AletheiaRivers

Mine are Lust and Sloth. Lust must come first or I wouldn't have the initiative to get up and .... well YOU KNOW.

One of my favorite authors has this to say about "being evangelical."

The progressive and liberal Christian movement has been big on trying to balance the conservative voice in politics with a more liberal one. I admit that I stay out of it altogether, left and right. Not to say that I don't vote. I do. I just don't know that any political candidate should be espousing a religious cause as their platform. Of course, individuals like Jim Wallis would probably disagree. I hate to say that I'm a cynic and believe it's never going to change. There is no politics without people, and most people have an ideology that is going to play a part in their politics. Even atheists have a worldview that will come into play. Think Russia and China. But yeah, ideally, I wish the two could remain completely seperate. How does that happen though?

I'm jealous MT!

Evangelicals really like to claim Lewis as one of their own. I find it ironic that the conservative crowd were the ones pushing the movie so much. Darn Episcopalians! They are so universal.

Sure sounds to me like you fit in the "progressive" group. We've had discussions in the past as to what the term "progressive" even means. See back threads on the "8 points." While not all of us agree with all 8 of the points, they are a decent starting point. I think I'd be labeled (there's that stereotype thing again) as a "moderate" more than liberal. Then again, it depends on who I'm talking to. I'm learning to appreciate the Apostolic and Nicene creeds. As an ex-Jehovah's Witness, the ideas and terminology there were quite foreign. It's taken me a long time to move beyond literalism and legalism.

Great book, "Original Blessing."

I'm glad Fred made some clarification about perrenialism though. I consider myself a perennialist, mystical, esoteric, etc ... but I don't find any of my views expressed in the opening post. I could perhaps call myself a pluralist, or perhaps a inclusivist, and even a universalist. Different terms mean different things to different people. Thats what make conversations challenging (and usually fun)!

First off: Whoo hoo, whoo hoo, whoo hoo! I'm so glad you came! OK, done jumping up and down now. I'd have to say that it's the "You're not a Christian" stereotype. "Heretic" follows a close second and "You must be a YE creationist then" is the third.

Cool article. I really liked the way the author (a Christian) tied the 7 deadly sins into the idea of wu wei. These vices are "wasted energy" (I really do like Huston Smith's translation the best).

Very good points. When I think of living a simpler life though, one of renunciation, I must admit that what appeals to me, is communal living. I think I'm somewhat of a hippie at heart, but the idea of living in the mountains, surrounded by quiet and beauty, living off the land, sharing with each other and focusing on God, is extremely appealing. Good grief, reading this, even I (who like the idea) think "Cult!" However, to paint a better picture, I'd say to combine the idea of the popular Yoga retreats you see advertised in the magazines with the idea of the popular "dude ranch" retreats you see advertised in the magazines. I swear, communal livng wouldn't HAVE to be comet-jumping, cool-aid drinking craziness!

They don't make for good copy. "Brad Pratt attended a Hollywood gala this weekend. Dressed in an Armani tuxedo, he was seen envying the woman sitting at the table next to him ..."

Why thank you. If true, I think it may actually be a first. Recognizing this, I can see why so many feel the pull of renunciation and asceticsm. I've never particularly wanted to be a nun , but I have felt the pull to a simper life, one that won't "get in the way" of my quest. Then I remember that we are called to be in the world (if not of the "world"). That was why the dragon and the princess story jumped out at me. Self-understanding andself-transformation, are not easy journeys and are often painful.

I TOTALLY understand that. I had the same daily dose of guilt too. What I'm trying to flesh out is a way of talking about "sin" that DOESN'T mean "You're worthless Jerry." And I'm trying to talk about ways to "express the desire for communion with God" that can be incorporated in everyday life. These are ways that orient us toward God, so that we are "aiming" closer to the target. Again, it is NOT this concept of sin that I'm speaking of. And actually, I don't think the traditional interpretation of "original sin" is explicitly (or implicitly) implied by the Genesis account. I don't think humans were created perfect and then fell from perfection (but that's a whole other thread).

Bad Fred! Bad Fred for talking about metaphysics! I appreciate your using the term "reorientation" and "hamartia." The term (hamartia) was used a lot when I was a JW to indicate that we "miss the mark of perfection." But just like "sin," hamartia doesn't necessarily mean that. The term "perfection" has been tacked on. So, if sin is "failing to hit the target," the question arises: What IS the target that we are failing to hit and how can we be reoriented to come closer to living truly authentic human lives? As a Christian, I deeply appreciate the concept of "grace." I'm reluctant to go down a path that makes it sound as if I believe that I can make all these changes to myself without some help. The concept of Holy Spirit plays in here and I believe that Holy Spirit is universal and not just "Christian." Anyway, this takes us off topic, but I felt the need to throw that in. I'm not intending to advance the idea that we can "save" ourselves. Exactly. As Keith Ward said (that I quoted earlier and failed to say who I quoted): "Sin is a turning away from the call of love towards egoistic desire ... We become trapped in our search for personal pleasure ... Human persons are meant to become channels of divine creativity, wisdom, compassion and loving kindness. But that means that people must freely center themselves on God and God's will, and not on themselves and their own desires." "Egoistic desire" doesn't mean running out and killing someone. Egoistic desire simply means that we are not oriented toward God or other. This can manifest as living a relatively harmless life, not necessarily doing evil, but also not moving outside ourselves and our own lives. Yes! Yes! Yes!

