AletheiaRivers

Sometimes it is a little discouraging, I guess, to come here and find people who make assumptions about different styles of worship.

 

Peace,

Mary

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Mary. I've missed ya girl!

I don't know where the lines are for human components (and I'm not sure they are necessary) just as I don't know where the line is between divinity and humanity. The notion of salvation, according to the whole Bible, is a more holistic concept of healing of body, soul, and spirit anyway -- a restoration of wholeness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I tried to express this exact same idea, in a rather sarcastic way I admit, in another thread. What is spirit? What is soul? What is matter? How do we know that they aren't actually the same thing? Why are we so insistent upon dualities? The duality of body and soul? Of God and creation?

I agree with what you've said about salvation. As I said in the above response, if God sustains us, if panentheism is true, then the difference between "sin" and wholeness is but a hair's breadth. The truth is that wholeness is here. The Kingdom of God is within.

Which leads me to consider the merits of panentheism, that God is an all-pervasive spirit. That the God from which we came is the God into whom we return. (yes, I know my sentence structure sucks. but this is a forum, not a literary society, and I try to type like I speak.)

First off, your sentence structure does not "suck." I think you write very well.

Secondly, I agree. I might rephrase your sentence to say: "The God from which we came, is the God in whom we exist, and to whom we will return."

We never leave God. It's impossible. So even now, with our individual personality quirks, we are part of God. We just don't see it.

If that is truly the case, then there may be no need (or even desire) for some sort of consciousness that *we* still exist. To say that we still exist implies that we are still something separated from God. There is God...and there is us.

 

Certain passages in the Bible do speak of everything being eventually consumated in God, of God being "all in all." If/when that happens, I think it is reasonable to assume that we will lose all sense of separateness. If/when that happens, we might very well be united with our loved ones in a way that was never possible "down here", in a way that transcends individuality. Maybe sort of like the Borg? One consciousness, one mind, one unity where distinctions are no longer necessary nor desired.

I go back and forth on this point. My overall view is that we, sentient consciousnesses, are important to God in some way. It may be that the "afterlife" will be a unitive dissolution of our egos. It may be that it will be a unitive participation, a blending of consciousness, but still some sense of distinction. It's possible. If we are part of God now, as in panentheism, and we have a sense of distinction (perhaps one that is way too strong), then a lesser, more unitive sense might be what's in store afterward. It's not all that foreign a concept to Christianity. The unitive idea is somewhat similar to Theosis in the EO church.

I can say that I do not hold the stereotypical idea of ghosts or of floating on clouds or of living inside the pearly gates.

But then again, I could be wrong.

And with this all in mind, perhaps the meaning of the cross has to do with symbolizing hidden, up and down and back and forth movement of spirit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm glad you brought up this point. This view of the cross is deeply esoteric and very mystical.

The cross, like the Tree of Life, (the axis mundi,) symbolizes the connection between heaven and earth, between spiritual and material, between life and death.

That may be the wrong question, wrong because it frames the question in too-narrow terms.  Centuries ago, the Neo-Platonic philosophy (Plotinus, Augustine, etc.) maintained that we're not composed of two parts, but three:  Body, Soul, and Spirit. 

When I was a JW we were taught that humans are a material body, combined with God's spirit (animating, supporting force) to form a living soul. That wouldn't be quite the same as what you said, being composed of three parts. More that we are composed of two parts, which combined form a third. (Heh. There's that trinity, yin/yang, duality in unity thing again.)

I don't hold hard and fast to that view anymore, because of my ideas regarding the "material" but I still find it a very helpful idea (metaphor, symbol, finger pointing to the moon).

I don't know much about the Hindu religion, but I understand that they have the concept of Atman. Atman is at the same time both the deepest part of ourselves (the Spirit)_and also the Universal Spirit. It is when we get in touch with our Spirit that we are closest to all other people, not in their everyday lives, but in their Spirit.

I think the Hindu view of Atman is very similar to the Jewish view of God's spirit as an animating force. It is also very similar to what I thnk of now when I think of myself and why (and anything) is alive. Thou art that.

I think Jesus tried to blow all of those clouds away when he taught that a relationship with God was not dependant upon the Law or the Temple. Love summed up the Law. We are the Temple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly! I should have read further before I posted the above I guess. Heh.

