AletheiaRivers

God has been feeling frazzled lately, and called in the archangel Gabriel. "Gabe", He said, "I need a vacation. Got any ideas?" "Well, Lord, there is a really exciting supernova in the Andromeda Galaxy." "No, no, I want to get AWAY from it all!" "There's always the Black Hole of Cygnus X. There's nothing in there." "No, no, I don't mean nothingness, I want something soothing." "The Rings of Saturn are always lovely this time of eon." "Oh, booooring! If I've seen them once, I've seen them a billion times. I want to do something relaxing, like go fishing maybe." "There's lots of water on Planet Earth." "Oh heavens no, I can't go THERE!" "Why not, Lord?" "I went there, a couple thousand years ago, had an affair with a nice Jewish girl, and would you believe? THEY'RE STILL GOSSIPING ABOUT IT!"

The general gist I've gotten, although I'm sure there are many many views, is that HaSatan is a spiritual being, created by God, to serve as the "accuser" or "prosecuting attorney" against humanity. These spiritual beings do NOT have free will, however, so in essence, they can be called aspects of God, as they are doing exactly what God created them to do. I'm not saying I agree with this. It's just something I've read.

???? So if one was to believe that Satan WAS a fallen angel then this means they are a fundamentalist? But how? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Beach, I think OA's point was that, biblically, Lucifer and Satan are not the same being. Lucifer is not Satan's name. Lucifer is not "the devil's" name. And actually, in Judaism, Satan is not God's adversary.

Oh heck, if we are going to expand the metaphor outward from the ocean to the clouds, then we might was well take it further, to the stars. Perhaps I could ride some nebulous gases around? Perhaps a comet (if it's rogue) will get me better coverage? But then I wouldn't be floating, I'd most definitely have to hold on tight. OK, nebulous gases it is. Or hey, an everlasting jet-pack? "Rocket maaaaaannn, I'm a rocket man ..... "

I don't know if Yancey thinks Satan is Lucifer actually. I may have mispoke when I included the "fallen angel" part. But he does view Satan as an actual independent being, in opposition to God, and NOT as an aspect of God, as Judaism does.

Sage wisdom Flow-San. And it's not just conservatives that get nervous when their black/white thinking is challenged. Progressives do so as well. Thank you Grasshopper. The yin/yang kid.

Someone can be theologically conservative but socially progressive. I think Tony Campolo is a good example. Philip Yancey. Possibly Brian McLaren. Phil Yancey believes in a physical resurrection. He believes in a literal fallen angel named Satan. He believes in sacrificial atonement. He is however, rather socially progressive.

THAT is on my reading list this year, for sure.

I loved Franken's book when I first read it. I look at it now with a teeny grain of salt. He is such a riot though. I never stopped laughing throught the whole book.

As I bumped some of these older threads, I reread much of what I had written and was amazed at how much my views had changed. A relationship with God is a progressive, ongoing process. I try (as Cynthia brought out in another thread I bumped) to have a faith that is like floating on the ocean. I can't say that I NEVER cling, but I really try overall to just relax and be open. Tomorrow may show me a new horizon.

Seeing the kosher food laws (and other "holiness laws") as paths to mindfulness is one of the main points in Rabbi Kushner's book "To Life!" Also, I appreciated how Ehret, in Early Christianities, points out again and again that to the Jews, the law was (is) a blessing. Something Fred said in his Lent article fits in nicely here: Sigh. I'm really happy with how this thread has turned out.

Oh yeah, totally! As long as I can still have my geek toys to play with.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey Fred, you think any proper cult of mine would be "caught dead" without extreme bandwidth?

The only thing constant, is change.

In a lot of things, yes, I'd have to agree. However, they are hyper-literal in other things, especially "end times" crap. N.T. Wright focuses on a literal, earthly resurrection as well. I'd say such a teaching is "more Biblical" than a soul being pre-existent before this life, or surviving after the body. More and more Christians are turning to this belief. My view of the "afterlife" is influenced by the Jewish belief about the soul. However, it doesn't lead me to believe in a literal, earthly, bodily resurrection like it does JW's. An awesome analogy to how Judaism views "ruach, nephesh and neshama" is that of a glass blower. As a glass blower creates, he blows into the end of a pipe. The breath travels through the pipe. And it comes to rest in the vessel. It is the same meaning for "nephesh, neshama and ruach." That breath which comes to rest in us, in creation, shapes and animates us. When that "vessel" is broken, the breath returns to he who sent it. Anyway, biblical or not, I do lean towards believing that something of "us" survives physical death. Perhaps "resurrection" is that state that we attain instantly upon death? I think metaphysically, it makes more sense, as opposed to waiting for some future "end time" when the dead will be raised and judged. I could always change my mind tomorrow though. I seem to do that a lot. Yeah, I don't believe that human bodies are houses for immaterial souls either. I do still think of humans as BEING souls, rather than having them. It's just that now my ontology is so much different than it was even a year ago, let alone when I was a JW. I'm a panentheist, which puts a whole new twist on things. And in some respects (like Fred), I'm a monist (which might not be the best word to use, as it doesn't necessarily mean what I'm thinking of).

Campolo's being conservative was a mistaken view that I acquired when I first came to the board. It wasn't corrected for me until this post (thanks Darby). I researched him after this thread and realized that his being called conservative by liberals is a mistake. He is a lot more conservative and literal than most liberals, so from that point of view he's "conservative." But no, I wouldn't call him conservative now that I know better. I'd just call him Christian.

