glintofpewter

Since Monty mentioned Integral I returned to the Beams and Struts site blog to find this. Maybe there is a discussion here.

http://www.beamsandstruts.com/articles/item/1161-deuteronomy-for-the-non-religious

Dutch

Welcome Monty,

I am glad that you have joined us.

I 'liked' the Beams and Struts people so I see their posts on my wall and have read a couple articles regarding things integral. I have my moments when I am infatuated with all the structures and levels and the 'Myers-Briggs' like attempts to describe our varieties. Integral thinking seems to have the same trap as any outline of human development: it is hard not to see the steps or levels as value-ladened. Even Fowler's stages of faith development. It is hard not to judge concrete thinkers and it is a weakness of PCs.. I think integral thinking tries to honor all stages as do other systems.

An article by a woman who considered that she was at an integral level - I have a problem with that. Can you be integral if you claim it? wouldn't being at that level be like grace: it's gone when you grasp it! - back to her article. She, an unbeliever, was asked unexpectedly to take a role in a Christian drama in church. She talked about how she honored and inhabited the role. If her use of integral thinking helped her do that well, then good.

I couldn't find a useful positive link to things Integral and Christian. If you have one please share. So much of this stuff tends not to be open source

http://www.beamsandstruts.com/

Dutch

An appropriate answer to "How do you know that Jesus said that?" is "I believe the Bible is the Word of God." There would be many more questions but it would be a place to stand. Of course you will be challenged by those who see the Bible as human words about God.

But I do find it odd that the first Point of Progressive Christianity says that we "Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus" and then it is insisted that we don't really know anything about Jesus' life or teachings.

What we are saying I think is that it is worth discussing, not that it is a blank canvas and we can say anything - well actually over the centuries it has all been said both good and ugly. "Let the little children come to me" - oh, my. To challenge is not to say it is not worth talking about. If Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet make the case. Others will make the case that if he saw himself as an apocalyptic prophet he is a failed prophet. I don't think that discussion threatens Jesus's call to us.

Dutch

>>As PaulS asked, Did Jesus speak these words or did the authors, knowing their audience put them in his mouth?

I have, from time to time, posted something of Jesus' teachings (as best as I understand them to be) here. And I, too, have been met with the counter-response of, "How do we know that Jesus REALLY said this?" This response, to me, is a way to easily either brush a subject aside or close a conversation down. Is this really the best way for us to deal with the historicty of Christianity?

Since I earlier made such an agnostic comment about knowing what Jesus said and then as now was accused of being lazy and failing to understand the Bible as the 'Word of God' I will provide context my statement then and I think it applies again to this.

There was a long post criticizing the views held by another group who also claim that the Bible is the 'word of God'. The last 'proof' of the incorrectness of THEIR view over the poster's view was a quotation of a remark that Jesus is said to have made. THEY were wrong and the poster was right. The proof was what Jesus said.

At this point in the discussion to raise the question about what Jesus said is not laziness. An agnostic view of what Jesus said seems appropriate when two groups who believe that the Bible is the WORD OF GOD disagree and Jesus's sayings are offered as proof.

Dutch

I understand the Bible to be a conversation among a number of voices. The primary question is "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Or "why is there evil?" The Hebrew's notion of God changes as history buffets them. There is evidence of polytheistic beliefs in the beginning, for example. I think as far as the texts are concerned Jesus words about God are part of the evolution of our concept of God. Jesus could not say what he does without the OT. While we can say that our - or Jesus's - understanding of God is very different, I think, we can't say that the OT texts are not part the path that leads to us.

Dutch

thethinker

please read this post. I should have sent you a welcome message which includes this reference. I apologize.

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1560-just-what-is-an-uncompassionate-post/

Notice one example of what is not acceptable

In my opinion you are not a Christian as you suppose.

Dutch

Whether it is natural for pedophiles to seek sexual relationships with children is not relevant. These are relationships between the powerful and the weak. The weak must be protected because we hear reports that they are wounded by these relationships/

Dutch

Why the pretense? If you do not accept the Bible you are not Christian. So just come right out and say that you are not Christian? I don't get it. I do NOT have a problem with you having another way. Just don't call it the Christian way.

thethinker

On this board it is not acceptable to say that someone is not Christian - or to label anyone - according to YOUR definition or rule. It is one of our guidelines.

Paul has said it as I might have.

Dutch

Jesus told Caiaphas the high priest that they would see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power AND coming in the clouds. To "see" in reference to both acts, His session at God's right hand, and His coming in the clouds must be in the same sense. They saw both acts in the events that accompanied the acts.

 

We know that they did not literally see Christ sitting at God's right hand.

Is he coming back? Is he coming in the clouds?

This apocalyptic imagery for an oppressed people who needed to be encouraged. "In the end we will be victorious so persevere and do what is right" I don't think there is any need to deal with this as a historical except to understand the need for the intended audience to hear encouraging words. One role of the prophet.

As PaulS asked, Did Jesus speak these words or did the authors, knowing their audience put them in his mouth?

Again, if I am married to someone I should know he or she actually exists. Belief is that "magical point" where we take in God's reality.

Skyseeker,

for me God is not a person or an object. God is a quality, the "in love" feeling, not the person or object I am in love with. We teach children to say they have "Jesus in my heart". We talk about experiencing God within us or the love of God within. It is that feeling of love, that quality of our lives that guides us. In centering prayer my goal is not to be in relationship with [God or something else] but to experience relationship, love unity. Experience requires no belief; it is and I am a part of it.

