earl

Yes you DO have to cover it here!!    'Cause I'm not sure I understand what you mean (the difference between pantheism and panentheism), and... I'd like to.  Please?

 

Ok, in a word. Pantheism says that God and the Universe are materially equivalent: God is precisely, no more or less than, the Universe. Panentheism (according too all my popular sources, mainly Matthew Fox, Borg, Spong) says the Universe is in God, BUT that God infinitely transcends the Universe: God and the Universe are assymetric and non-equivalent. The Universe begins and ends (ontologically) in God.

 

I'm claiming the same about Time and Eternity. Time is IN Eternity (everywhere -- everywhen? -- you go, you're thoroughly engulfed in Eternity. But Eternity infinitely transcends Time: without Time, Eternity still exists. Time begins and ends in eternal timelesness.

 

It's hard to be precise about this, I mean, we're really approaching the boundary of language and concepts! But it's worthwhile, and fun to meditate upon.

 

That's my $.02.

 

Hope this helps!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

thinking....

 

I understand time as created. Every act, every event is a creation of time. I understand that time is included in eternity as I do that contingent existence is included in necessary existence. That is panentheism.

 

Pantheism, on the other hand, can only be necessary Being. It has no place for creativity and cannot include time.

 

So yeah. I think I understand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dogen, the famous 13th century founder of Soto Zen in Japan, wrote of Time & Being being so interrelated he termed it "Being-Time." In a contemporary commentary re this by a Canadian zen teacher, Anzan Hoshin, he puts it this way:

"And so being-time is Being unfolding itself as beings. Time is the unfolding of Being as beings. Time is activity: the radiance of Knowing expressing itself as spaces which are active as forms, as beings, as knowns...Enter completely into this moment and you will enter not only That which contains all time and expresses itself as all times, all moments, but you will fall into That which has no time, no space, no dimension because it is That in which all dimensions, all space, all times arise."

Eckhart & Zen are in agreement re so many things including Time & Being it seems. Take care, Earl

Eternal Life is the timelessness from which time derives its meaning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I feel a "Meister Eckhart spell" coming on:

"...there are more days than one. There is the soul's day and God's day. A day whether six or seven years ago, or more than six thousand years ago is just as near to the present as yesterday. Why? Because all time is contained in the present Now-moment. Time comes of the revolution of the heavens and day began with the first revolution. The soul's day falls within this time and consists of the natural light in which things are seen. God's day however is the complete day, comprising both the day and night. It is the real Now-moment, which for the soul is eternity's day."

"The soul's day and God's day are different. In her natural day the soul knows all things above time and place; nothing is far or near. And that is why I say, this day all things are of equal rank. To talk about the world as being made by God tomorow, yesterday, would be talking nonsense. God makes the world and all things in the present now. Time gone a thousand years ago is now as present and near to God as this very instant. The soul who is in this present now, in her Father bears his once-begotten Son and in that same birth the soul is born back into God. It is one birth; as fast as she is reborn into God the Father is begetting his only Son in her."

Interesting thoughts not only on Kairos vs. Kronos but as re terms such as the Son, etc. Have a good one, Earl

I've seen some folks post here their admiration for Smoley's book, "Inner Christianity," which I, too, enjoyed. for those of you who haven't read the book yet, thought you might like to read this on-line interview i just found with the author re the views he expressed in that book:

http://www.fearlessbooks.com/FeatureLine27.html

Have a good one, Earl

If it wasn't obvious before, let me first preface by saying I'm neither a theologian nor a great bible scholar. But I'd like to through out a view & see how folks respond re Christology. If in the beginning was the Word & the Word was with God and Bible later equates Word & Christ, perhaps to begin the discussion those terms are roughly equivalent. Jesus variously described himself in various gospel passages (or was claimed to have referred to himself) as the "Way" or the "Door" to the Father. Yet, as Jim Marion rightfully points out in his book, "Putting on the Mind of Christ," "Christ" wasn't Jesus' last name. Perhaps, Jesus meant those terms quite literally: that walking his path/Way gets you to the Father; going through the door he holds open to us gets us to the Father. Perhaps gospel writers could have used the metaphor of a window-that he was a living window through which we could see God's blessings. But I see little to nothing in the Bible that suggests that Jesus was saying the goal of Christianity was to worship Jesus.