Hehehehehehehehe

I know that my cats expect worship. They are very jealous deities. Not one of them likes me paying attention to any of the other ones. They've taken over my funiture like they are thrones. One even has me trained to pull the stopper on the bathroom sink, and fill it with a small amount of cold water each morning and each evening.

I'm so glad I dug up this thread by lily. The opening post sums up beautifully what I was trying to say recently in my Renunciation thread. "Praxis and Ritual" include the practice of renunciation, but are also inclusive of other, well, practices. Practice and ritual can lead us to "thin places." Practice and ritual can help move our "aim" back towards the target. Practice and ritual can bring the sacred into everyday life, which has a tendency to crowd out the sacred. To quote again Lily's words: "Do any of you feel a need for a Christian practice? and by practice I mean time consistently set aside for remembrance, or prayer, or meditation, or any number of means by which you enter sacred space and seek intimacy with God? Do any of you combine traditional Christian methods with non-traditional ones? or practice traditional observances in non-traditional ways?" I was thinking again, about the Liturgical year and how I want to incoporate it into my life. I'm going to start with Lent. Also, I want to make going to the mountains, which are so close to where I live, a weekly event, if only for an hour or two. I know for me, active listening meditation and contemplation come just like breathing when I'm there.

Your comments about the Incarnation are the same thoughts that I had when I started to rethink the Incarnation and the Trinity.

This, to me, is a prime example of someone who needs to abandon himself, forget his presuppositions and skepticism and jaded-ness, and just LOOK.

Really really really good point. It's a point that sums up nicely how to unite the theological differences between different Christians regarding certain "core doctrines." Of course, this would only work of those involved were willing to focus on the symbol itself and leave the meaning of that symbol to each individual Christian. Sigh. Just thinking of the differences of opinion on the Trinity, as one example, and how some trinitarian views are considered "heretical" by other trinitarians, shows how difficult such unity can be.

I don't have a problem with this one at all. I'm deeply "incarnational" and really appreciate the spiritual truth of God's incarnating to live among us. The "Cosmic Christ" really enters into this for me. Maybe that is something we could discuss in more depth. God being incarnate, I fear, is another one of those tricky discussions (like "sin"). Again, I feel the resurrection is a spiritual truth. The idea points to a higher reality and gives hints to the future of the whole Cosmos. As we've been discussing in a couple of other threads, humankind exists in a state of "chet" or "hamartia." Many things contribute to this, but I DON'T think it has to do with any sort of "taint" of imperfection. IMO, it has more to do with living in a physical world, because from here, higher realities are "veiled." Iraneaus called it "epistomilogical distance" (I think). I also think our "hamartia" has to do with having so many other targets to aim at, that we get confused. Sacrificial atonement is the Christian belief that I can't get behind. My view of Jesus death is a "modified Christus Victor." Google J. Denny Weaver and "non-violent atonement" to get a better view of what I mean. I believe in one God. My view of how God "works in history" is trinitarian and archetypal. The Cosmic Christ archetype plays heavily into my view of the Trinity. I fall into the "shades in-between" category. The more I study theology, the more I am floored at the wisdom of the OT and NT writers. I think "authorial intent" has to come first in reading the scriptures, then the metaphor and allegory view of early Christian thinkers like Origen can come in. No problem here. I do believe that Christianity has something that other religions don't quite have, or I wouldn't be Christian. However, I believe that God has spoken to mankind all throughout human history and in many different human cultures. The perrenial truths are there. The kernels are essentially the same. It's the shells that are so different. Problem is, most practicioners don't move past the shell. Grace, to me, means that there is nothing that we can do to earn God's love. I don't think God is making a mental checklist of pros and cons in order to decide whether I'm worthy of love. However, I don't think anybody who truly accepts Grace can go on living their lives in a selfish, ego-centered way. God loved us first. Love begets love. If we truly believe and accept God's love, it's going to change us. I'm surprised I never commented on this thread the first time around. I was probably in a funk.

I totally agree and yet, isn't it ironic that Christianity accuses Judaism of being legalistic? Like I said in the OP, I used to view such disciplines as renunciation as negative. I've come to have a new appreciation for the whole idea. Yes, some Christians take it to a negative extreme. However, I would also argue that some Jews take Law observance to a negative extreme. I don't think we can judge the merits of a practice based on the behavior and attitudes of it's worst adherents. I think moderation is the key as well. I think the Liturgical year can be a moderate way to "practice" Christianity, just like the holy day observances are part of the practice and worship of Judaism. Heck, I call giving up lobster, shrimp, king crab and muscles an ascetic practice.

I read it as having to do with shedding our presuppositions of what God should be like. Of letting go, if even for just a moment, of all our baggage we accumulate as adult humans living in today's world. Of putting off the ego-centeredness long enough to view the world through fresh and unjaded lenses. Of putting ourself back into a state of childlike innocence, where everything is wonderful, where everythings is "Look! Look! See!" "The Kingdom of God is within you and all around you ... " "Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child ... "

I don't know if you've read the entire thread about "Renunciation and Discipline" but I said this on the first page: I'm hoping the thread can switch back to discussing this basic idea, as it is one that moves me deeply, as it seems to do to you.