Hi Cynthia. Yes, actually, "dark nights of the soul" was exactly what I thought of when I first read it. Deep pain and depression that brings about TRANSFORMATION (thanks Flow). As I read further along in the story and in the book, and as the author offered his take on the story, I realized it could be interpreted in a couple of ways. (Metaphors are tricky that way. ) I think the "bride" could represent anything or one that creates a desire to change. And yes, in the story, the object that forces change is an object of devotion and love. I might go so far as to say that the bride offered the dragon "grace." I also appreciated that it was painful for the dragon to peel away the layers. It wasn't an easy journey. Grace may give us the desire to change, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee smooth sailing. Jerry, I'm not sure what you mean by "sin" not having a place within progressive Christianity or that recognizing sin keeps us in spiritual infancy. I understand not wanting to talk about sin from the perspective taken by traditional Christianity. However, as I stated in my post, this is not what I mean. I would argue that all spiritual traditions and paths offer some guidance that leads away from self-centeredness and toward God (or other) centeredness. The only view that I can think of that would teach that there is no such thing as "sin" (selfishness, greed, ego) would be philosophies that teach that all the world is illusion and that we just need to realize it to wake up. In this scenario, no, there is no sin or evil. There is just God, experiencing. Is this where you are coming from?

Or, Jesus is coming back soon, so who cares? Interesting how similar they end up being, eh? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh yeah. I know of JW's who were couseled for recycling. They were told that it gave the wrong impression: that they didn't have faith that God was going to return "real soon" and kill all the heathens and clean up the planet himself.

There is, for about 30 minutes. After that, you're SOL. Welcome to the board!

Very good point! I'd describe myself as 30% enviromentalist and 70% conservationist. With that in mind, I do wish humans would learn to see the "bigger picture" of what it means to live in a symbiotic relationship with the earth and with other species. I'm not against transforming the enviroment if, in the big picture, it serves the greater good of all species, and not just humans. For example, here where I live, there is a HUGE controversy over putting in a mass transit system that would span a large percentage of the north part of the state. To connect two cities (and an air force base) would require cutting through mountains and some wetland habitat. Species would be displaced. However, the greater good that would be accomplished by putting in a transporation system (that doesn't run on fossil fuels) would far outweigh the damage caused by cutting up the mountain and filling in some of the wetlands. At least, that is the opinion of some of those involved, which I happen to agree with. In my own back yard, I'm more enviromentalist than conservationist. For example: we have a lot of spiders in our yard. Wolf spiders. Funnel web spiders. Jumping spiders. Yellow sac spiders. It's rather ridiculous how many we have. I can't even go out and sit on my lawn. However, I REFUSE to use poison to kill the spiders for several reasons. 1) It's been shown that poisons have a tendency to kill friendly spiders (like jumping spiders) and not kill dangerous spiders (like Hobos). Jumping spiders kill Hobos. They are one of the few spiders that can do so. Putting down poison encourages the growth of Hobo spider populations. 2) We also have a lot of birds in the yard. Birds love spiders. If I poison the spiders, I poison the birds. 3) We also have lots of mosquitos ... Well, you get the picture. So I think that enviromentalism and conservationism both have a place. It is true that everything on this planet is "part of nature." However, many don't see the impact their actions have on the bigger picture, which is where I get frustrated. I'm not just talking about those that are "enviromentally blind" either. I'm also talking about the rabid enviromentalists who don't see that humans, too, are a part of this planet. In fact, when humans remove themselves from the cycle of nature, it can actually cause harm. Of course, I could just say that "all is Maya" and shuffle down the relative highway .... Nah!

