glintofpewter

Religious pluralism makes no value judgments about all actually being equally valid. Denial of the ability to evaluate religions is a postmodern stance. That is the weakness of the postmodern. What religious pluralism does ask is relationship and dialog. In that relationship both subjects grow in their understanding of their own religious beliefs and their understanding of the other. And if one religion requires or motivates something of or in its adherents that is reprehensible according to popular consensus then in that dialog, which also takes place in the public square there will be changes. Dutch

Happy thanksgiving all.

Because many of us must be forced in to be tolerant by mandates. The company cannot change people's tribalism. I maybe too harsh. But the ecumenical movement failed because it looked for commonalities and that temptation to stress sameness, as you observe, Bill. It is easier legislate or to gloss over the differences, partly because we don't want to get to know ourselves and the other that deeply.

Not hard and fast - on the Moral Foundations site a comment about Fairness/Cheating and they are thinking about adding another one or two more

I like Nick's distinction between relativism and pluralism. For me the core question here is "Do I have a faith and belief system that I can hold onto?" One of the stages in inter-religious dialog is to become grounded in one's own belief. This is not relativism. It is being a centered individual inter-related with everyone else - in a pluralistic world. Just because it is not hard and fast does not mean that it is relative. Haidt, through surveys in many cultures has identified five moral foundations: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion Sanctity/Degradation By the way, he says liberals only value 1 & 2 in political conversations. Perhaps that is an issue here, also. We like to say morals are universal, instinctual, part of the evolution of a pro-social animal. Infants and toddlers recognize help/hindrance, fairness, and believe in retributive justice. The problem is that these moral tendencies are circumscribed by self-centered and tribal-centered perspectives. I think, then, that the toddler who insists in fair distribution of goods among animate objects can be influenced into perceiving that some group of animate objects don't count any more. This is the true relativity. Only my relations count. Take Care Dutch

"I don't know Who- or what- put the question, I don't know when it was put. I don't even remember answering. But at some moment I did answer Yes to Someone- or something". - Dag Hammarskjold

Wisdom is so kind and wise that wherever you may look you can learn something about God. Why would not the omnipresent teach that way? by Catherine of Siena, quoted in (worth reading) Sacred Sundays: The Full Side of Awakening Written by Saskia Tait from Daniel Ladinsky’s edited work, Love Poems from God. http://beamsandstrut...de-of-awakening

May they and you have peace about these difficult changes. Take Care Dutch

Gentle Arms of Eden by Dave Carter and Tracy Grammar more of a kids song about evolution and ecology. Kids left singing the chorus after one time through. This is my home This is my only home This is the only sacred ground that I have ever known And should I stray In the dark night alone Rock me Goddess in the gentle arms of Eden

Recently I listened to a conversation between Joshua Landy and Michael Saler about the Re-enchantment of the World (Max Weber said the world had become disenchanted when only that which is quantifiable was consider truth.) they describe this re-enchantment as a secular movement to fill the void left by the God of faith. Re-enchantment occurs in the redemption of fiction. Fans of a particular fictions such as Sherlock Holmes or Star Trek gather to discuss and write papers about the fiction. They also point out that in this frame for observing lies the wonderful world of the imagination. The Bible, dismissed as as fiction is then redeemed as fiction because fiction itself is raised in value. http://www.stanford.edu/dept/fren-ital/opinions/podcast/opinions.xml. Search this page for michael saler or re-enchantment to find the podcast. It strikes me that the universes in Upapers are a world re-enchanted by a quasi-science..Which then becomes a modern scientific setting for Jesus. At least that is how it strikes.me. But I need to start at the bottom of the genealogy.' There is, in a sense, a father, creator son, and mother, daughter of the infinite spirit, who create/are the source of- (or is there another word/phrase to describe their relation to the local universe? and why is this important in understanding who Jesus is if Jesus is only one of many Creator Sons Myron would you expand on this? Dutch

Brent, "Perhaps some will ..." is so distancing personally. What if the sentence started "I enjoy . . " UP 21:1:2 So -- Creator Son and Daughter of the Infinite Spirit - parents of a local universe? A family group with a gnostic genealogy? Probably fictionally related to papa, sarayu and jesus. I understand this to be fiction and on the same level of interest as The Shack. I still would rather you said what you understand in your own words. Dutch

32:4:1 is more than I can deal with. If you want to start with Jesus who I assume you are referring to with "Creator Son" I'll listen to a word or two but, to switch images, my eyes glaze over when I see a wall of quoted text. Tell me in your own words. Dutch

I'll bite. How does this line up with the Shema of Deutronomy 6:4 or the First commandment of Exodus 20:2? Perhaps it is an expansion of the polytheistic vision of the Divine Council in Genesis Psalm 89:7 and Job 1:6 but it seems like multi-level marketing to me. If there are multiple faces/entities/manifestations I prefer the African-American woman who likes to give hugs, and unfortunately goes by the name of papa, the shimmering Sarayu, and the carpenter and handy man Jesus as described in The Shack. Especially since they have acquired a small black poodle who likes to fetch and play tag. Take Care Dutch

Like the two golden birds perched in the same tree as friends, the ego and the Self exist in the same body. The former eats both the bad and good fruits of the tree of life while the latter does not discriminate. Mundaka Upanishad

Beautiful

God is at home. We are in the far country. ~ Meister Eckhart

Myron, (I am not sure which emoticon has a wry smile.)

