cunninglily

Where is it written that one has to be a liberal democrat to be a Progressive Christian? You may want to look at Point 4 of the 8 Points Beach. Being "progressive" is not a political stance but a spiritual/religious one and ones' politics are a matter of conscience and not of policy. Your attitude in the above post is the sort of attitude that keeps me from identifying strongly with any group. There is always some wangnut who wants to use "group identity" to beat someone over the head. Boo Hiss lily

Understood. In my own case, self-observation and efforts to act more authentically in trying circumstances (and realizing how often I do not) has me feeling more quiet and introverted. When do you expect your son? lily

Well I have been missing your daily wordiness, but I understand. I've been feeling quiet too. lily

Yes. Many ways to say the same thing. But what strikes me in this teaching is that the "merging of the microcosm with the macrocosm", something which we all have read or heard, becomes something new in its sometimes off-putting concreteness or literalness. I appreciate this because there is always the danger of "knowing all that already" and its good to hear things said in a way that opens the ears to hear again. Thanks for joining in. lily

Yes, there are some similarities to what I've read of Gurdjieff and what I know of the Kabbalah. I think that either Gurdjieff or Ouspensky were instrumental in the development of the Enneagram if you've heard of that, but I'm not yet sure in what way...I'll check it out. And yes, the Gurdjieffian "school" which includes Ouspensky, does say some rather fantastic things...such as his comments concerning the moon as well as his reason for overpopulation (I think thats pretty weird, but then life is pretty weird). But apart from the fantastic, it seems to me that Gurdjieff is indicating humanities organic place within the cosmic whole...as Jacob Needleman put it in describing this idea of Gurdjieffs', "human consciousness has a function no less than, say, the atmospheric exchange of chemicals in plant respiration." Again, this is interesting to me now primarily because it takes the idea of mediation out of the metaphorical realm and into organic life, which means that the condition of mankind affects the condition of the whole of creation quite literally to this way of thinking. Gurdjieff, it must be noted at this point, was criticized for advocating and believing in a "superhumanity", and this criticism is not unknown to those who believe that we are destined to become the "sons of God" and "Christs". Gurdjieff also believed that it was only through great effort that any man could realize this nature in himself while at the same time making it clear that no man could do it of himself or by himself. At any rate, I am not advocating the teachings of Gurdjieff so much as wanting to explore the idea that mankind mediates, in somewhat the same way as the trunk of a tree mediates between the watery roots and the sun-drenched leaves to create photosynthesis, between God and creation. And more specifically, that it is for us who are Christian, Christ in us that fulfills this function. And in light of the literalness of Gurdjieffs vision, that Christ is indeed the redeemer of the whole of creation and that the balance of the entire shabang weighs upon Him. In and through us. Word is, "the whole creation groaneth awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God". This has always been a particularly compelling scripture for me and this discovery of the teachings of Gurdjieff seems to approach the telling of something on the tip of my tongue concerning it, if you know what I mean. You know how influences go....how bits and pieces of information or ideas are picked up, here a little, there a little, even "line upon line, precept upon precept", and this one particular thread has been following after me for a while now. I appreciate your patience. I know nothing about Gurdjieff or his teaching apart from the bits and pieces I am slowly garnering through reading, and much of it is over my head quite frankly. I am in that awkward but still not unpleasant state of understanding and not understanding at once. lily