Perhaps, "Christ" is another name for the potentiality within all sentient creation to realize their literal "God-given" nature. I wrote a bit in another post here re the Word as being such potentiality. It's no accident to me that Christianity is called Christianity not Jesusism. We can debate all we want the nature of Jesus' divinty, but I can think of few if any religions that are named for their founding visionaries. Buddhism is Buddhism not Gautamaism, ("Buddha" meaning one who is awake), Islam is not Mohamedism, etc. They were about the Message, not the Messenger, though obviously how the messenger lived their lives is in itself a message-or Living Word.

"Christ" came through to this world through the living channel that was Jesus. Perhaps in various subtle ways Jesus/Christ does indeed hold open the door for us and may even help nudge us over the threshhold. But "Christ" is a Door-Way, we must find our ways to and through to the "Christ-ing" process.

May you all have a wonderful Easter, Earl

Ken Wilber fan?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, yes. There's a book by Jim Marion, "Putting on the Mind of Christ," that essentially applies his model to Christian msyticism. I agree with most of what he says & it's a fascinating book, but that doesn't mean I necessarily reduce Jesus to simply a highly evolved soul. On the other hand, he did say that his followers would do greater things than him. If he was so uniquely divine, that comment wouldn't make sense. So, again, Jesus/Christ is a koanic enigma to me & probably always will be, though his message of universal compassion is pretty clear! Take care, Earl

However, (imo) this removes Jesus from his Jewish context and who he may have been historically. Does the Bible really teach that Jesus was God incarnate?

 

Why removes? Why not adds to? Certainly Jesus wasn't less than who he was historically, in his Jewish context. This is why I tell even my conservative friends to read Crossan!

 

I'm coming to find that I'm somewhere in between. Perhaps Jesus was just a man that, by being adopted by God, became divine? I know that the Jewish idea of the messiah or Christ is not this, but perhaps Jesus became "the Christ" not because he was the Jewish messiah, but because he was adopted by God?

 

This is a heresy known as adoptionism. It seems to be the approach of Borg and Spong, among others; who observe (correctly) that the claims to Jesus' divinity begin with post-resurrection vindication in Paul's letters, then go back to the baptism in Mark, back to conception in Matthew and Luke, and finally back to the very beginning in John. Maybe I just like controversy -- or maybe an incarnational progressive Christian is a rare exotic creature -- but I think the move from Paul to John is not only understandable, but theologically necessary. In adoptionism, God says, You weren't mine to begin with, but you are now. With preexistence, we meet the phenomenal claim that God incarnate has been latent, organically if you will, in the physical universe from the moment it came into existence, and before (ontologically of course, as there is no "before time").

 

One of the cornerstones of my claim here is going to be that Jesus is the Cosmos in miniature, and that to read not only the birth stories, but also later Christological history, in this light, is going to reveal some pretty fantastic stuff.

 

But I get ahead of myself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting point of view. This gets back to the equation of the word as being Christ and both were with God "from the beginning." I like the definition of the Word that Christopher Bamford gives in his book re John Scotus Eriugena:

"The Word then is divine consciousness, the seed of consciousness, a supernatural being who thinks without otherness or object...from this power all knowing derives and receives its form...the Word as knowing is a vessel wherein the true meaning of all things are stored. More accurately put it is the infinite origin of the truth containing, as a seed contains the plant, all the meanings constitutive of it...More peculiarly it contains us and we contain it."

So as in Romans 10:8: "The Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart."

