AletheiaRivers

I hadn't ever heard of the series until about a month ago when someone over at beliefnet (perhaps it was you?) mentioned in a thread that they were just finishing up the course. At this point I don't think I'd be interested in taking the course. I've had enough deconstruction in my spiritual life. Time for some reconstruction. I'd love to hear a bit more about your experiences and insights though.

I have experienced times when I feel God was "nudging" me (for want of a better term) in a particular direction. I have also had times when I felt God's love and comfort in very DIRECT ways. I guess you could call these happenings "intervention"? I dunno. I wouldn't call them that, but perhaps I'm nitpicking. As far as people who believe that God CANNOT intervene, I don't actually know of any group outside of Process Theology that believe that. I don't want to speak for those that take this stance because we have some very learned Process leaning people on this board. Perhaps we can lure them into this discussion? (Much of it was discussed on the Panentheism and Panentheism 101 threads.)

I agree. That's the impression that I got from Heart of Christianity as well. I was just seeking to clarify different positions on the idea of an "interventionist God" that I've come across from different panentheists.

A panentheistic view of God allows for a God that could be intercessory. Some panentheists believe God intervenes. Some panentheists believe God COULD intervene, but will not, or perhaps will only do so in very unobtrusive and small ways. Some panentheists (like Process Theology) believe God CANNOT intervene. I think Borg falls into the "could but won't" category?

That's why I think Neo-Paganism is a more honest label for most of what is practiced today. There is so much that has been changed (most don't practice human sacrifice for example) and so much that has been lost. I too get a laugh at those that think their tradition has survived intact from "ancient times". Thank goodness that Wicca isn't synonymous with either paganism or neo-paganism. Most pagans I know wouldn't EVER call themselves Wiccan. To Wicca's credit, there is a HUGE movement within to clear out the "fluffiness". Either way though, as started by Gardener, Wicca is hardline polytheistic (despite what many authors write), and I could never embrace polytheism. I don't find much within modern paganism (in my state (Ut) at least) to compel me. If I did, it's very possible that I might still be there. It was my philosophical meanderings that made me unhappy with the "empty-headedness" I found in most of the books I was reading. I'm glad to find many of my ideas are at home (and have been all along) in Christianity.

I guess my point was that the early church fathers were probably more influenced by "pagan" ideas than they would have cared to admit (and I don't mean that in a bad way). Whether the Gnostics or the Neoplatonists (which ISN'T what I had in mind) were polytheistic or monotheistic really doesn't matter, other than I was "giving credit" to the early church fathers for possibly coming up with an idea on their own, rather than "borrowing" it. Did they "borrow" it (theosis)? In my mind, some of the ideas that the "orthodox" early church fathers had were quite "unbiblical" and I APPRECIATE that. Here they were, arguing against "heresy", when much of what they were dialoguing about would be considered heretical by much of Christianity today. What does Wicca reject about Christianity that was also true of classical Paganism? Hmmm. Guess it depends on how someone defines pagan. I was pagan in that I wasn't Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, etc ... etc ... etc ... I believed (believe) in God/dess. I was (am) monotheistic. I was (am) panentheistic. I was (am) experiential/mystical. Only difference now is that I am relooking at what Jesus might have been and who he might have been. I admit that I am trying to fit Christianity into my "naturalistic" ontology. Doing that makes Jesus something very different than what many Christians believe Jesus to be. That brings me back around to a "theosis" idea. LOL.

