AletheiaRivers

I said that an "Ethics or Social Justice or Good Works Forum might be fun." In my mind they are all related. I actually prefer the term "religious" over "spiritual" but decided to use the latter term because it's more popular and politically correct. And I didn't say that it mattered if good works are seperate from spirituality. Atheists are some of the most ethical people I know. What I said was that I don't understand how anyone can have a strong belief in God (and all that entails) and at the same time not be an ethical person (or a person concerned with good works or social justice). As far as a definition of "spiritual," if you type "define: spiritual" (w/o the quotes) into google, you'll get loads of definitions.

I cried for hours after the last episode of Quantum Leap.

Cause and Effect was an awesome episode. I almost listed it in my favorites list, but then decided my list was too long as it was. I'm partial to episodes where Patrick Stewart was the main actor, which explains why I included the Locutus of Borg episodes, as well as the follow up episode "Family" where Jean Luc stays with his brother. The Chain of Command episodes are the ones where JL is taken hostage by the Cardassians and tortured. His last words to his jailer as he leaves "There are four lights!" was heartwrenching, as well as his admission to Troi later, that he was just about to give in and say "five" to make the torture stop, if he hadn't been released. Another favorite was Rascals, when Picard, Guinan and Ro are turned into children (with no loss of memory) via the transporter. The boy they got to play Picard was perfect (as were the other two). Listening to him call Riker "number 1" and to "make it so" was hillarious.

