AletheiaRivers

I think to try to have a conversation without using human language is going to be rather difficult. Humans use the language of time and I don't know how else to write. I suppose I could figure it out, but I just don't have the time. What I'm getting from your comment is that God has "always" been emptied out (since there wasn't a "before" (in state "x") and "after" (now in state "y"). That's process theology. "Panta, where are you?"

I bumped it and am going to respond to jerry's comments over there instead.

Bump

Don't suppose I should bring my Rob Zombie or Marilyn Manson? Seriously, I have a little of everything: Floyd and the Doors; Frank Sinatra and Ella Fitzgerald; the Black Crowes and Rasputina; Brad Paisley and Brooks and Dunn; Neil Young and Joni Mitchell; Sarah McLaughlan and Dido.

A question popped into my mind. Do you think God can undo what he has done with the universe? Or do you think it has to "play itself out" in a gnostic sort of way (or kabbalah); that we'll rejoin God when a critical mass of gnosis or self-awareness is attained? I'm of the mind (currently but open to change at any time) that God DOES still have transcendant power over the universe. However, he's not up there deciding someone has to learn this or that lesson (I agree that is Sunday school theology, which is not necessarily a bad thing). I think the universe is as it is because of logical necessity. Complete free will or no free will. That's not to say that God's NOT having transcendant power over the universe means we DON'T have free will. I can see that he might have divested himself of such power as well as making free will a logical necessity too.

I don't see "co-creation" as God needing our help. I see it as God allowing us to be involved in the process of bringing heaven, the kingdom, to earth for our own maturation process. God could force us to do good, to be good, but I don't think he would. As far as God being less than perfect? No matter what God's level of perfection is, it is supremely perfect from our point of view. Any being that could create, give birth to or manifest such "things" as superstrings, quantum particles, black holes, etc could certainly prevent a hurricane or an earthquake even if his power wasn't ontologically total (imo). I could imagine a world where there isn't so much freedom as what we have, but would I want to live there? I'm not sure. Again, what freedoms would I want to give up in order to have safety? Where would I have God draw the line? For me it comes down to what Jerry said in another thread. I've found a peace with God in regards to "the problem of evil". I love God for what he is, not for what I would have him do for me or could do for me.

What I appreciated with all the definitions I found when googling "addiction" is that it's psychological, not physical. I was diagnosed with anxiety disorder many years ago. My doctor tried and tried and tried to get me to take xanax. I refused. About a year ago, when the vestibular migraines showed up again, my doctor prescribed xanax as a vestibular suppressant. I expressed my concern over getting addicted. He rolled his eyes and said basically "Don't confuse addiction with dependence. You don't have an addictive personality, so I'm not worried about that. And dependence isn't an issue if it is something that you NEED to be well."

I agree. I don't see the harm in it. If you pray, then make a decision and it WAS God guiding you - then great! If you pray, then make a decision and it God DIDN'T give any input whatsoever, then you made the descision for yourself (which you would have anyway if you hadn't ever prayed in the first place).

Oh OK, go ahead ... "I call him ____ ____"

LOL Mary! You know you've been on a cleanse when plain brown rice and vegetables sound really really good.

I like the idea that God's Spirit is in us. It's in each and every one of our cells. We are Christ's hands and eyes and feet and ears. WE do works greater than Christ did because he works through us. We are like "mini-Christs" as one website put it. (No Austin Powers jokes please.)

I'm about 1/4 of the way in and I'm really appreciating it so far. His psychological insight is amazing.

I've certainly never felt like you were yelling, but I did want to make sure you didn't think I was. Actually, based on our past conversations, I've never been quite sure. I don't remember you definitively saying "Nay" but maybe you did. Thanks for clearing it up. Hopefully for the last time. That's how I understand monism as well. Agreed. OK. I think I agree. I think my comment earlier about God creating a "hole" (symbolic) in order to manifest might fit in here? Actually I was thinking just the opposite. Since God is transcendant I believe that the whole cosmos is within his "view". ALSO, being immanent, God relates to us on this level of reality as well. I think that is the truth of the incarnation, the cross and the resurrection.

I googled "define: addiction" (because I didn't know for sure what the definition was) and here are the first four definitions listed. A chronic, relapsing disease characterized by compulsive drug-seeking and abuse and by long-lasting chemical changes in the brain. teens.drugabuse.gov/utilities/glossary.asp Strong emotional and /or psychological dependence on a substance such as alcohol or drugs that has progressed beyond voluntary control. www.dphilpotlaw.com/html/glossary.html Uncontrollable craving, seeking, and use of a substance such as a drug or alcohol. www.stjude.org/glossary A term referring to compulsive drug use, psychological dependence, and continuing use despite harm. Addiction is frequently and incorrectly equated with physical dependence and withdrawal. Physical dependence, not addiction, is an expected result of opioid use. www.aarpsegundajuventud.org/english/health/2003-nov/glossary.htm

Beautiful. I don't see anything at first read that I disagree with or couldn't affirm.