Have a good one, Earl

Probably neither traditionalist Christians nor Buddhists would like my comparison of the Trinity with the Trikaya, (perhaps then that means I'm on to something ), but one way to view the Trinity is akin to the trikaya. In Buddhist thought every Budhha possesses 3 "bodies," the Dharmakaya, the Sambhogakaya, and the Nirmanakaya. The dharmakaya is the "Body of Truth," the supra-ontological, formless Ultimate Reality beyond any conceptual descriptions with their inherent limitations; i.e., the Father. The sambhogakaya is "Reward Body," the Body of pure light and bliss visible only to those of high spiritual attainment-the "container" of the energies of enlightenment-i.e., the Holy Spirit. The nirmanakaya is the Body of transformation, "on this level the Buddha has the power to assume any appearance for liberating and enlightening sentient beings." It is the corporeal form of the fully realized "human.," the Son. Personally, never found a way to understand the Trinity I liked better than this "buddhist" model. Take care, Earl

From the little bit more "googling" I've done, it seems to me that "dipolar theism" in another term for panentheism or "duality in unity".  A quote I found said this:

Process Theology is a contemporary movement of theologians who teach that God is dipolar, or has two natures, and that he is integrally involved in the endless process of the world.

 

God has a "primordial" or transcendent nature, his timeless perfection of character, and he has a "consequent" or immanent nature by which he is part of the cosmic process itself.

Another quote said this:

 

Dipolar theism, according to Charles Hartshorne, understands God as both absolute and relative, abstract and concrete, eternal and temporal, necessary and contingent, infinite and finite (DR). The being of God does not exclude but rather includes the being of the world.

 

Jeep said: Is it similar to the Dualism which I mentioned as the System of thought used in the Bible in my recent post?

 

No. Di-polar theism isn't Duality. Think of a coin with two sides or of a magnet with two poles. There is ONE coin with TWO sides. There is ONE magnet with TWO poles. The coin wouldn't be a coin without two sides. The magnet wouldn't be a magnet without two poles. They are DUALITY in UNITY.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This view of God has parallels in Buddhism such as the Heart Sutra's famous verse re "form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form." Also there is a parallel between the "Trikaya" or Three Bodies of Buddhism and the the triune expression of God as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," as well. Love to discover similar themes in mutliple religious views. When I see that, it suggests to me a "univeral" truth at work, though I believe fundamentally that the Truth that is meant to manifest for a given individual will be the Truth that most resonates with their soul/essence. Take care, Earl

More from Eckhart:

"Separate yourself from all two-ness.

Be one on one, one with one, one from one."

"God becomes as phenomena express Him."

"All that God asks you most pressingly is to go out of yourself-and let God be God in you."

In those above quotes I see reflected the dance between apophatic & kataphatic-the Hidden God & the Revelatory God, as it is only as we retain an open, unlimited receptivity to God, (the apophatic), can we allow and express the Divine through ourselves and see it in others (the kataphatic). Being apophatic about both God & ourselves is being "agnostic" yet expectant-saying "I don't know but I expect to learn/discover." Whenever we attempt to define the limits (good or bad) to our view of our self or God, that Road to Truth gets detoured and we bog down, (though it might be a comfortable point in the road to park awhile ). Take care, Earl

Greetings All,

 

By way of introduction...  I am a 31-year-old married man (soon to be a daddy!) from the northwest suburbs of Chicago.  My interests range from the sublime to the mundane: reading and writing on topics at the intersection of theology, philosophy, science, and spirituality; playing and (occasionally) writing music; computer programming; roaming the countryside with my wonderful wife Sue; group games; fine dining; shopping; progressive rock; and Chicago-style pizza.