As a JW I was basically taught that the church fathers were part of a "great apostacy" created by Satan to turn Christians from the "original" teachings of Jesus. I've had that idea in the back of my mind since I left JW's in 1999. This past year I've had occasion to learn (thanks Teaching Company) a bit about the views of many "heretical" Christians. Some of the ideas they had were pretty cool, but overall, I came away from the lectures thinking "Good grief, no wonder the church fathers called them heretics, some of them were really WEIRD!" I'm coming to appreciate why they made some of the choices they did in what books to put in and what books to leave out. I do think it's sad, however, that so many of the "heretical" books had to be hidden so that they weren't destroyed. Especially since some books that make up the canon (imo) walk the "heretical line" when compared with the rest of the Christian scriptures. I think of the Eastern Orthodox idea of Theosis and I can't remember where that idea is "taught" in the Bible. It's "funny" that the concept is something I thought of while I was pagan. I ask myself, why did some of the church fathers conceive of such an idea? Is it an idea possibly borrowed from paganism? I highly doubt it because paganism (as I understand it) during that time was polytheistic. Anyway ... I guess what I'm trying to say is that I've come to appreciate that some of the church fathers, by todays "fundamentalist" standards, would probably be called heretical if they were alive and writing today.

I couldn't say yay or nay as to whether McLaren's views are skewed because I come from a very religiously sheltered background and have no basis for comparison. But I will say he is the first author to make me go "Hmmm, perhaps I'd fit happily as a Catholic or as Eastern Orthodox after all". He's helped me to see that much of Traditional Christianity has very deeply embedded mysticism, which I've never truly appreciated before. I thought you HAD to be a "heretic" to even find mysticism within Christianity (ala Gnosticism). Who'd a thought that an idea like "Theosis" even existed within ORTHODOXY?! Those dang church fathers had some pretty cool ideas. Other authors for the most part have turned me off anything remotely traditional because they give the impression that Traditional Christianity = Fundamentalism and that the only other option is to deconstruct the Bible to the point where it doesn't mean anything (to me) anymore. McLaren's book showed me that there is a third option between "Spong style Liberalism" and "Falwell style Fundamentalism".

I'll wholeheartedly "ditto" that recommendation.

Since I hadn't heard of him, I looked him (Mack) up on amazon. You're right, there are people (many many many people) that disagree with what he says. Sounds like even historians who are NOT Christian disagree with what he says. Between what you, Fred and the amazon reviewers have to say, I won't put him on my reading list. I'm loving my latest book "God, a Guide for the Perplexed". I recently watched a hour long interview with the author here: Keith Ward Interview on Meaning of Life TV It's a really cool websight. There are interviews with Freeman Dyson, Arthur Peacocke, Steven Pinker, John Polkinghorne, Huston Smith, Brian Swimme, and lots of others.

Awesome necklace. I love Celtic knotwork. Actually, my avatar here for a while was a Celtic knot, although not the trinity one. I didn't say what I said to characterize anything that you said. I said what I said to refer to when I've said that I "worked out" two ontological views - one monistic and one not monistic - that seem to be logical, valid views of reality. At that point in my ontological musings I decided to embrace the non-monistic view because it gives MY LIFE more meaning. I seriously went down the monistic path for a while as I studied Hinduism and the Kabbalah and a little Buddhism. I felt meaningless. I imagine that my views and feelings could change toward that ontology someday. A lot of it I know has to do with ME and not necessarily with the ontological view. On a side note, you said: This is actually pretty close to what I mean by "relate". Only in my view, God created life in order to SHARE this already complete relationship with beings that (maybe) need to grow into this "relationship". Now look what you've done! You've made me discuss theology!

When I use the word "relate" I'm certainly not thinking that God was LONELY. It's a metaphysical concept I've come across time and time again in various places that ties in with "receiving in order to give". Anyway, I don't think God created us because God NEEDED our love. Could God have WANTED to give love to someone or something other than himself? Could God have wanted to share Godself with other creatures? Could God have desired to share the dance of life with as many beings as possible (ala Eastern Orthodoxy)? Sure, why not? Seems as valid a reason for God to create as any other theory I've heard. It offers more hope and reason for living TO ME than thinking that I'm some dream of God that, when God decides to finally wake up, POOF! everything is gone. I haven't been participating in any "deep" discussions because basically, I'm burned out. I'm willing to bet this comes across in my tone. I'm sorry if it does. I usually enjoy these discussions (as you probably have noticed).

