WindDancer

I really tried to get to the bottom of this a while back. People do tend to mush everything together into the same category. To me, Spong's "ground of being" God is not the same as Borg's panENtheism. Borg's panENtheism is not the same as process theology. And process theology is not the same as Fox's creation spirituality. Ditto for dipolar theism. I've heard people criticize Borg's panENtheism as inaccurate too. So who knows. The differences have to do with God's agency and how dependent God is on the world. That meta library link I gave in another thread categorized them somewhat and I mentioned that already. It makes the distinction between process and nonprocess varieties of panENtheism. But maybe you are looking for other opinions. Anyway, FWIW. I will say that some of your posts, Aletheia, sound more like open theism than panENtheism. I think I'm somewhere between panENtheism and open theism. I still allow for a God that acts on the world. I believe God would still exist if the world no longer was. How that works I don't know.

Work? Oh yeah, well, there's that too. hee hee Chapter zero was really good too. Glad you like the book so much. Eager to hear more.

I confess I just skimmed and didn't read closely so I'm fairly clueless. Sounds like some serious stuff happening here. But Lily, I noticed you mentioned Tarot. I'd be interested in hearing more about that. Didn't Cynthia inquire about Tarot on another thread somewhere? I find the symbolism aspect of Tarot fascinating. And didn't Joseph Campbell right a book on it? Could start a new thread since this is off topic maybe? As far as keeping Christian for a label, I don't know. I have my days when I really don't want the label anymore. But I'm a cradle Christian. I'll never be free of it. So I choose to continue to wrestle with it--still--yet. And Jesus is still the draw, of course. But a label doesn't make a Christian either. There are a lot of christlike people who don't call themselves christians. They are more christlike than a lot of christians I know. I think if you put a soft polytheist together with a modalism trinitarian, you'd have very close to the same thing, not?

Hey Beach, I was just wondering what happened to you. Noticed you haven't been around in a while. Sorry to hear you are having a rough time over there.

Hey, I loved the "coexist" sticker. Could make that on the computer easy enough. Just find the symbols, which is probably easy enough to do on the net. Is there anything you (anybody) would change on that sticker? The paganism symbol was hard for me to read as an "s" on that one. I liked both the peace symbol and the yin/yang symbol for the "o."

Or we could say nobody is totally right, or has the absolute TRUTH on the matter. Truth with a capital T, being something we move toward, not something we possess. It's progressive, dynamic. Whatcha think? Is that similar to what you are saying, des? Or maybe we should ask a different question entirely, like: Why is it so important to be RIGHT? OR Does it WORK? OR How's that working for you? --Isn't that a TV Phil, thing? Not that I watch that show. Just that I've heard people quote him saying that.

Yeah, Borg does differentiate between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith or who Jesus became to his followers after his death. But that's not the same thing as the "adoptionism" belief. Hi Fred Hi Lily Welcome to the board. Sorry I didn't say hello earlier. I'm kinda new here myself. This is in my profile and I've probably said it before so sorry but it really does it for me. Borg says that for us Christians, we see in Jesus what God is like, what a life full of God is like. I just don't need to make Jesus more than that or somehow more special than any other human who ever walked the earth. Sure he's special to me, as a Christian. But does he have to be that for everyone on the planet? No. I think Jesus had a "presence" about him. But I think the Dalai Lama does too. Anybody ever read "Good Heart" with the Dalai Lama? It's wonderful. But anyway, back to that idea of the "particularity" of Jesus. (I think that's what this is called in theologian speak. ) I guess, my thinking goes in the direction of how this contributes to Christian exclusivism and labeling "who's in" and "who's out" so I don't see it going in a beneficial direction. Unless, somebody can give me another scenerio. Yeah, I know about univeralism, etc.

Aletheia - I'm game. I have both McLaren books you mentioned, and more. The last chapters of Generous Orthodoxy were the best IMO and I confess I skipped around to the good stuff in that book. I finally stopped my denial about how much I spend at B&N and bought a membership card. I love that place!

darby wrote: "despised because of simply what we believe" For me, I think it's more about behavior and attitude than beliefs, that I find repulsive in some Christians. Like rigid black and white thinking, arrogance. And that includes liberals or conservatives or whatever.