Here are the definitions of the heresies found on the quiz, courtesy of the author of the quiz. 1. Docetism -God is Spirit, not matter, so Jesus' body was spiritual and only seemed like it was physical -God cannot co-exist with matter, Jesus only appeared to be fully human -Created matter is fallen and corrupt, so Jesus did not take on full human nature Docetism was an error with several variations concerning the nature of Christ. Generally, it taught that Jesus only appeared to have a body, that he was not really incarnate, (Greek, "dokeo" = "to seem"). This error developed out of the dualistic philosophy which viewed matter as inherently evil, that God could not be associated with matter, and that God, being perfect and infinite, could not suffer. Therefore, God as the word, could not have become flesh. 2. Apollinarianism -Jesus' human nature is lesser than his divine nature. -Jesus' mind was divine, not merely human. -Jesus' ordinary human soul was overcome by the the divine Logos inside him In other words, though Jesus was a man, He did not have a human mind. The mind of Christ was solely divine. 3. Arianism -Having been the first creation of the Father, the Son then created the Holy Spirit -The divine Logos replaced Jesus' human nature in the incarnation -Only God the Father is eternal, and he produced the Son out of nothing Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation. The Son is then the one who created the universe. Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son. Though Christ was a creation, because of his great position and authority, he was to be worshipped and even looked upon as God. Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son. 4. Adoptionism -Jesus was raised from the dead and united with God as a reward for his obedience -Son of God' refers to Jesus' divine nature only. As man he is simply the 'firstborn'. -Jesus was given supernatural powers and made the Son of God at his baptism Adoptionism as a teaching first appeared in the second century. Those who held it denied the preexistence of Christ and, therefore, His deity. Adoptionists taught that Jesus was tested by God and after passing this test and upon His baptism, He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son. As a reward for His great accomplishments and perfect character Jesus was raised from the dead and adopted into the Godhead. 5. Gnosticism -Jesus was not really God incarnate, because God cannot indwell corrupted matter -Salvation will ultimately involve an escape from physical reality -God is Spirit, and so spirit is good. Matter is bad. The word "gnosticism" comes from the Greek word "gnosis" which means "knowledge." There were many groups that were Gnostic and it isn't possible to easily describe the nuances of each variant of Gnostic doctrines. However, generally speaking, Gnosticism taught that salvation is achieved through special knowledge (gnosis). This knowledge usually dealt with the individual's relationship to the transcendent Being. 6. Monophysite - Jesus is God and man in one person - Jesus' humanity was absorbed to produce one new divine nature - Jesus did not have two natures (human and divine) he had one new composite nature Monophysitism is an error concerning the nature of Christ that asserts Jesus had only one nature, not two as is taught in the correct doctrine of the hypostatic union: Jesus is both God and man in one person. In monophysitism, the single nature was divine, not human. It is sometimes referred to as Eutychianism, after Eutyches 378-452, but there are slight differences. Monophysitism arose out of a reaction against Nestorianism which taught Jesus was two distinct persons instead of one. Its roots can even be traced back to Apollinarianism which taught that the divine nature of Christ overtook and replaced the human one. 7. Modalism - God is one person, but exists in three forms as Father, Son and Spirit - The Father, Son, and Spirit all exist, but never at the same time. - On the cross, God was manifest as the Son. He is now manifest as the Holy Spirit. Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ. 8. Nestorianism - Only Jesus' human nature died on on the cross. - Jesus is two persons; one human and one divine - Miracles show Jesus divinity. Hunger shows his humanity. Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine. 9. Pelagianism - We have not inherited original sin from Adam. - God's grace is an aid to help people come to him. - We can obey the commands that God has given us. This is why some people in the OT were righteous. Pelagius taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God. He denied original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him. 10. Socianism - Jesus was not eternally pre-existent, he was rather a deified man - God exists in singular unity, there can be no human-divine union - God is a single person with the Holy Spirit as the power of God Socianism is derived from two brothers of the surname Sozinni who lived in the 1500's in Poland. Socinianism denies the doctrine of the Trinity claiming it denies the simplicity of God's unity. Instead, God is a single person with the Holy Spirit as the power of God. Since it emphasizes the unity of God, there could be no divine and human union in a single person as Christ. Therefore, Socinianism denies the incarnation and deity of Christ as well as Christ's pre-existence. It teaches that Jesus was only a man. However, as is separate from the unitarians, it taught that Jesus was a deified man and was to be adored as such. Nevertheless, since Jesus is not divine by nature, His sacrifice was not efficacious; that is, it did not result in the redemption of people who would trust in it. Instead it was an example of self sacrifice. The followers of Socinianism also rejected infant baptism, hell, and taught the annihilation of the wicked. The Bible was authoritative but was only properly understood through rationalism. 11. Monarchianism - The Holy Spirit is the presence of God the Father - God is the Father, and Jesus is only a man - There is one God who exists as one person Monarchianism teaches that God is the Father and that Jesus is only a man, denied the personal subsistence of the Logos and taught that the Holy Spirit was a force or presence of God the Father. Present day groups in this category are the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, and Unitarians. Modern groups in this general category are the Oneness Pentecostal groups known as the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. However, the present day modalists maintain that God's name is Jesus. They also require baptism "in Jesus' name" not "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" for salvation. 12. Albigensian - Suicide is a good way to get rid of the evil of the body - All material things were created by Satan - The body is evil, and so will not be resurrected A heresy during the middle ages that developed in the town Albi in Southern France. This error taught that there were two gods: the good god of light usually referred to as Jesus in the New Testament and the god of darkness and evil usually associated with Satan and the "God of the Old Testament." Anything material was considered evil including the body which was created by Satan. The soul, created by the good god, was imprisoned in the evil flesh and salvation was possible only through holy living and doing good works. At death, if the person has been spiritual enough, salvation comes to the believer. But, if the person has not been good enough, he is reincarnated as an animal or another human. The Albigenses denied the resurrection of the body since it was considered evil. 13. Donatism - The efficacy of sacraments depend on the moral status of those administering them - A baptism is invalid if performed by a minister who later renounces his faith - The Eucharist is not effective if it is administered by a leader who is sinful The problem with Donatism is that no person is morally pure. The effectiveness of the baptism or administration of the Lord's supper does not cease to be effective if the moral character of the minister is in question or even demonstrated to be faulty. Rather, the sacraments are powerful because of what they are, visible representations of spiritual realities. God is the one who works in and through them and He is not restricted by the moral state of the administrant. 14. Chalcedon Compliant - Jesus is at once complete in Godhead and manhood - Jesus divine and human natures are in no way confused or annulled by their union with each other - Jesus is of one substance with the Father in his divine nature.

The person who created the test has a fun Blog. On it he makes the following comment that had me chuckling:

You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. Chalcedon compliant 83% Modalism 67% Monophysitism 67% Pelagianism 42% Apollanarian 33% Nestorianism 33% Monarchianism 33% Gnosticism 25% Arianism 17% Adoptionist 17% Albigensianism 0% Docetism 0% Donatism 0% Socinianism 0%

An Ethics or Social Justice or Good Works Forum might be fun. This very subject was something my husband and I were discussing last night. Ethics are becoming divorced from spirituality as if they are two different things. It's not that you can't be ethical and NOT spiritual at the same, it's that I have a hard time as to how someone can be truely spiritual and not also be ethical.

Intuitive, smart and beautiful!

Depending on whom you read, pantheism and panentheism are defined the same or VERY differently. I choose to use the term panENtheism, because it's my experience that most modern people do know of and see a difference. What I mean is, years ago you could say "pantheist" and people at large may have understood that to mean that the universe is in God, but that God transcends the universe. Nowadays, people would probably hear pantheism and think that the universe is God and that God is exhausted within the universe. You'd love my cats then: Circe and Calypso. Isn't it sad when one groups gradual understanding of who God is, is taken as "carved in stone once and for all time fact" to be used as a dictionary of how to live our modern lives? Ah the joys of fundamentalism. Happily, there are more balanced views of the OT and what it can mean to us today. You probably could, but the question is, would you want to? I can't imagine dedicating any portion of my life to anything that I have a "general indifference" to.