 

In my bizarre and twisted spiritual career, I have been variously Fundamentalist, Baptist, Charismatic, Episcopal, Unitarian, Catholic, Taoist, and thoroughly Agnostic!  If I had to describe the most consistent feature of my journey, I think it would be that there is a kind of natural breathing rhythm to it: an "exhale" that propels me away from some aspect of Christianity as I currently understand it, followed by an "inhale" that takes in the new insights or information I learn and reintegrates it with the rest.  Insofar as the "exhale" phases have pushed me away from a lot of safe places, e.g. belief in the literal-factual interpretation of the Bible (creation, fall, virgin birth, resurrection, etc.), I apparently stand squarely in the progressive camp.  Yet, as the deeper meanings of all these realities continue to sink in more and more deeply, I find the "liberal" label every bit as inadequate as the "conservative" one -- both seem utterly unable to capture the momentousness of the Christian view of the world, or to give one any compelling reason to believe in it.

 

I'm hoping to begin to develop this theme in some of my own personal writing (you know, in all my free time!).  Hopefully you won't mind if I bounce some ideas off you as I go.

 

Please drop me a message anytime!

 

Fred

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wonderful to have you share your views here and would love to have you engage in an ongoing dialogue with us re them. Your use of the metaphor of "exhaling/inhaling" in reference to spiritual journey is interesting. triggered some associations on my part. Long thought of the mystery of Christ as a "koan" that seems to track with the koanic nature of how we see ourselves. Perhaps we see/interpret who/what Christ is in accord with view of self. As we contemplate Jesus/Christ, seems as if we, too, can pass through phases and levels of seeing in only literal or mythic or spiritual, etc. ways and it seems we pass through similar understandings of ourselves-literal (believing ourselves to be only concete "things") or spiritual-some ill-defined soul "substance" or somehow realizing all facets can be simultaneously true. To look koanically is in essence to "inhale/exhale-" we see a facet of something & go, "that's it" for awhile, then exhale & move on to another facet. In the broadest sense of "agnostic"-of "not knowing"-is another way of saying I'm open to constant discovery. Thanks for sharing, earl

Hi, Earl--

 

Many folks have told me that I ought to read Eckhart, but I've still not done so.  Guess I'll add another endorsement to that list. 

 

self>>>>><<<<<God

self>>><<<God

self>><<God

self><God

( )

 

I kind of like this

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if you like that buddhist-flavored Eckhartism, here's another one for you:

"While I subsisted in the ground, in the bottom, in the river and the fount of Godhead, no one asked me where I was going or what I was doing: there was no one to aske me. When I was flowing all creatures spake God. If I am asked, brother Eckhart, when went ye out of your house? Then I must have been in. Even so do all creatures speak God. And why do they not speak Godhead? Everything no Godhead is one, and of that there is nothing to be said. Godhead does no work, there is nothing to do, in it is no activity. It never envisaged any work. God and Godhead are as different as active and inactive. On my return to God, where I am formless, my breaking through will be far nobler than my emanation. I alone take all creatures out of their sense into my mind and make them one in me. When I go back into the ground, into the depths, inot the well-srping of Godhead, no one will ask me whence I came or wither I went. No one missed me. God passes away." Take care, Earl

OK- here goes the next one:

 

"Thou shalt know him without image, without semblance and without means...but, for me to know God thus, with nothing between, I must be all but He, He all but me, I say God must be very I, I very God, so consumately one that this He and this I are one 'is', in this isness working one work eternally; but so long as this He and this I, to wit God and the soul, are not one single here, one single now, the I cannot work with nor be one with that He...God's 'isness' is my 'isness,' neither more nor less."

 

Have a good one, Earl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In Buddhism, they tend to discuss how, once one gets beyond conceptualization re anything, we enounter its "suchness," which is how I take the use of the term "isness" here. Conceptual mind tends to fairly rigidly adhere to thingness: a "self" here & an Other over there. So, I see the path of Chrisitan mystical movement as:

self>>>>><<<<<God

self>>><<<God

self>><<God

self><God

( )

As in the following quotation from Eckhart:

"In the breakthrough, where I stand free of my own will and the will of God and of all his works and of God himself, there I am above all creatures and am neither God nor creature...I discover that God and I are one...I am an immovable cause that moves all things...there I had no God and was cause of myself...There, I stood free of God and of all things. But when I took leave of this state and received my created being, then I had a God."