If it is of the Spirit, it sort of sticks in my craw and I can't get it out. It rings true in my soul in a way that doesn't require 99 theses in order to prove.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I quite agree.

I read something lately that you might appreciate regarding morality versus awareness.

"Unless awareness rises in you, all your morality is bogus, all your culture is simply a thin layer that can be destroyed by anybody. But once your morality has come out of your awareness, not out of a certain discipline, then it is a totally different matter. Then you will respond in every situation out of your awareness. And whatever you do will be good. Awareness cannot do anything that is bad. That is the ultimate beauty of awareness, that anything that comes out of it is simply beautiful, is simply right, and without any effort and without any practice."

Jesus said to Do Unto Others. To Love Neighbor. To Love God. That these are the summation of the law and the prophets.

We don't need 99 theses in order to prove what is of the Spirit. Unitive awareness can do that. I believe Jesus had this awareness and that he summed it up perfectly.

It gives rise to a mind that is capable of seeing a totally new dimension.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that is a beautiful definition of the outcome of mystical experience. Thanks Soma.

AR

 

You should add long and strange to modify your trip statement as it may pertain to me and my doings. I take it as a compliment,THANKS !!

 

Flow....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was intended as a compliment sir. And to modify my previous compliment ...

"You are a long and strange trip flow!"

Yes, you did post in the Debate forum. I was just making a general suggestion for future reference.

PS - John, I suggest you start new topics in the Debate Forum so that our conservative posters can participate.

Welcome to the board John! It's a great group here, if quiet.

I was going to ask you if you still attended RC Mass, but you answered that question already. Do you ever attend Mass? Do you still consider yourself Catholic?

I'm looking forward to your input here. You already know that I think your posts at Tweb are inspired.

Hmmmmm.... sometimes practice doesn't approach perfection.

 

As someone once said here doing the same thing over, and over, and over, and over again without ever changing anything in a positive way is a good definition of insanity.

 

About the only thing that really improves with practice is musical performance and the creation of graphic or written works of art. One could probably include trade skills in this also.

 

Obsessive-compulsive human behavior patterns are not healthy if they do not yield positive results in the future. I believe that we were all made that way from the beginning. It's part of our basic design.

 

Besides, wasn't Darius some sort of Persian leader-dude in the ancient days?

 

flow....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Flow, have I told you lately that you're a trip?!

We really do need a practice forum, don't we?

I recommend cutting and pasting after clicking "add reply" , instead of hitting "quote" or "reply."

Can someone be theologically fundamentalist or theologically conservative and be theologically progressive? I'd say no. However, any given progressive Christian might hold particular theological views that are considered conservative (like the virgin birth, for example).

Can someone be theologically Orthodox and be theologically progressive? It depends on what is meant by "orthodox" - big or little "O"? Eastern Orthodoxy is very different than western Protestantism. They don't believe Adam was created "perfect" in the Protestant sense. They don't believe in original sin or the fall in the same way most western Christians do. They have a very different view of "atonement" and do not believe God demanded or was appeased by the sacrifice of his son. They view scripture much more metaphorically than western Christians. In many ways, if someone was describing their faith and never used the label "Eastern Orthodox," that person might be labeled progressive.

Does someone have to be a Christian to be progressive? No. Someone could be a progressive Jew or Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim. I imagine there are bulletin boards for those progressive viewpoints. TCPC is a Christian one.

What beliefs can a person hold or not hold? I really couldn't say. It's too broad a category - "beliefs." There are many shades of theologically progressive Christians. Not all are "historical Jesus, Jesus Seminar" types. Some lean towards "new age" viewpoints. Some lean towards pluralism. Some lean towards inclusivism.

The deep truths found in scripture are amazing. I feel too much of it is missed because of the focus on the "hisorical Jesus." The need to toss aside the "supernatural" or the mythological because it was added later, or because it couldn't possibly have happened, misses the point, imo. The mythology of scripture, the primordial, archetypal truths are a treasure mine of insight just waiting to be explored, fleshed out and discussed.

My $.02

LOL. I feel just the opposite.

I liked the book a lot more than I expected to. In fact, I loved it. I can't wait for the next installment. And yes, it is going to be a series (if I understand correctly).

Is the cross really about personal salvation, or is there something more to the message?