What inspired me to start this thread in the first place, was thinking about mankind's being "fallen." It's been my experience that most progressive Christians don't "believe" in original sin or the fall as traditionally taught by the Church, and so, the whole idea of living in a "fallen" state is ignored. The ideas I hoped to explore in this thread were, in my mind, meant to be pragmatic, grounded in the world we see in front of our eyes. I didn't intend this thread to become overly "metaphysical" or "transcendent" in it's content. (However, that said, if that's the way the thread ends up going, I don't have a problem with it.) Anyway, as I've been reading over the past couple of months (Scott Peck, Keith Ward, Huston Smith), I've come to appreciate a different interpretation of the fall, one which I've been able to get my head around. Ironically, it's not necessarily a "progressive Christian" view. It is somewhat orthodox. The difference, really, is it comes from viewing the Genesis account as parable (metaphor?) rather than literal history. The following is a little longer than it probably should be, but not as long as it could have been. "We are created by a God who has designed the universe so that we can grow to maturity in freedom, be responsible for one another, and learn to understand and appreciate the wisdom and beauty of the universe. It is that freedom, however, which has been misused. Sin is a turning away from the call of love towards egoistic desire. We fall into hating and fearing others, because we are not prepared to value them for what they are, and seek their good as much as we seek our own. We become trapped in our search for personal pleasure, so that we cease to think of others at all, and come to see them just as means to our own gratification. That is the 'fall into sin' which Christians see as marking the whole of human existence. The desire for personal gratification causes us to stop seeing others as persons, and just regard them as things. Human persons are meant to become channels of divine creativity, wisdom, compassion and loving kindness. But that means that people must freely center themselves on God and God's will, and not on themselves and their own desires. Actual sins are the selfish choices we continually seem to make. But Christians talk of 'Original Sin', as the state into which we are born, which makes actual sin ... almost inevitable. Over thousands of generations, so many human beings have made selfish choices that human society has been corrupted. We are all now born into society where greed and egoism is encouraged by the structures of society, and where the sense of God has been so repressed that it has almost been lost altogether." So, here I am, being contemplative, wondering what I can do to more fully "center myself on God." What can I do to move from being "self-centered" to "God-centered" and "other-centered"? I visit other bulletin boards, not all of them Christian, and I'm impressed by the importance that PRACTICE is given in so many religions. I just don't see much of it in Christianity, outside of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Why is that?

I thought perhaps we (the board) could explore what the metaphor might mean. Perhaps each person could offer their "take" on it. Yeah, I agree. This story made me go "hmmm" with no force whatsoever. I find that parables are a rather common theme in religion and that if not dismissed as being stupid, can help in contemplative practice. So does this mean you think the story is talking about gaining transcendence? Interesting. I didn't interpret it that way at all. The story actually made me think of learning to know ourselves better, layer by layer. That with prodding and help from our beloved (who I view in this story as God), we can shed the crap that this world has layered upon us and we can "fill the world with love and truth."

Here is another quote from JK that I thought I'd throw out there for comment. "A true practice leads us into the silence of the forest. Wherever we begin, we have to stop and listen. ... Whether taken through ritual, prayer, or mediation, these first steps into the forest bring us small amazements and tender revelations ... We also begin to see how much our unnoticed interior states and unrecognized beliefs control our life. A traditional Swedish story gives a sense of the next phase of the spiritual journey. Once upon a time, because of the mishaps of her parents, a young princess named Aris must be betrothed to a fearful dragon. When the king and queen tell her, she becomes frightened for her life. But recovering her wits, she goes out beyond the market to seek a wise woman, who has raised twelve children and twenty-nine grandchildren, and knows the ways of dragons and men. The wise woman tells Aris that she indeed must marry the dragon, but that there are proper ways to approach him. She then gives instructions for the wedding night. In particular, the princess is to wear ten beautiful gowns, one on top of the other. The wedding takes place. A feast is held, after which the dragon carries the princess off to the bedchamber. When the dragon advances toward his bride, she stops him, saying that she must carefully remove her wedding attire before offering her heart to him. And too, she adds (instructed by the wise woman), must he properly remove his attire. To this he willingly agrees. "As I take off each layer of my gown, you must also remove a layer." Then, taking off the first gown, the princess watches as the dragon sheds his outer layer of scaly armor. Though it is painful, the dragon has done this periodically before. But then the princess removes another gown, and then another. Each time the dragon finds that he too must claw off a deeper layer of scales. By the fifth gown the dragon begins to weep tears of pain. Yet the princess continues. With each successive layer the dragon's skin becomes more tender and his form softens. He becomes lighter and lighter. When the princess removes her tenth gown, the dragon releases the last vestige of dragon form and emerges as a man, a fine prince whose eyes sparkle like a child's, released at last from the ancient spell of his dragon form. The journey is not about going into the light. The forces of our human history and entanglement are tenacious and powerful. The path to inner freedom requires passing through them." - After the Ecstasy Any thoughts?

I've always wanted to read his works, so I too am looking for a recommendation.

Somebody over at Theologyweb made a comment to that effect. It's ironic and yet not, because all of Rice's books have had spiritual overtones with good and evil as major themes. The character most obsessed with God in all of her books is Lestat, followed closely (imo) by Armand. The movies didn't portray the Vampire Chronicles accurately at all. I was especially irked that the role of Armand was played by Antonio Banderas. Armand's character, in the books, is a 19 year old, red haired boy.

What I meant about living on auto-pilot, in the context of renunciation, is that too many of us go through life without thinking about the world around us. We take everything for granted. Everything is at our fingertips. Fred's ruminations about Lent and fasting really summed it up nicely. Ironically, our spiritual practice should help to wake us up from living a "tuned-out life," but too often it becomes part of the rut. I don't think being dissatisfied with our spiritual progress is a bad attitude to have, unless that dissatisfaction itself, hinders the growth process. There is such a thing as being too hard on yourself.