I'm extremely excited to talk about these things. I was expressing that to my husband this morning and that I hoped the conversation could continue. I do get frustrated with bulletin boards as a medium for conversation. It's not helping that Opera (as a web browser) doesn't like ipbhost's interface and makes it difficult to deal with the formatting tools. It's easier to put things in ALL CAPS or in "quotes" instead of italicizing, and I think it makes the emphasis come out wrong. I also don't deal with "Devil's Advocates" well. Just ask my hubby. It's his favorite role too.

EXACTLY!

Right. My point exactly. No, not really. I was trying to say that time is a way that change is verbalized, discussed, comprehended and that if for God one thing was one way and then was another way, then there was "change" for God. WE would say that x happened before y because that is how WE talk. I'm saying that perhaps NOW is all there IS and that time is just as much of an illusion as our seperateness from God. I don't know what to say to that. I'm trying to express my yearning for a union, theosis-like relationship with God and I don't feel I'm using the best language to express it. I capitalized "just" because, based on prior conversations, I thought you would get what I was trying to say. I certainly didn't mean "just God" as if it were a limited form of something. I don't find meaning in monism or pantheism. Perhaps that is just my hang-up. I believe God created life in order to share it with us. I know God didn't need to and because of the Trinity was complete, but I believe God wanted to. I think God enjoys giving so much that he wanted to move "outside" himself to do so and so created sentient life. Sorry I'm so touchy. There is only so much nit-picking I can take.

I can just see Fred, sitting lotus position, chanting and shaking his head in negation and bemusement: "Neither side has it right. Neither side has it right. Neither side has it right.'

Ahhhhh! LOL! And here I've been thinking I keep missing your point because you seem to be saying the opposite of everything I say, even when I think I'm agreeing with you. Crap I hate this one. Pppbbbll Hmmm. Was God timeless or has God always been eternally temporal? Is there even such a "thing" as time? I think it's a given that God is "in time" now, but how could there be a "time" when he was not? What I mean is: If "x" is the state of God's being timeless (and "full") and "y" is the state of God emptying himself (giving birth to time), then non-emptiness came prior to emptiness in a sequence. I say time doesn't exist. It's just the way we measure change. It's easier and it doesn't give me migraines. (Kidding) That's why I think God IS change. In essence, God IS time. Well, I'm not much of a dancer..... Actually, that's a completely different question. My immediate thought is that we lost ourselves to come here, so I suppose we'd gain ourselves to go back. But of course you mean do we lose our personality, right? I think so; but my certainty on that one hovers between 49% and 51% on a daily basis! I have faith that union with G-d will make up for whatever I sacrifices I make along the way. Brat! Am I me AND God, or am I JUST God? Did God empty himself to "experience for experiences sake" and there is no us? Or did God empty himself by "creating" us and when we "go back" we are both God and us? I'm not worried about loss of personality or ego, but I do long for union. I think the very nature of God (being emptied to create us) creates that longing within us?

A while ago an article came out in Discover magazine about ID and how someone had used a computer model to finally prove that no creator was needed to create life. A guy I worked with said he loved the article and hoped that it would put an end to the debate for good. I made a comment about how I believe there is evidence of intelligence in the design of the universe and he immediately went off on "YOU believe in 'Intelligent Design'?" I was left trying to say "No, no, no ... NOT the way the fundamentalists explain it. Not like what's happening in Kansas..." He wouldn't hear anything past my comment. In his mind there ARE only two choices. Argh! It makes me so grumpy!

And that those that argue against the Trinity don't really know what they are arguing against. Neither side has it right.

PS - I guess that answers the question of pantheism or panentheism actually.

I still think we are pretty much on the same page (but I could be wrong). What I meant about God having foreknowledge was from the perspective PRIOR TO the emptying. Unless you mean that there wasn't ever a time when God hadn't emptied himself? (A Process view I think.) Is God completely "exhausted" by emptying himself in your view (pantheism) or is there still transcendant mind? Do we lose ourselves completely when we go back to the source or do we join in the dance of God? Ah yes. I believe the "rulers, world authorities, principalities in high places" refers to the same thing and that Jesus conquered them on the cross. It wasn't just literal persons or institutions that he conquered, but the very situation of mankind.