I have not read these sections but this I why would question the claim of monotheism. Looks like monolatry and gnosticism to me with its demiurges and other family members. I am a strict monotheist in the sense that it all comes from God; no devil, no demiurges, etc. While I appreciate language that parallels the Bible it is this spider web multiple" family members" that feels like the Greek pantheon - which itself was valuable in a literary way because their human plot lines were understood when used in theater. (The Great Transformation, Armstrong). In the case of Urantia a modern sci-fi setting for the ages old Christian message. Part IV Should be labelled commentary and a fictional account. An imaginative rewrite that is way to wordy and puts too many preachy words in Jesus's mouth. 156.1 is a worthy rewrite. I personally disagree with its interpretation of the story. I collect various ideas about religion, its development and and manifestations so I will copy 155:5.2 - 155:5.5 as one of many descriptions. Faith found by reason versus faith by revelation. In this case revelatory religion is considered the sole true religion. This would find agreement with Sam Keen and others Take Care Dutch

How ungrateful! On a more serious note I am 'putting down' my two 14 year old poodles tomorrow at noon. It is an ecological, resource decision. I am not able to provide the care they need.

Myron, I agree. But some influenced by Integral thought and Evolutionary Christianity come close. Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point would be an example. No claims of perfection but certainly a threshold of cosmic proportions is crossed in the super-transcendent and terminal event. That's my first impression. Dutch

I think we do an awful lot of work maintaining the 'authoritative' voice of the Bible. We do that work to keep our identity. We, all of the Christian world, disagree wildly about the 'authoritative voice' of the Bible but we keep talking about the Bible and not some other books - which maintains our identity and a fragile sense of unity. Networking, particularly , business networking was a positive factor in the growth of the early church. A traveling 'Christian' business man knew when he got to Philippi there was someone trustworthy, a Christian, he could connect with - Lydia. Perhaps he was even bringing a circulating epistle. Our identity is not confirmed by a fish drawn in the sand but by our behaviors: going to church, talking about God, and some kind of reference to the Bible. The book has an 'authoritative voice' because we give it one. And that, perhaps. is part of the problem with the decline of mainstream and liberals wings of the church. For many the Bible is losing its 'authoritative voice'. I am going to back away a little bit about claiming we support the Bible's voice as if it had nothing to do with its own viability. There has to be something of substance for us to keep talking about it. As we also talk about Plato, Greek tragedies, Shakespearean plays, and Star Trek . On reading a little of the Upapers, once past a positive reaction to some of the mystical language about God, I feel like a stranger in a strange land - rather - strange multiple universes. Dutch PS Whenever I get momentum going in a discussion, reasoning for my point, I am reminded of recent studies that suggest that we don't use reason to solve problems, evolutionarily we developed reason to win arguments.

I am reminded of Michael Dowd's recognition that we have a need to personify our relationship with ultimate reality. The mystical language about God I like. Probably this science fiction aspect would be a significant barrier for me. I am reminded of the work of Orson Scott Card of Enders' fame whose planets have other than human inhabitants - one spends part of its life cycle as a tree. The evolution of a monotheistic belief was a major attainment of the Israelites but the writer seems to want it both ways, which is what Yahweh evolved from--no more need for a wife or a Divine Council which then became Sons of God. Upapers seems to present a complex family structure. Like teilhard de chardin there is the idea that we are evolving toward complexity and perfection. Jakob boehme would feel he had found a kindred soul I think. Once he had his epiphany of the process nature of the relationship of God and creation he went on to elaborate conceptualizations. Mysticism and theosophy. This complexifying impulse also overcomes me sometimes when I try to understand integral theory and spiral dynamics. Too many pieces By Decius at de.wikipedia [Public domain], http://commons.wikim...Boehme-Werk.jpg I don't worry too much about the authoritative issue. That is resolved by 1) the inspiration one experiences and/or 2) the degree to which there is consensus about the nature of the work. I find The Shack by Wm. Paul Young inspiring and, were I a preacher, would reference it often. Take Care Dutch

This is wonderful Bill, ('technically' speaking this is an example of moving from postmodern to post-postmodern view of prayer.) How can I not like this.

Integral view of prayer What? You didn't see the clues? I am guilty of using a word, Integral, for which I gave no references and assumed you had been looking over my shoulder as I surfed. Bruce is using four of several stages of development found in Integral Theory (Similar to Fowler's stages of faith development). He referred to himself as a "spiritual type" and he writes But you don’t get twisted out of shape if someone does imagine [that God who receives prayers and then beams answers back to Earth.] This reflects an attitude that tries to honor everyone wherever they are. (And many of your comments reflect this also.) These are the clues that led to my jump to "Integral" From the paragraph that begins "Post-postmodern" to the end of the article Bruce is speaking from and to a post-postmodern perspective as defined by him. I am now just meandering because I only nibbled around the edges of Integral Theory. In Bruce's brief description, Postmodern seems to share the rational lens of the modern stage. From the kindergarten of intercessory prayer to meditation is a spare, dry movement. The Post-postmodernism project, I think, is to enrich and add life to the skeletal remains left by the rational skepticism of modernism and deconstruction of postmodernism. I think Yvonne brought focus to this problem in her "Mystery and Process Theology" Well this seems very dry compared to the many wonderful posts here. Dutch

Well, I float around between modern, postmodern and post-postmodern when I think about prayer.