There are some things rattling around in my head that I want to try and organize, first for my self, and then, hopefully sufficiently enough to generate some discussion here. Some time back, in the "Matrix" thread, I asked if anyone had heard of or read G. I. Gurdjieff. Since then I've been doing a little exploring and have discovered some very provocative ideas which accord, at least in my mind, with some of the larger implications (which I myself could not quite articulate) of what I have called our Purpose as Mediators, with Christ bridging or mediating both what is "higher" and "lower" in ourselves,and we, as Christ in us, mediating in kind between the "higher" and the whole of creation. Much to my surprise, Gurdieff taught a very similar philosophy or worldview. My only encounter with Gurdjieffian thought has been through one of his students and associates, J.A. Bennett...and this rather idly one day as I was tending shop (Bennett's book was on the used book shelf). I'm always amazed at how strains of thought attract similar strains of thought, or how once you own a Volkswagen you realize that they were everywhere all along. Anyway, I'm going to try to give you guys Gurdieff in five minutes...lol...at least as it pertains to what I've said concerning "mediation". Gurdieff taught that "man is created as an agent of transmission", both cosmically and psychospiritually and this is not meant metaphorically, but quite literally. "Human beings are on earth in order to pass on a special energy in two directions - to nature and to other beings." The higher (God, Spirit, Mind or whathaveyou) exists within us, but it cannot penetrate into our actions until there is present within us the paradoxical I (Adam or the Second Adam/Christ) who bridges (or mediates) the levels within the human organism. Inwardly, microcosmically, the question, "Why is man on earth?" translates, in all seriousness, into the question, "Why isn't man on earth?" In the state of ordinary man (which Gurdieff calls the state of sleep) there is no man within us to bridge the higher and lower in ourselves." Which seems to me another way of saying that "Christ in you is the hope of Glory" and not for your own glory, of course, but to the Glory of the Whole of Creation. The first Adam is a dead man, or no man at all, but a phantom; a sleepwalker. The second Adam is a "servant of the Most High" and so on... Gurdieff even goes on to say that the reason for the population explosion is not hygiene or medicine, but the fact that the quality of mankind has declined to such an extent that it takes more of us to maintain the energy balance needed for the "Cosmos" to function as it was created to function. Wrap your brain around that one. The penetration of the higher into the lower in individual human life is actually seen as part of the process of "world-creation and world-maintenance". Yup, mediation to the nth degree, eh? Gurdjieff makes clear that this "transmission" does not occur by good works, which he likens to applying bandaids to cancers. Ones "understanding" and "being" must become one, or ones being must be sufficient to carry the weight of ones knowledge, so that what one does is what one is. He speaks of "emanations" which I understand in light of the scripture which states that "Jesus spoke as one having authority." The word "authority" shares the same roots or origins as does the word "authentic", which implies in light of this scripture that Jesus spoke authentically, or as one who IS what he says and does. This "emanation" is the special energy that we mediate to nature and to other beings. The emanation of Presence we could say. Gurdjieff evolved a very complex teaching and cosmology complete with praxis, and I can not even pretend to understand him fully. But this particular aspect of his teaching has been pressing in on me for days and I just had to spill it somewhere. Any thoughts? lily

Yes. We can agree on that. (and darby, its good to see you...wb

Yes, it doesn't seem at all fair does it? I think it was Jamake Highwater that said that it is always the best and the worst in society that defines and changes a society. We average joes in the middle don't affect much. Maybe this is what Jesus meant when he said, "I would that you be either hot or cold; the lukewarm I will spit out of my mouth." For those who are outside the Christian tradition it is an unfortunate fact that the very worst that occurs in its name is definitive. I am pained by the depictions of Christians (primarily Roman Catholic) in popular culture and left speechless by charges of "Is this how your God answers prayer?" Nevertheless, there does seem to be something within Christianity that makes it too easy to rationalize and excuse "acts of violence" (which includes taking away rights and freedoms) against those who are outside it. I don't think that we as Christians can get very far in re-envisioning our tradition without fully facing this fact. These are things I'm grappling with...this is not academic for me. If it is true that those who commit heinous acts in the name of Christianity (or any of the monotheisms) are merely sick and warped, then what is it within Christianity itself that attracts such people and gives them conveyance for committing such atrocities? I have said the same thing that you stated above many many times. I have warned my Pagan friends of their too easy complaisance in attitude regarding the evils of religion. I have said many times that the problem is not with the essential religions themselves, but with humanity itself. But what does this mean ultimately? Can we separate the religion from the people who profess it and act in its name? Who or what does religion serve if not man? Does God need religion? Will God suffer if Christianity were to crumple in a heap tomorrow? What does it really mean to say that the religion is good but that man is bad? If a religion does not transmit goodness, mercy, compassion, humility and love to and through man then what good is it? lily