Aletheia - I couldn't find XianAnarchist's post about "David Tracy" and "di-polar theism." I do remember the meta-library broke down all the process theisms into different categories along with names. I see a Tom Tracy under dipolar. I think there is a David Tracy too, though? I made myself a chart based on this info, that comes in handy when I want to remember who was what.

A mystic moment. Thanks Earl. And a translator too. Thanks Aletheia. That was great. More, you two and I'll happily listen in. Is there a good Meister Eckhart book anybody could recommend?

Aletheia - If I tell google to define dialectic it seems to indicate that it could either mean a reasoning/logic technique (Hagel/Plato?) or a process involving struggle of opposites (more similar to what you mean?). Hey, did I just define that term in 10 words or less?! In Huston Smith's "The World's Religions" Taoism section where he talks about the yin/yang symbol. He says: "this polarity sums up all of life's basic oppositions: good/evil, positive/negative, etc. But though the halves are in tension, they are not flatly opposed; they complement and balance each other. Later he says that in the Taoist perspective even good and evil are not head-on opposites. The West has tended to dichotomize the two. This point is very very difficult for western Christianity to get. It goes against it's very core theology. Everything is dichotomized into good/bad, right/wrong, black/white. I just recently had a little aha glimpse realization about it recently, like I could maybe wrap my brain around it a little. It's about balance, unity, harmony not playing one against the other. But still, it is something I will need to meditate on. In fact Huston Smith says that very thing: "Those who meditate on this profound symbol (yin/yang), Taoists maintain, will find that it affords better access to the worlds' secrets than any length of words and discussions." I'm going into my "cave" to meditate now.

Sure, I'll be here to chat if you want, Cynthia. This book will explain in more detail how our worldviews affect our beliefs. It was hard to put down once I started reading it. So be prepared to curl up on the couch for several hours!!

darby - Mclaren is moderate not conservative theologically, but you'll find that out if you read his book. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the book when you read it. It is a very good conversation stimulator! Ya'll can read the first chapters of Generous Orthodoxy free, just download this pdf file. A New Kind of Christian is a better read, though. The Baptists recently withdrew their invitation to have McLaren speak at one of their conventions because they considered his views on salvation unorthodox. So he does make conservatives squirm.

darby - That was me who first mentioned McLaren in the "Selling Liberal Christanity, Teaching love and community" thread. I'd consider Brian McLaren moderate in theology. In Marcus Borg's "Heart of Christianity" book pg 20 he refers to McLaren as conservative-evangelical moving from the earlier paradigm to a form of the emerging paradigm. In other words, emergent/progressive--yes, but coming from a more conservative place than Borg. Progressive/emergent does not mean liberal or conservative. It will eventually transcend those labels. McLaren makes rigid conservative evangelicals uncomfortable. Borg makes rigid liberals uncomfortable. I find that very exciting! McLaren deals with things like evolution, hell, atonement theories, some Old Testament as myth like CS Lewis does. Those are not really burning issues for liberals, but very much issues for conservatives. Emergent evangelicals prefer NT Wright for NT scholar, Walter Brueggemann for OT scholar, and they tend to like CS Lewis a lot. If you are familiar with any of those people, then you have a pretty good idea where emergent evangelicals are at theologically. If anybody wants to try a McLaren book, I'd recommend "A New Kind of Christian." It's written in story form, easy, very enjoyable and will stimulate your thinking on a lot of things. He's not an answer person. He wants to make his readers think. And his writing style does that very well.