Personal love language about a relationship with ultimate reality is rich and rewarding but I don't think it requires any belief in the existence of anything.

Dutch

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that interprets prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened.

Wikipedia

-----------------------

This uses an understanding of "prophecies" I don't accept. Preterism seems to be a stance one takes when reading the prophecies literally as a way explaining their completion. I don't see a need to do that.

It seems to me prophets call attention to problems here and now (Rachel Carson Silent Spring). They also have an apocalyptic voice to encourage the oppressed when one needs to feel that justice and love will win the end. (We shall overcome.)

Dutch

It seems to me that preterism is a rational mechanism to deal with literal interpretation. If future telling is not probable and prophecy is about calling attention to problems in the here and now why is preterism useful.

Dutch

Skyseeker,

While preterism and such concepts are intellectually curious they are attempts to deal with a literal interpetation. Take away that literal view you have no need to explain prophecies as something that fore told events centuries in the future. Dispensationalism is another concept for which there is no need with out a literal view of the Bible.

Liberals use other approaches to deal with the difficult parts of the Bible.

Dutch

28 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week

I must be missing someting

Paul,

You have a cool head. I do agree with you. I'd rather things turned out differently and maybe it could have been better.

dutch

I split off annepcreept post and will remove them shortly.

If that is the case, then maybe many people will let "God-language" and "God-models" go. We will, therefore, become solely humanists. I think, and this is only my opinion, that this is where Spong is going with his work, a new Christianity where God is no more than a synonym for human love and compassion.

--------------------------

Bill,

I don't dismiss the language of story telling, liturgy and worship. Recently when a visiting pastor tied communion to Genesis 1:1 I responded emotionally because that was so much closer to one way I might tell a story that holds value for me, to what makes emotional sense to me. I just can't say that I know that what words I use really describe 'God'.

Dutch

>> I didn't mean that our God-model is what we use to "search for proof of God", but, rather, that our God-model is how we explain and preserve our experiences of God.

To me these are the same . We have an experience. Reflecting on the experience often leads us astray because we look for meaning where there is none. I agree that stories are a great way to hold our experiences but I would emphasize the fact that we made up the story to hold a memory of our experience. To say that "I felt as if I was exactly where God wanted me to be." may influence the rest of my life but it is only a meaning I created in community.

I don't want to butt heads about reality. I just think experiences come first. What we think and say afterwards is not the experience. What I say and think about God is afterwards and is not God.

imHo opinion truth can only be discovered, as you say, through community, conversation, and context..

dutch

"God helps" me when I practice centering prayer or meditation without rational thought. A stilling of the mind. Sometimes in this stillness the next right action breaks in; sometimes it doesn't. Neither experience is more important than the other. Stillness has no goal. Art music dance - think sufi - all create a non-rational and no-time space for experiencing the divine.

Some of these practices may work more or less well with your diagnosis. Ask for advice.

I would stay far away from any laying on of hands praying for healing. A friend, with his schizophrenia under control, spent a month in an institution after that expereince. People can express their care for you by praying privately for your healing but not publically like that.

I would be in relationship with someone who could help me sort out the good, the bad, and the ugly in my thoughts and perceptions. That would never be someone who wants to correct me with scripture. Scripture is valuable when it lifts us up.

Second, I never stop taking my bipolar meds.

Third, I try to breathe and self talk through anxieties so that they don't turn into paranoia. Sometimes it is a word from another person that bursts the bubble of anxiety in which I am encased.

Fourth, I might think on Jesus's encounters with troubled people and what they show about his love for any of us beset by our thoughts and perceptions.

Fifth, I would have a vision of who I want to be and what I want my world to look like. Filter these thoughts through someone else's realistic views. And then ask myself what little thing can I do right now to move toward this new world.

If you are inclined you might try art. Great art has come from the hands of schizophrenics.

Yours is a tough journey.

Bipolar and anxious,

Dutch

I don't think all God-models are of equal value or benefit to humanity.

------------------------

If it is true as you said Bill that our God model is the lens (paraphrase) with which we search for proof of God then isn't proof of God irrelevant and since we choose our God model isn't it only our thoughts and behavior that can be valued.

I don't mean to dismiss the value of 'personal' relationship with ultimate reality but to focus attention on evaluating - isn't this where we always end up - our behavior towards each other. That the personality chooses a God that validates our own inclinations and that the way to change is through relationship with others and not through God's teachings?

Dutch

Further conversation toward a complete solution. In Colorado changes and improvements proposed to mental health care would

"...rewrite burden of proof requirement in a mental health hold to a patient having a "substantial probability" of being a threat rather than the harder to prove "imminent danger""

I understand that currently 72 hour holds alone would not create a record that would stop you from buying a gun. If you refuse further treatment and a court orders it then you can't buy a gun. I don't know if these lessor events would result in denial under the new proposals.

Dutch

I agree with Bass's assessment of strong churches.

We seem to be measuring different kinds of growth and the move toward seculariation.

Eric Kaufman has interesting ideas about what is driving church growth - children.

http://www.sneps.net/

Dutch

George, I will miss you.

Joseph, it isn't the first time I have felt you were heavy handed. Perhaps as has been said it is necessary. But I don't think George's last post made it so.

Recognizing that there are many other good conversations and hoping that you don't count the times I have repeated myself - heaven forbid -

Dutch