I don't know if we've gotten that badly off topic. After all, it isn't a Historical Jesus thread, it's a fundamental theology thread. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was attempting to get away from the "historical Jesus" and back to God. But as our understanding develops away from the scriptures as a revelation of a one-time event and toward an understanding of scripture and tradition as unfolding in time through the creativity of persons, our understanding of God too, it seems, also changes. I no longer think that the behavior of Christians as Christians is tangential to the essential Christian message. I once argued long and hard that one must separate the message from the distortions that inevitably occur from the ignorance or misunderstanding of the people who adhere to it. I'm not so sure about this anymore. The Romanian priest who recently suffocated a young nun who he chained to a cross because she was "possessed of a devil" is a Christian. We Christians like to say that people who do things like this are not "real Christians"; that there is nothing wrong with Christianity per se but the people who distort its essential message. But heinous atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity from its beginning, and are still being committed, and I think that this is far from tangential. Likewise the severance of Spirit from Matter, but when I speak of "embarrassments" I'm speaking of acts, not doctrines. lily

Fred wrote: Aletheia wrote: All religions share this in common, that there are those who embrace it who have "their head on spiritually and theologically", and those that don't. What compels me in modern paganism and which stays with me even now is the frank experimentation with the simple, and often sparse materials of its traditions. Christianity has accrued a lot, much of it an embarrassment if I can be blunt, and so we have more to work with and much more to work against. The Pagans are in the midst of a reconstruction unhindered (for the most part) by dogma, literalism, and institutionalism and so they are free to create rituals and traditions and initiations which accord with their own inner authority and aesthetic sense. But I do agree that there is a lot of romanticizing concerning what Paganism actually was before Christianity and a tendency to define itself according to what it is not, namely Christianity. What attracts me in what I find best in Paganism is its endeavors to commune with the Otherworld through the Land (which naturally includes ones' own physicality and bodily realities) and ones own connection with it and to be transformed by that. There is much less emphasis on being "good" and much more on simply being Aware on every possible level of where and how this world and the Otherworld meet and influence one another and acting appropriately according to that. Paganism is much more chthonic and oftheearth...their Gods are "here" in a way that Christianities God has traditionally not, except of course in Jesus and too much exclusively and uniquely in him in my opinion. I think the potential in Christ Jesus is to be very much "here" and of the earth and I can share with the Pagans this instinct to search for Him, or a glimpse of Him, like a roebuck in the thicket, in the Land and in my own encounters with it. The Land as metaphor represents the mysterious, unknown and darkest, deepest aspects of our own psyches and I believe that Jesus is there. I also appreciate the simplicity and therefore creativity of some of the Pagan rituals, and the freedom to find ones own way, with the raw materials of essential religion or religious impulse, to guide you. But we are getting way off topic, aren't we? A question that keeps popping up for me as I am reading these historical quest books, is where is God in all this? How does our understanding of scripture and revelation unfolding in time through the creativity of man affect our understanding of God? Any ideas or thoughts? lily

But that the apocalyptic sayings are obviously a later layer of theological interpretation is an important consideration. Why it is important and in what way seems to determine the attitude of any conclusions drawn. What fascinates me is the human creative dimension in the making of the scriptures and especially the parallels drawn from the traditions of the larger Greco-Roman culture. Burton Mack makes good use of these in his explanations of how these accretions may have occurred and in what context. Concepts such as "ethos", "heuresis" and "conversatio" suggest a whole different world in which "mythmaking" and "learning" were not so far apart, and in which truth and falsehood had completely different connotations than they do today. Part of why this particular aspect of the scholarship fascinates me so much is that it rings some of the same bells that Peter Kingsley's descriptions of the sons of Apollo and the ancient Greek philosophers such as Parmenides does in his book, "Reality". There is a totally different attitude toward what it is to be a human being that rises up in some of these hellenistic Greek references that attracts me as something that has become distorted by sin consciousness in Christianity over time. I have to cut this shorter than I'd like... ...be back later, lily