Wow! What a great bunch of comments everybody. PantaRhea - Yeah, get us right back into our heads with all those questions. Just picking on you a little bit. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily. Some people need to think more! Maybe it depends on the person and where they are at in the process. There is a time to be in the "cave" and a time to be out in the world. I sound like Ecclesiastes. LOL How do you know when you are overintellectualizing, need to let it rest, and go hug a tree and/or live life? "Mystery" I think "ineffable" or anything I'm going to come up with is going to be metaphor and is limited. And I do want to hear those opinions about prayer, PantaRhea. Earl - You make so much sense. I like you. Boy, that's unusual for me to meet someone who is of similar mind! I forgot what that was like. Aletheia wrote: "I didn't much care for the book because I felt she painted a picture of a God/dess so impersonal that I came away from the book thinking "Why bother?" That's what I thought of Process Theology--so impersonal, why bother. Maybe we are on the same page. Wouldn't Taoism be considered impersonal too because it's nontheistic. And I like Taoism. Or how would you distinguish the two? "Dialectic" - is that Hagel? Oh, my! I bet you can't explain it to me in 10 words or less. Aletheia wrote: "I'm not trying to find a religion that perfectly fits me, but one that is on the same PLANET would be nice." LOL! Yeah, me too. If you find one, let me know. The local UU is atheist social activist type. Didn't appeal to me at all. The local Episcopal and UCC didn't appeal to me either. It all depends on where a person lives what kind of people are going to be in those denominations. Cynthia wrote: "I think it is interesting to talk/write about theology and it has the potential to deepen our spirituality... BUT, it is also easier to do than praying/meditating/experiencing God." I'd say intellectualizing about theology is easier to do than personal transformation--actually becoming christlike and living it. I observe most liberals get the social activism aspect, but then *some* (not all) don't see how they themselves contribute to the violence in the world by their rigid black and white beliefs and/or hostile behavior. You know what I mean? XianAnarchist - A book entitled "armchair mystic" well, that was too obvious! I'll check it out. "Apophatic" -- isn't that defining what God is not. Okay, how does that tie in with our subject here of overintellectualizing and hugging trees?

XianAnarchist - "armchair mystic" is good. So what books do you read on that? I like Teasdale, which I think Aletheia already mentioned somewhere on this board. "God as mystery" - yeah, that's what I liked about Taoism. It says the Tao is mystery and gets right into how to relate to that mystery. It does have it's metaphors to work with such as Tao being like water. But it's not about defining so much as about relating. "Chaos theory and quantum physics" - That is a significant factor influencing some spiritual segments of society, like new thought or new age, but Christianity is lagging way behind. I just need to stay centered in my own spirituality and go with what is right for me. That seems to take me further and further away from Christianity, however. Christianity is too rigid and archaic. I need to grow, breathe, move. Faith is alive and on the move. Not stuck rigidly in one position. Des said "over my head." Well, that's just it. Why do we need a PhD in theology in order to have a relationship with God? I thought being christian meant being christlike. About the reasoning that if God doesn't do what we want (heal or save from death etc) then that means God doesn't answer prayers. I think that just means we need a different viewpoint about the big picture. In other words, our understanding of the God-world relationship (as XianAnarchist mentioned) needs to be tweaked. I think Aletheia is on the right track when she talks about the duality in unity stuff. That means letting go of thinking in terms of right vs wrong, good vs bad. Thinking harmony, unity. That can take you some very different places theologically. Who else thinks that way, Aletheia? Wicca or what's called earth-based spirituality maybe? Aletheia - Thanks, for that nice reply. You wrote: "I'm having a hard time finding a place too, which is why I've been so absent from this board lately." Now here I thought you sounded all perky and enthusiastic yet, while I was bone weary and burned out! I've backed off from my involvement in online christian discussions, cuz it was having a negative effect on me. I feel a whole lot better for it too. Maybe I'll send you a private message, if I can figure out how to do that. I'm probably not very good company, though. I get too crabby when I talk about Christian theology a lot. I need to stop and go hug a tree, skip in the park, sing songs, and be one with Tao. Too bad we can't do that together! That would be way more fun. I must be a mystic at heart too, XianAnarchist. Marcus Borg says prayer is one of the top 10 questions people ask him about. HOC pg 67. There. I mentioned the book. So I'm on topic, right. So doesn't anybody else have i-s-s-u-e-s or questions about Borg's book??? I saw Jeep mention the historical issue elsewhere. Yeah, how come Marcus Borg still talks about the stories in the Bible if they didn't literally happen? I mean, isn't that confusing about the two processions in his talk if you know Jesus didn't literally ride into Jerusalem on a colt? Now I did think Pontius Pilot rode into town with his calvary and that was the point of saying Jesus rode into town from the opposite direction. Like a political statement. But Jeep seemed to indicate that was not so?? Like Marcus says, "I don't know if it happened this way or not, but I know this story is true..." In actuality most Christians still believe those stories literally happened. And some protest against telling those stories at all and want to narrow down the New Testament to a few sayings of Jesus like some of the Jesus Seminar people. I say *some* because they don't all believe the same. Marcus Borg talks about the two processions in the "Two Visions" book, page 59.