LOL! I've mentioned the book in so many of my posts over the past few months I started to feel like a "Generous Orthodoxy wannabee". It's a great book.

Hi blinky. It's great to have you here. Based on your interests it sounds like you may have much in common with me, as well as a few others here I can think of. The board has been pretty dead the past few days. It ebbs and flows.

Oh I totally agree with you. I was floored when she told me that, but I didn't want to get into it with her as we didn't and don't really know each other. We met in a chatroom. She was a former pagan who had a conversion experience to Christianity. As I was still somewhat in the pagan camp at the time but was making my way back to Christianity, I thought she and I might have stuff in common. I was WRONG! At the time that she and I were chatting I was under the impression she was somewhat of a liberal Christian. I didn't know what her self described "hard-line Calvinism" meant when she said it in chat. When we took our discussion to private IM'ing, she told me to pray the "sinners prayer" and to start reading the Bible with the book of John in mind (read it first). It was then I knew I had misjudged her theology. It just goes to show however that "even" hard-liners can bring individuals to Christ. She was one of a few that chatted in that room who helped re-stir my love of Christianity. She'd probably tell me I'm going to hell if she and I were still in touch.

I know what movies I'll be watching this weekend.

Did you mistype something? Or am I taking something out of context? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Out of context. Actually, I didn't really finish my thought to Lily so well. I was saying that my musings have led me to two possible conclusions, of which I do not accept one (the pantheism one). When I wrote the post it seemed like that was obvious in my wording, but now that I reread it, I see that it wasn't. LOL. Sorry about the confusion. I seem to do that a lot.

I do have and read Care of the Soul, but it's been since about 1998. I'll have to re-read it. I'll look into Hillman as well. I'm not familiar with him at all. I just bought "God, a Guide for the Perplexed" by Keith Ward. Do you know his stuff at all?

Down the board a bit is a thread I started called God's Politics. In it is a link to a discussion group on beliefnet that is discussing the book. The discussion is closed for new posters at this point, but you can read what others are writing. Might be interesting to see if others get out of the book what you do.

Oh good grief! Hehehehehehe !

It was pretty profound. The people I was with couldn't understand why I just sat there crying after the move was over. LOL. I was in agony waiting for the next movie to come out. I never entertained any hopeful ideas about the next movie developing any Christian symbolism. On the contrary, I WORRIED that they would, because for me, when I saw the first movie, it was Christianity that I escaped from. Christianity was my Matrix. I took the red pill to find out the truth. LOL. Little did I know that I'd willingly come back a few years later. I'll have to watch it again with this is mind. I have a tendency to find "signs, omens, synchronicities" everywhere, so who knows, I may end up loving it yet. I don't remember the details of the conversation with the Architect. I was too busy being bummed out by virtual vampires and ghosts. I thought it was tacky. Also, I thought Mr Smith was one of the best written villains ever and I felt that the movie removed so much of his "evilness" and replaced it with sci-fi special effects. The ONE Mr Smith in The Matrix affected me more than the thousands of Mr. Smiths did in the sequels. Number symbolism? Gonna have to watch it again obviously. What are your theories? I know 6 is symbolic, but why 23?

I'm hoping he goes into this a little bit more as well. I'm pretty settled in what you just said as well. Only difference is I call this Ultimate Reality or Source - God. Free will probably is a paradox that will never be solved only because even if we have free will, HOW WOULD WE KNOW? However my amateur philosophical gut tells me free will is true. Ontologically, as a reason for something existing rather than nothing, it makes sense. I have to step back, away from scripture and everything I've ever been told and taught and ask "Why are we here? Why did God create?" I come up with two answers: 1) We are God. God (for some reason) manifested himself as the universe, as matter. To learn? To "have fun"? Reality is pantheistic/monistic, there is no good or evil in that everything that happens is just God, well, experiencing. 2) God created life in order to RELATE. Relationship only means something, love only means something, if it's freely given. LOL! Aletheia's "Raison D'etre" (spelling?) in a nutshell.