No problem. I'm feeling pretty much just the opposite this week (well, as non-paradoxical as I can get anyhow).

Or is it both? Is it, like Jung said, the rhizome and the flower?

What Fred said. The book is great fiction, horrible history. And I can't wait to read it again.

Earlier in the thread I said: Little did I know how right I was. I just found this on Wiki: I don't think the distinction between Orthodox Christian panentheism and commonly understood panentheism is all that different (even if the EO church wants to view it as such).

"Inner Light" is hands down my favorite TNG ever! I just watched it the other day. My other favorites are: "The Best of Both Worlds" parts 1 & 2 "Family" "Chain of Command" parts 1 & 2 "Frames of Mind" And of course "All Good Things"

Here's a blurb I found on a New Thought site about my favorite Hindu philosopher:

Just call me the yin/yang kid. Actually, no more than you or I. We are all Buddha, but then you knew that.

Redneck Weather Station

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson go on a camping trip, set up their tent, and fall asleep. Some hours later, Holmes wakes his faithful friend. "Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see." Watson replies, "I see millions of stars." "What does that tell you?" Watson ponders for a minute. "Astronomically speaking, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo. Timewise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three. Theologically, it's evident the Lord is all-powerful and we are small and insignificant. Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you?" Holmes is silent for a moment, then speaks. "Watson, you idiot, someone has stolen our tent."

Mahatma Ghandi walked barefoot everywhere, to the point that his feet became quite thick and hard. He also was quite a spiritual person. Even when he was not on a hunger strike, he did not eat much and became quite thin and frail. Furthermore, due to his diet, he had bad breath... He came to be known as a super calloused fragile mystic plagued with halitosis.

I think it comes down to whether or not the philosophy focuses on a union-dissolution experience, or a communion-participatory experience. Advaita is union/dissolution. Vishishtadvaita is communion/participatory. Saying "Atman is Brahman" means something a bit different to an Advaitan than it does to a Vishishtadvaitan. Talking at all about Buddhism seems moot, since it's not theistic at all. However, it seems like it would fall into the union/dissolution category. Hey, thank goodness I'm not Buddhist then, eh?

Welcome to the board fred. I live (and grew up) in Utah. Most of my family is Mormon, although I have a few on my mother's side that are JW's. We all have different views towards a few things that you mentioned, but that's the beauty of progressive Christianity. We can agree, and disagree, and hopefully have fruitfull discussion. Welcome to the board!

Yeah, I decided I didn't want to list every different view. But, for the most part, Buddhism "reduces" everything to mind. Strictly speaking, that is acosmic. There are definitely times when Shankara spoke of the cosmos as the identity of Brahman. Overall though, he did believe this world is illusion a bit more than he believed it was real. At least, that's my take. Does Wilber believe the cosmos is maya? That everything is illusion and that we need to wake up? Did Watts believe that? I haven't read either of them. I totally appreciate how paradoxical these things really are, you know that.

Actually, it doesn't have to have anything to do with the Trinity. Do you think God's holy spirit (as per JW's) is part of God? If it's God's active force and it dwells within you, you can rightly say that, in essence, God dwells within you. If I was able to send out life-force from myself, and put some of it within you, you would be able to say that a part of Aletheia dwelt within you. The concept of God dwelling within man is not a "new age" concept. It's found in Christian Orthodoxy. Yes, some groups, like Unity, take it to an "acosmic" extreme, but that doesn't mean that the idea isn't found in scripture. New Thought has a lot in common with Hinduism and Buddhism because, for the most part, they have a view of God (of course Buddhists don't say "God") and the universe that is "acosmic." This means that they believe that the only real thing is the Mind of God, and that the universe, mankind, everything, is basically a dream or illusion. Some New Thought groups, however, are attempting to make a switch to "panENtheism" which is very different from acosmism and pantheism. Unity/New Thought/Religious Science for the most part is "acosmic." Advaita Vedanta Hinduism is "acosmic." Buddhism is "acosmic." Shaivism Hinduism is "panENtheistic." Eastern Orthodox Christianity is "theistic," although I would argue that EO is "panENtheistic" and just doesn't want to admit it.

Just wanted to clarify, because in your opening post you said "or have God In US." If you have Holy Spirit in you, you have God in you. There is a concept in Eastern Christianity that says that at death, rather than going to heaven (as in pearly gates, or sitting on clouds) or living on earth, that we would join in a mystical union with God. It's called Theosis. It's much different than what New Thought teaches, although it might sound similar. It's important to understand the different view points and to differentiate between them. There are various ontological views that seem similar on the surface, but are quite different in the details.