Yeah, wowzer, new look. And no announcement explaining it?! Just kidding. Des - The new format change probably couldn't "eat" your old stale cookies. That's why you had to log in and bake a fresh batch. You mean you don't clear out your cookies every time you surf?! Oh no! Just kidding again.

Aletheia, Thanks for the reply. I don't know, I'm always kinda dissatisfied with answers I get to the question of prayer. Somehow, it just doesn't seem right. I do believe prayer makes a difference and that we are all connected somehow, so I do prayer for others. But it is more a visualization type thing than word requests. Shakti Gawain style. Or even Taoism's chi/energy makes sense to me. Or anybody ever read Larry Dossey on prayer? Sometimes I think Christianity holds me back spiritually and I should just give it up. Another thing about Marcus Borg's panENtheism is I don't understand how Marcus can believe God is nurturing supportive loving when God doesn't do anything. Just doesn't make any sense. I also know there are different varieties of panENtheism. Non-process and process. Process Theology or Fox's Creation Spirituality are variations, but not exactly the same thing. Non-process flavors seem to include a God that acts.

Gee only Des pounced on that idea?! Summarizing chapters and asking questions can get to be a lot of work. Unless we get a bunch of really enthusiastic responses, maybe just be more casual about it? How about just mentioning some of the questions or issues that come up for people when reading Borgs books? I think the implications of some of his ideas don't sink in sometimes. Like his panENtheism belief. That's huge. And I haven't found anybody that actually *uses* his metaphorical approach to scripture. It seems like people tend to stay stuck in the way they use the Bible. Practices don't seem to change. One question for me is I just don't get his prayer requests when I know he doesn't believe in a God that actually does anything or actually responds. Yeah, he explains it somewhat in the book. Anybody got thoughts on that one? Aletheia, I think you are a panENtheist. Do you believe that God responds to prayer requests or how does that work do you think? I think Taoism and the energy/chi stuff makes more sense.

Aletheia - I inquired because it sounded like you chose the name "Aletheia" because it referred to a belief in reincarnation. So I was just curious if that was true--that you did believe in reincarnation--or if I was making an incorrect assumption. What happens after we die is speculation, but it can be fun to speculate sometimes. Could go in different directions with that. But maybe a better question is what difference would it make to us NOW? What if we found out we would be reincarnated? Then what. Where do your thoughts go. Better clean up that karma! As far as afterlife beliefs, Marcus Borg, as a panENtheist, believes we die into God and whatever that means he's content not to know. Works for me. Here's an Borg article where he mentions that reincarnation has Jewish and Christian roots. It's not just a eastern religion tradition. The article is actually about a this-worldly utopian vision and how that can be a positive thing. Kinda like the "I have a dream" thing. It's an interesting article. Religion and Utopia: Heaven (On Earth?) By Marcus Borg

Too bad this book discussion didn't really get off the ground. I have the book and am willing to chat about it if anyone wants to. It looks like several of us like Marcus Borg: Jeep, Des, Cynthia, Aletheia, me, etc.

Aletheia - "forget our previous life" - so, does this mean you believe in reincarnation? I thought "Aletheia" meant wisdom goddess or something like that. Similar to Athena. Some place around here you said you liked my new avatar. Thanks. I went crazy and made a bunch of them. The waterfall turned out good. Just cut them out of scenery pics I had. I have an autumn trees one too, but that's too similar to your avatar, so I'm not using it here.

Cynthia, thank you for the current Mar 05 Marcus Borg sermon link! I haven't listened to the audio yet, but I did print out what was available in text form. How did you find this link? I track Borg on the net and it was difficult finding this using google. His speaking schedule says he was supposed to be in Washington, DC. I guess not. Des, I don't like debate either. I like conversation, where people really listen and try to understand each other, instead of taking a position and defending it. I'm not usually posting in debate areas.

Hey Jeep, "A Course in Miracles" and the Jesus Seminar people, now there's an interesting combo. I need to add one them smilies... I'm with Des, I can't comment on BroR's posts. I just scan, but don't read l-o-n-g posts. Just too much. Data overload syndrome.