Do they mean by the 'ethical sayings and teachings' of Jesus as those that are not "apocalyptic" in nature and tone? Or does this also include the sayings attributed to Jesus that identifies him as the Son of God? There does seem to be a trend (and I haven't read enough historical origins books yet to really judge) toward strengthening Jesus the Sage and relativizing Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet and Jesus the only Son of God. Maybe this only seems so because Jesus the Sage is perhaps easier to substantiate historically and discretely and some of these guys are writing as academics. But what would you say Fred should form the core of the Christian message? Christ in you the hope of Glory? If so, I tend to agree...but reading this stuff does make it seem that this particular aspect of the Christian message evolved after the death of Jesus and generations after the first followers of Jesus and so raises some important questions. Such as, "what is a religion and how does it grow?" "Do any religions enter history fully formed from its beginnings or do they all, as my boyfriend would say, enter history as a grain of sand in the oyster of time, and accrete until they become pearls?" lily

sorry. correction in order. the debate on the jesusmysteries discussion board was on whether or not Nazareth existed, not Galilee. As far as I know, there is no debate over the existence of Galilee. Yet. lily

You're too kind. I'm actually going to keep chugging away at it. Burton Macks chapter on "Galilee Before the War" in his "The Book of Q" is actually quite interesting. What frustrates me is that I am sure there are those out there that would dispute every word he writes, (in fact, on the JesusMysteries discussion board there was a recent debate regarding whether or not Galilee even existed) and I, not being a scholar, can not always discern whether I am being fed another fiction or not. To seriously read "this stuff" one must seriously read this stuff, if you know what I mean. lily

Touche. There are a great many things that I don't know. Why I struck the pose I struck in my previous post is just one of them. Perhaps I'm on the defensive. I know full well that no one delves as deeply into these studies as these people have and do without a fire fueling them, just as well as I know that I would not be reading them, or wanting to, if it is truly all "old hat" to me. Forgive my arrogance and carelessness. I am actually quite proud of the courageous scholarship and questing spirit demonstrated in the whole endeavor to find the roots of our tradition and I do think its important. lily

Well, i have a confession to make. I've tried to read these guys before...couldn't get through Spong, or Crossan, or Mack, or Borg. None of them held my attention. Elaine Pagels holds my attention, but her offerings are meagre and leave lots of room for the imagination to roam freely, which may be why I like her. Fact is, and I say this at the risk of sounding arrogant, that most of the conclusions these guys draw I've drawn and quatered long ago. In other words, they don't surprise me with their findings...some of it is good for a game of "religious trivial pursuit" type wellI'llbedamned did you know? stuff, but none of these guys seem too "on fire for God" to me... Borg...I dunno yet...I've yet to get through one of his books, but I can easily see how someone could get their "fill of historical criticism". It ain't historical criticism that sets a man on his head is it? but then the Muse can use anything. lily

Yup. Thing is tho...my intuition stops at "something presented to our consciousness, not invented by it" because I'm wanting to explore the possibility of both being true. Something is both "presented" and "invented" at once. One can't really separate the poem from the poet and yet the poem transcends the poet as soon as it becomes a poem. The poem is both a human product AND a divine product at once. Still...I agree wholeheartedly that "eternal truths are communicated "through" them---sometimes in spite of their "obvious" meaning." But I think this is true of all human creation to varying degree. The "fate" of our creations transcend both our intent and our lifespans; nothing we do belongs only to us, as nothing we are originates with us. Maybe I am only muddying the waters with these musings...but something...a "stop in the spirit" if you will, makes me question whether we are indeed mere "transmitters" or rather "co-creators" of the sacred. "What frightens us is not the thought that we are powerless, but rather that we are powerful beyond our own comprehension." lily

Any of you guys ever read any Gurdieff or Ouspensky? The use of the word "Purpose" as a motif in the film "The Matrix: Reloaded" reminds me of some things I've read in these guys books. Both of these philosophers and spiritual teachers considered themselves "Christian" (and we all should recognize just how broad that definition can be by now) which is what makes it relevant to the discussion. The gist is that those with "Purpose" share a different fate from those without "Purpose", and these are "eaten" or dissolved into the miasmic energy field...at any rate, we are all Fuel according to these guys (Gurdieff's teaching is complex and a little inaccessible in my opinion, but apparently his influence has been considerable.) My hunch is that if none of us have read these two writers/thinkers/teachers, the Wachowski Brothers have. Do you know anything about this Fred?...anybody ever mention either Gurdieff or Ouspensky in discussing this film? Lily wrote : This is what I keep thinking about the scriptures of the NT as I read these "quest" and historical Jesus scholarly books, and immediately comes up at first glance at Borg and his 'historical-metaphorical' approach. What I'm toying with is the idea that it is ,spiritually speaking, immaterial as to whether the synoptic gospels were written as Mythic Fictions or Historical-Factual Myth. Bottom line is that "we" have no more control over the one as the other. The accrued Meaning of any text is not strictly the product of any one individuals' consciousness. There are always unconscious and subconscious forces at work that have "Purpose" apart and above the intent of the individual writing it. This is as true of poetry as it is scripture as it is recorded history. A great poem is not great because the individual who wrote the poem is great, but because Something above and beyond the conscious intent of the poet "does that Voodoo that WhoDo so well". As Jung would say, "no one invents Myth". lily

