AletheiaRivers

OK

"Let God be God in you."

Merry Christmast to you too Fred. I hope you noticed the post before this one, but alas, I think we cross posted and that you might be gone for the holidays.

Ah come on! You KNOW what I meant! That finite, sentient life in this cosmos, might have a place (consciously aware) in eternity, in bliss, with God. That we might maintain a participatory awareness. Should I play devil's advocate and ask you what you mean by "me" and "there"? Here's a bad analogy: If I could somehow empty out part of myself and create finite entities (children) and send them out into the world ... I'd still be me, but I'd also be them. When they return, I could absorb them completely (not necessarily a bad thing) or I could unitively join with them, still giving them relative autonomy, but participating in knowledge and bliss. I'm more Ramanuja than Shankara. At least for today. As far as I currently understand either Ramanuja or Shakara, which isn't very far. I sure appreciate your taking the time to discuss these things with me. My husband just gives me a blank stare.

And back to where I started does NOT include Spinoza in any way, shape or form apparently. Ewww, did he really hold these ideas:

I'm a monist in the panentheist sense, which probably doesn't make sense, since the sense in which I mean it is both in a numerical AND unitive sense. I think kenosis plays an important role in my monism (but then again, maybe not). Hehehehe. I totally appreciate Tillich's and Wittgenstein's point, that language points to symbols, which point to realities. Ok, I'll stop. Seriously, it all comes down to one thing for me: a hope in a unitive but participatory, "afterlife." When I say I'm a panentheistic monist as opposed to a pantheist monist, I mean (and please cut me some slack with any temporal language I use ), that I feel that God experiences the totality of the cosmos (as an "outside" observer), as well as experiencing the finitude of the cosmos thru the lives of finite beings. These finite beings "eminate" from God (hence the numerical monism), but perhaps, just perhaps, upon returning to the Source, Life will be given a place in God. I don't know if Hegel's "sublate" is the correct term for this, because it isn't clear as to whether he believed in an afterlife. Kierkegaard's "Let God be God in you" really smacked me upside the head the other night. It was almost a voice out of the dark type experience when I was praying. I reeled a bit and said "Ok, ok, I get it. I'll try." PS: Have you seen THIS? I would LOVE to hear Paul Tillich teach Hegel, or Kierkegaard, or Schleiermacher.

Hi minsocal, welcome to the board! Please stick around and by all means, post! I'm starting to get the sneaky feeling that this test has "Emergen/Postmodern" and "Classic Liberal" where beliefnet has "Unitarian Universalists" and "Liberal Quaker." Oh well. Tis still fun.

I'm sure it's Tillich's focusing on "anxiety over non-being" and that non-being (finitude) is necessarily part of being (infinitude) that gets him the existentialist label. Kierkegaard dealt with the same stuff, and since they both believed in God and were Christians, I don't think they deserve the existentialist label. I think Kierkegaard would reject it if he had been alive when it was coined.

See, I knew this test would have some redeeming value. I post a test. You (Fred) take it. I pose a question about Platonism. You post some links. I follow those links and discover: And (I just read of Dionysius the Areopagite in Keith Ward's book and he piqued my interest. Now I'm piqued more.) Also (So Hegel could be called a Neo-Platonist. That clears up some confusions. I'd say yes, I definitely fall into the Neoplatonist category of thought.) And And (The article on "The Absolute" mentions Sprigge, whose Wiki stubb mentions "Absolute Idealism," which mentions "Neutral Monism," which mentions "Spinoza and Dialectical Monism." Whew! I'm back to where I started.) Oh, and I wanted to mention that, after reading Keith Ward's book, I had a bit of an epiphany that monism does not equal pantheism. It's something I've misunderstood for a long time, and something I think you were trying to tell me once.

The whole reason I posted the quiz is because it offered options (unlike beliefnet quizes) such as "Emergent," "Neo-Orthodox," "Classic Liberal," and "Modern Liberal." Most other tests tell you if you are Catholic or Protestant and that you should attend a UU church. I just thought it was nice to find a test that used categories that are different, for a change. Beliefnets "belief-o-matic" is perhaps more detailed, but it needs to be updated. There are options out there, for mystically inclined, free-thinking individuals besides the UU church.

It might have answered my question. I'll let you know for sure after I've read the wiki article about neoplatonism. I've always been under the impression that Plato thought that God (or whatever word Plato might have used) was an individual Being (not anthropomorphic), but seperate, "set against" this world. That's why I've been confused when you've said "I'm a Platonist." But as you said, Platonism isn't synonymous with "what Plato taught." I thought it was, hence my confusion. I definitely think of God as the Ground of Being, but I would never have described (based on my understanding) myself as a Platonist. Perhaps a Hegelian, with a smattering of Whitehead, a smidgeon of Wittgenstein and a tbsp of Tillich (which is pretty much Keith Ward).

You don't really want me to jump down your throat about this comment do you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I doubt anyone wants you to let the Hulk out Fred. My $.02, for what it's worth: the term "Emergent" means that the church is emerging FROM something. A good analogy, which McLaren uses in Generous Orthodoxy, is growth rings in a tree. The center would be God or Jesus or the church. Each successive growth ring incorporates and emerges from the first. The next ring incorporates and emerges from the first two ... and so on. Each successive ring HAS to incorporate the previous rings necessarily. It can't just toss them aside and start from scratch. The difference with this approach is that past theological insights are not thrown out because of "reformation." They are incorporated. Absorbed. Redeemed. McLaren focuses on taking what is best (perennial might be a good word) from all the different "rings" of Christian Church history and painting a picture of what this postmodern "emergent" church might look like. He discusses the Mysticism of Eastern Orthodoxy, the Sacrements of the Catholic church, the "praxis" of Anabaptists, the passion of Pentacostals, etc ... I guess it's not completely necessary to know what past theologians thought and taught, but doing so sure helps me to appreciate the "emergent church."