As to books re Eckhart, actually got all my wonderful quotes off the internet. As I understand it, Eckhart was considered a heretic by the Church. But, then I've never been a big fan of dogma. Dogma is a group of folks interpreting your experiences for you & telling you what you're supposed to believe/perceive. Even when dogmatists are right, until a person discovers some Truth within themselves, it's not the "Living Word." Life has a way of teaching you Truth-always liked the bumper sticker I saw many years ago" "My karma ran over my dogma." Take care, Earl

OK- here goes the next one:

"Thou shalt know him without image, without semblance and without means...but, for me to know God thus, with nothing between, I must be all but He, He all but me, I say God must be very I, I very God, so consumately one that this He and this I are one 'is', in this isness working one work eternally; but so long as this He and this I, to wit God and the soul, are not one single here, one single now, the I cannot work with nor be one with that He...God's 'isness' is my 'isness,' neither more nor less."

Have a good one, Earl

There is a heavenly door for the soul into the divine nature where somethings are reduced to nothing...ignorant with knowing, loveless with loving, dark with light, emptied out to nothingness.

 

"some things are reduced to nothing" - God is "neutral".

 

"ignorant with knowing, loveless with loving, dark with light" - all are dualities

 

"emptied out to nothingness" - which become harmonious, combined, neutral Unity

 

Meister Eckart was a "participatory" Monist, another term for "Dialectical" Monism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most of my view of Christian mystical writings is informed by my starting out in intensive buddhist study, (probably why I'm such a fan of Eckhart as his sayings could have come from the mouth of a zen master). To me this quotation as do many of his point to kenosis and apophatic approaches. "Things" lose their absolute sense of "thingness" in meditative/contemplative states, including the "thing" we take ourselves to be. Transcendent knowing can only come from "ignorance-" not to mention the more I experience the less I truly know When we are "darkened to the light" of conventional, conceptual certainties, we open up a way for more of the Divine light to shine through with a truer gnosis. To add another famous Eckhart quote here: "God save me from God." Have a good one, Earl

When I despair regarding Christian theology, I think of Meister Eckhart. Perhaps it might be fun to post Eckhart quotes here and then have forum participants post their reactions to them-there are many intriguing ones. So, here's the first:

"There is a heavenly door for the soul into the divine nature where somethings are reduced to nothing...ignorant with knowing, loveless with loving, dark with light, emptied out to nothingness."

Have a good one, Earl

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.  The key factor for me is remembering that people (ie religion) will always have shortcomings.  The more time and energy you spend choosing a path that exactly fits you (impossible IMHO), the less time you have to practice on relationship building.  Screwtape Letters lists this sort of focus as a primary tactic of personal temptors .

 

Peace to you all.  Cynthia

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If theology is so much easier to do than praying/meditation/experiencing God, why do so few do it?

 

We can of course, retreat to the cave and spend our life in monastic silence, "experiencing God". But if we come out of the cave and into community, we enter the struggle with others to interpret or understand our experience of God. Furthermore, we discover that the interpretation of our experience affects HOW we experience God when we go back to the cave.