Check out Brian McLaren's new book "The Secret Message of Jesus." It's very much about the question you asked above. And just for information: the book is NOT gnostic.

This is my view. As you can see, it greatly differs from typical Christianity, which is why I don't know if I could even be considered a Christian at all...even progressive.

Many Christians, even some that fall into the mainstream and Orthodox areas, don't believe Jesus death was a propriatory sacrifice. Some of the first views (of some church fathers) don't include propriation. There are many views, of how and why Jesus death was a sacrifice, that have nothing to do with appeasing an angry or offended God.

Google "Narrative Christus Victor" for an interesting interpretation.

I'm glad you checked in Des. I was thinking about you today. I sure miss the old group (Cynthia, Lolly, Fred, Cunninglily, XianAnarchist).... :-)

In the past, people here seemed to agree that progressive was best defined by a spirit of receptivity to new ideas and an interested tolerance to other people's ideas.  This used to be a great board to have discussions on with people who disagreed or saw things from different views but could have a civil exchange of ideas.  I'd love to see discussions like those again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ironically that's why I have been hanging out at a conservative Christian board - they are more open to dialogue than this place has been in the past few months. Who would have thought I'd be more comfortable discussing heretical and unorthodox theology with a bunch of conservatives?

Then what is my connection to God? It is through Spirit. To look for Spirit in the physical is to be distracted. Those who don't like such dualism might just have to get over that someday.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is "Spirit?" Where is it? Is it "out there" looking at the cosmos? Does it intermingle with the cosmos? Does it touch it in any way at all? Is "Spirit" some ethereal gaslike substance? Untouchable? Intangeable? Who says there is such a thing as "Spirit" anyway? The Bible? Did God create the universe? Where did the "stuff" come from that she created the universe with? Was it pulled out of nowhere? Ex nihilo? Did God use spirit to create physicality? How do you know there is such a sharp delineation between "spirit" and matter? What if matter IS spirit? What if there is no difference at all?

Those who don't like such non-dualism might just have to get over it someday.

We're due for some good discussions - I'm hopeful about this one! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No doubt. It would be nice, wouldn't it?

PP is clearly closer to Process Theology and its Panentheism than to a supernatural theism.  Marcus Borg does a great job of contrasting these two concepts of God in THE HEART OF CHRISTIANITY.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MT, I'm a perennialist, although I don't often use the term anymore. I'm also a panentheist. I'm not a Process Theist however. I probably fall closer to "Idealism."

Here is a great article about Chrisitan Perennialism. Christian Perennial Philosophy

I've been wondering if supernaturalism is true or if some other conception of God, like process theism, is true.

I'm not sure what you mean by "supernaturalism." Do you mean "big man in the sky" views of God? God as outside the universe? Who created species as they are in a specific amount of time?

Then yes, I'd say "supernaturalism" is untrue.

Which conception of God out there best appropriates the data of the world (the big bang, evolution, the mind/body problem, world religions, etc?)

Sometimes I think I'd make a better Vaishnivite (Hindu) than a Christian because my views of God, Christ, the meaning of life, etc ... are very far outside traditional Christianity (although perhaps not Eastern Orthodoxy). However, I think my views have a home in Christianity even moreso than the literalists. The early Church fathers were very mystical and I continually find the things I think of reflected in their views.

Wow. Amazing. Thank you for posting that. Beautiful. Breathtaking. Mystical.

Am I correct in remembering that this is the exibit being shown in the building made up of shipment containers?

Is it any wonder that Progressives identify most closely with this cannon Gospel ?

Flow-

This statement surprises me a little. I could have sworn that a few months ago in one topic or another many on the board said the exact opposite. I thought (could be wrong) that most said they preferred Matthew or Mark, but specifically not John.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually Flows statement (Hi Flow!) threw me a bit too. I wouldn't be surprised that it's flow's favorite (mystical as you are). I can think of a couple of others who might feel the same way, but by and large it's been my experience that PCers don't like John.

would assume many here would have trouble with most of chapter 3, which ends, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." There are many other such statements throughtout this entire book (John 14:6--I am the way...) that I would think might cause this gospel to be the Least appealing to many here. 

I think it depends on how those verses are interpreted. Generally they are used to "prove" exclusivism. However, there are those that feel that such an interpretation, in light of other verses that point to God's love and the desire to save all men, is incorrect.