Hehehehe. I'm excited about the movie. I'm a huge Jim Carrey fan, but I'm going to purposely keep my expectations low (which usually means I enjoy the movie more).

Wow! Thanks flow and cynthia. I'm intrigued and scared all at the same time. I definitely think I'll read People of the Lie.

Okey dokey, I took it again, changing that one question for sure. I didn't think I really changed much on the other questions, but (as these tests often do) I swung wildly in my results. Here they are: You scored as Paul Tillich. Paul Tillich sought to express Christian truth in an existentialist way. Our primary problem is alienation from the ground of our being, so that our life is meaningless. Great for psychotherapy, but no longer very influential. Paul Tillich 87% Friedrich Schleiermacher 60% John Calvin 47% Anselm 40% Karl Barth 40% J�rgen Moltmann 33% Augustine 20% Jonathan Edwards 13% Charles Finney 13% Martin Luther 7%

Perhaps you could make a "How metaphorically do you view God and the Bible" quiz (named differently of course).

Unfortunately I don't have a clue as to how to create these quizes. Sorry. Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan generally fits into the Methodist group. You might have scored high in this area by answering "Agree" to the questions about Grace and "total depravity." The idea of total depravity and prevenient Grace were theological ideas that John Wesley focused on. Google "John Wesley Total Depravity Grace" to get more information and see if it actually gels with you.

I viewed the "inner experience" questions as perhaps pointing in that direction. I admit that I may have misinterpreted the intent of the question however. Mystical experience and contemplation ARE a big focus for the Emergent movement, btw.

Yeah, I answered that one as "strongly disagree" even though I knew ultimately that is was a Tillich question. I should have just gotten over the way the question was worded and answered it as a "strongly agree" even though, as the question is worded, I do not agree (and neither did Tillich). I haven't read much Tillich or Plato, but sometimes the way you compare Plato to others confuses me. I, too, believe that God's transcendence is infinite, but I don't think I mean it the way Plato meant it. Didn't transcendence, for Plato, mean that God was the shaper of the universe, out of pre-existing matter? And that the matter was shaped as closely as possible to the Ideals, but because of what there was to work with, it missed the mark a bit? God remains completely removed from the universe, untouched by its imperfection. How does this match up with Tillich's "Ground of Being?"

Huh. I thought just the opposite. With each question you have the chance to answer across a 5 point spectrum. In my mind, the spectrum could represent, starting at the left: Strongly disagree, Mildly disagree, Neutral, Mildly Agree, and Strongly agree. So for the Trinity and Incarnation, choosing the second in from the right would be basically saying that "I mildly agree that the Trinity is central ..." Which in my mind would qualify the answer enough to skew the results towards a church that, while not being dogmatic about the Trinity, at least considers it (unlike, for ex: JW's). Although I might mean something a bit different by "Trinity" than what most churches mean, I am probably going to be more at home spiritually in a church that at least emphasises it to some degree, even if I can't agree with the details 100%. Anywhoo, I thought it was fun. Keep them coming!

This one was really hard. I didn't know how to answer the questions really. Some of them I couldn't say I agreed or disagreed with, mostly because I considered them moot questions. But when all was said and done, here is how I scored on the "Which Theologian Are You?" test. I don't know if I agree with the results (and the second one down particularly scares me). Click here to take the quiz. You scored as Karl Barth. The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology. Karl Barth 53% John Calvin 53% Paul Tillich 47% Friedrich Schleiermacher 47% Anselm 47% Martin Luther 40% Augustine 33% Charles Finney 27% J�rgen Moltmann 27% Jonathan Edwards 20%

Well whadya know? Looks like I'm more likely to be at home in an Emergent Evangelical church, an Orthodox church or even a Roman Catholic church than I would be in the UCC or the United Methodist church. Guess I'll have to get more books from Brian McLaren and maybe one from Karl Barth? You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this. Emergent/Postmodern - 82% Neo orthodox - 71% Roman Catholic - 57% Classical Liberal - 54% Modern Liberal - 46% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan - 39% Charismatic/Pentecostal - 32% Reformed Evangelical - 18% Fundamentalist - 4% Click here to take the quiz and please please please post your answers! QuizFarm.com

Oh I totally agree. Actually, in my first dozen drafts of the post, I included statements like "social" and "missional" and "praxis" and "not personal only." Unfortunately, I felt like I was on my way to writing a thesis, so I trimmed it down to inward relationship and change, which if authentic, would be followed by outward action. Doing "things greater than Christ," in my mind, necessarily included joining others, otherwise we wouldn't be doing things, um, greater. I like your statement much better. It includes what I had in my mind, but that didn't come out so well in my statement.

I was pretty sure that was what you meant, but I have to yank your chain just a little sometimes. As far as my "core beliefs," I'd say I'm still in the process of figuring those out. One day I lean a little to the left and the next day I lean a little to the right. One day I'm philosophical and metaphysical and the next day I'm practical and pragmatic.

Was that a subtle way of telling me my reply to you was ambiguous?