 

It is easier to pray/meditate/experience God than it is to struggle with the questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it's human to ponder the big questions. Ultimately, I'm unsure how helpful conceptualizing is and, therefore I embrace the apophatic. I think I need an avian theology. Who do birds worship? For birds, it's a "Zen thing:" when the wind stirs, they open their wings and are carried aloft. When they are tired, they perch, when hungry, they eat. They worry not of the morrow. Take care, Earl

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Haven't read this book but have read a number of articles by Marcus Borg I found on the internet-like his view. I've long felt uncnnected to a local Christian church/community simply because I couldn't relate to standard Christian theology as expressed in churches. Always missed being part of a community, though. I, too, find dwelling on the "theology" somewhat anti-life-giving & hugging a tree or skipping in the park would probably be more life-affirming for me, too. I find most Christian theology way too heavy on "head" and too light on "heart." If Christian theologians and pastors would simply focus on Jesus' life-giving "Good News" of living life with universal compassion and faith we are the children of God, (therefore even in the midst of pain, all is right with the world & us), instead of their emphasis on partisanism and judgment, we'd truly have a religion founded by Jesus. I've always believed, though, that if one needed to choose between what someone else told you was right for you, (including theologians) and what your own intuition tells you is right for soul-fulfillment, boy you'd better go with your soul, if you don't want to lose your soul. God put it there for a reason-your soul path is your path to God and the real Fall is learning not to pay attention to it. As I said in my intro piece, if i were to label myself it is as a "Christo-buddhist," but some days due to how majority of folks define Christianity I wonder if I need to drop off the "Christo" part, then I remember Meister Eckhart. Too bad Chrisitianity didn't take his sermons more to heart. Think I'll go worship a tree today. Have a good one, Earl

I'd very much like to read the book you just mentioned.

 

I recently did a bit of online research on Apophatic versus Kataphatic theology and Apophatic versus Kataphatic prayer. It got bit confusing because "Apophatic" is defined differently depending on the usage.

 

I too have a love/hate relationship with one versus the other. I recently realized that it's the extremes of both that I hate. One quote I found said this:

 

Extremes of the kataphatic approach can produce endless fascination with imagery or thought, thus obscuring the divine source of all experience. Similarly, apophatic extremism can lead to life- denying and anti-incarnational distortions.

 

Recently, I've come to appreciate the beauty of a "dialectic" theology which not only avoids the extremes but combines and "neutralizes" them. A dialectical approach makes sense to me.

 

A dialectical approach would say:

 

It is appropriate to make Via Positiva assertions about God as long as it is understood that God is ALSO NOT those assertions as well.

 

It is also appropriate to make Via Negativa negations about God as long as it is understood that God is ALSO NOT those negations as well.

 

When you "add up" all the Via Positiva assertions (and the opposites) and all the Via Negativa negations (and those opposites), we end up with a "neutral unity" God/dess that can be whatever She wants to be.

 

I guess that brings us back around to the question: "Has God chosen to be personal or impersonal?" LOL!

 

I was praying/meditating the other night and had the thought pop into my head that God/dess is personal and chooses to be aware of and relate to the life that exists in the universe. It was a bit of an "Aha!" moment that lasted for a few minutes and then faded away.

 

Perhaps I'm being too sentimental, but what I see in the world does not portray to me an impersonal God. I have had to, however, step away from a geocentric theology to get a proper perspective of what "personal" might mean.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dialectical approach-that's wonderful! I realize as I read this I've been perhaps "too attached" to the apophatic orientation. your post got me to thinking of the term "theophany-" "God-revealing." It's the notion that (at least with the right consciousness) the things of this world can be seen through as revealing the Divine, be it wholly or in its facets. Obviously, though, without the apophatic we may lose the ability to see theophanies because once we're certain what God is and how God reveals itself, we stop hearing and seeing. God must reveal out of Mystery and if we're sure we know we stop Knowing. take care, Earl

Just joined up & thought I'd say hello. See a few names here from another forum I'd been hanging out in.

Got 1 of each: wife, son, & grandkid.

Worked in mental health for 25 years.

Spiritually guess I'd say I'm a "Christo-buddhist"(?) Long practiced buddhism while maintaining a generally Christian belief system and am quite interested in interreligious or interspiritual practice and the universals of mysticism.

Can't say I "enjoy" bad painting and tennis playing, but I do it.

See ya, Earl