I will have to look into that as I LOVE Thomas Moore. "The Soul's Religion" is one of my all time favorite books EVER! Can you recommend where I might find his discussion of Fate?

I can tell right now that I'm not going to get any work done today. I'm so glad that you added on the "not saying you're disagreeing with this" part or I'd have been mighty confused Mr Devil's Advocate. This whole time I've only been talking about the logical necessity of "evil" IF we have free will. And yes, we are culpable for our choices. It's funny that all the counter attacks to the free will theodicies that I read yesterday were "But, how can you hold children accountable for ... " My first thought was "We're not children" and the second thought was "What do you mean by 'held accountable.'" We do live in a deterministic universe. However, free will is not at odds with determinism, so I can affirm both to some degree. My "gut" tells me that God didn't just create the universe in order to manifest himself so as to amuse himself or "learn" something. I think God created the universe 1) To share life and 2) To enter into relationship with creatures that freely choose to enter that relationship as well. Hmmm. I know how I want to interpret this statement - as a "Hinduish Thou Art That, life is Maya, wake up and remember you are God" idea. It goes to what I said above, I don't think we are God manifest (pantheism). I know you've hinted at this in the past but haven't really said if that is an idea your are REALLY entertaining.

I've been doing research over the past few days, trying to figure out what it is I'm trying to figure out in regards to this thread. It's confusing when so many different theologians have theodicies all called "The Free Will Defense", even when those theodicies are so contrary to one another (ie John Hick/Iranaeus and Plantinga/Augustine). I think I'll throw my vote in with CS Lewis who argued for the Intrinsic Impossibility of having a world (any world) with free will that doesn't have the possibility of evil. It's like having square circles. I guess if you don't think we have free will then the point is moot. Evil and the Power of God C.S. Lewis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Problem: If God is Omnipotent, then why does Human suffering occur? Asking the Question: “Why couldn’t God have made the world without it?” Presupposition of the view is that humans have free will. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lewis’s approach: Argues that it is possible to affirm both : Divine Omnipotence That it is impossible for God to create a world containing free beings that would also not allow for the possibility of evil. Such a world is intrinsically impossible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conditional and Intrinsic Impossibility: Conditionally impossible: The claim that a thing or act is impossible unless certain other conditions obtain. Intrinsically impossible: The claim that a thing or act is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds for all agents. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intrinsic impossiblities: Square Circles Uncaused acts Free Will and an absence of evil? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The meaning of Omnipotence: “With God all things are possible” Does this mean: God can do anything? (Even the Intrinsically Impossible?) or - God can do that which is not Intrinsically Impossible Is it a limit of Omnipotence to not be able to do that which is not a thing? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possible vs. Impossible Worlds: If we can speak of the possible worlds God could have created, we can also talk of the impossible worlds which God could not create. Because they involve a contradiction - something which is intrinsically impossible A World without the possibility of Evil could not contain free beings. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evil is necessary if we are to be free: 1. Beings with free choice need things to choose from - some of these choices will be better than others, some worse. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evil is necessary if we are to be free: 2. The environment required for free choice must be one in which actions have predictable consequences. God cannot suspend the natural order for some, or the freedom of all is compromised. If God acted to prevent evil, then our brains would be incapable of thinking of it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evil is necessary if we are to be free: 3. In order for humans to relate, we must be physical. If we are physical, we must be capable of being hurt. In order to feel a caress, we must also be capable of being injured. In order to develop morally (a choice), we must have the possibility of Evil. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusions: God can still be thought of as omnipotent, but as incapable of doing that which is intrinsically impossible. As to why God would create a world of free beings (or any world at all), we have no way of knowing.