motivates us to defend ourselves but love calls us to become vulnerable. A conundrum indeed.

What did Jesus do? Well, Jesus offended the religious folks because he did practice an all-inclusive love. He sat down and ate with everybody - tax collectors, prostitutes, Pharisees - anybody who wanted to eat with Jesus was welcome. And we know that meals for those folks had much more social significance than they do for most of us.

After Jesus was crucified, there were those who knew Jesus before he died who began to recognize that Jesus was with them again - but in a new way. He was the Risen Christ. This Christ was understood to have ascended and then descended as the Spirit of Christ which became included in the "being" of those who were waiting for him. In biblical language, they became indwelt with the Spirit of Christ. Their inclusion of Jesus in their lives gave them a new identity. From then on others could share this new identity, this new life, if they were baptized - which meant dying to the old life and putting on the new life of Christ - a new identity. Who was excluded from this new life, this new identity? No one. Neither male, nor female, slave or free, all were included in the Body of Christ.

At some point this all-inclusive community became exclusive.

Here's what I see that happens to day in a typical conversion experience. An individual at a very early stage begins to develop a "false self" as a defense against others who are seen as separate from him/her and threatening. The more hurts experienced, the more others are excluded from the individual's self-identity and the false self becomes more powerful. The individual experiences alienation, angst, bondage... all that stuff. These painful experiences become so great that the individual looks for help and discovers the Gospel message about the Love of God. He/she "dies" to their old identity and they put on the new. They identify themselves now as "Christian". They experience new power, a new perspective, and new relationships. They taste the all-inclusive love of God. However, it's not long before their all-inclusive love becomes exclusive. Their new social identity excludes those who are not Christian. They lose the exhuberance, the power, and the love that they began with.

Briefly then (I'm running out of time), the moral of the story is that we are not to have an exclusive love - no boundaries. However, there will be those who are excluded but... (and here's the important part) they exclude THEMSELVES. As long as they are open to us, we should be open to them. If boundaries are erected, fences built, it must be built by others, not ourselves. Our part is to see through the false self and love what is behind it.

OK - this needs to be developed more. It's a rambling form of what I'm thinking but I want to express it before I lose it.

Comments?

Hey Curlytop!

A kindred soul - I just received and have started to read Ken Wilber's "Sex,

Ecology, Spirituality". Most Excellent.

I embrace an afterlife hope..and I differ from a vast majority of the liberal Christians...I supose, on this. I believe in a possible after life hope brings me great joy...But I also feel that one of the main flaws of the fundamental branches of Christianity is the way they danger rewards of everlasting bliss or everlasting damnation over people's heads as a way to gain and maintain members. In constrasting with Sponge, I do not believe in universal salvation...rather I embrace a universal fair 'CHANCE'...at salvation. Meaning that I believe contrasting to what Billy Graham teaches...I believe a person DOES get a fair 'CHANCE' after this present life.

Do you believe then, in an eternal hell? And I'm not sure I understand the idea of a "fair chance" in an afterlife. Do you think that when a person dies they will experience some kind of purgatory-like existence?

I know this is probably terrible of me, but I picture this scene where God is like Elmer Fudd with a gun who gives us poor "wabbits" a "fair chance" after we've died by turning us loose in the big woods where, if we are smart enough, we can run away and hide from Ol' Elmer before he can shoot us.

Obviously I need clarification of your view so I can dismiss that silly picture.

The difference between pantheism and panEntheism (and no, it's not simply a mistaken spelling of "pantheism" ) is that the "many" are either derived from the ONE of Pantheism (which can be shown to be incoherent), or the "many" are an illusion since there can "be" only ONE, but according to the thought of PanEntheism, reality is a process whereby the "Many become One, and are increased by One". Rather than being an illusion, change or creativity is responsible for all actuality. There was never a primordial One without the Many. Therefore, relationality is fundamental. Because the ONE includes, or has sympathetic awareness of the Many, it can be claimed that God IS Love.

Yes, forms of pantheism are found commonly in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity, but panentheism as it is developed today, was not even an alternative way of thinking in those early traditions - although it should be said that it was partially conceived in Buddhism.

It's not so simple a matter, imo, of seeing that the "Course in Miracles" is wrong, because none of our concepts are "right", but I think it is important for us to be open to concepts and ideas that are more inclusive or integral or synthetic as well as coherent, adequate to explain our experience, and powerful enough to create more questions.