Feeling "burned out" seems to be "going around". In my case though it is not a burn out from study and discussion but of everything else that competes with this. Another thing that is contributing to my silence is my attempt to get caught up in reading and I've been focusing on the "quest" scholars these last couple of weeks. I'm presently reading Burton Mack's "The Book of Q" and recently finished Michael McClymond's "Familiar Stranger". Borg's "Reading the Bible..." follows. Assimilating new material and new thoughts always shuts me up for a while. There is a sense in which both belief and disbelief are alike suspended and there is nothing much to say. Experience suggests that this won't last too long. lily

Interesting in light of the fact that the number 5 (2 + 3 = 5) is the number of humanity itself. Interesting too that the compound number 23 suggests a more mature and quiescent manifestation of the primary number 5. Five is on the whole a radical number of change, iconoclasm, and anarchy (think of "5" come to upset the order and stability of the number "4"), or anything that changes or expands the consciousness of man. Five is also the number of "dynamic Law" preceding from "Abstract Order" (4). Five is also thought to be the number of religion. Interesting too that the 23 chosen to rebuild Zion will be comprised of 16 women and 7 men. Interesting immediately because the number 16 reduces to 7, a number widely regarded as the most "spiritual" of the primary numbers. According to Paul Case, "to the ancients, the number 7 represented temporary cessation, not final perfection. In Hebrew, the word for "seven" and that for "oath" are closely related, since the security and safety of a sworn contract were represented in Hebrew thought by the number "7". "Victory" is the word association most often attributed to this number. It seems almost impossible that the number symbolism was not chosen deliberately by the writers of this film. Nevertheless, I've seen it happen that numbers, although chosen randomly, or unconsciously, on closer examination prove to be meaningful indeed. lily

Fred: Can you give the context in which these numbers were used? The number 23 would be a number 5 by reduction although with the "vibes" of the 23 influencing it. Most symbolic number systems follow a Pythagorean model...which means, and this is a gross oversimplification... that there are only 9 primary numbers...all other numbers are compounds of these...as 10 is a combination of 1 and 0 and etc. So, if you were interested in sniffing out the symbolic significance of the number 23, you would study its reduction number, which is 5, as well as the relationship between 2 and 3 (such as 3 through the agency of two), as well as the significance of 23 itself. Paul Foster Case says this concerning the symbolic meaning of the primary number 5: "The root consciousness expressed through human personality is this One Law of mediation or adaptation. Man can change conditions. This is the secret of his power to realize freedom." Sounds like it could have been a line in Matrix doesn't it? The number 6 is the number of equilibration, harmony, love, beauty, symmetry, polarity and so on. I find this stuff irresistable myself... lily

Hillman I love. He co-wrote a fantastic book (the book is here somewhere, but as i live with an English/History scholar-type and there are books everywhere and I can't remember the name of the co-writer...actually the guy whose name I can't remember *interviewed* or dialogued with Hillman and it became a book) entitled, "We've Had One Hundred Years of Psychotherapy and The World is Getting Worse". Honest. That's the title. The first time I read it I was throwing my pencil in the air in glee. I also found "The Souls Code" an important book. Thomas Moore has also written some less well known books on the Renaissance Magicians and one on sex that discusses the Marquis de Sade. Neither became popular books but are well worth looking into. I found my copies through interlibrary loan. You guys have no idea how cool it is to find others interested in this type of reading and in Christianity too! Wow. Fred...I did expect you to take exception to the theory that there is an ultimate source or reality that gave birth to God. In Kabbalah this is called the Ain Soph in which nothing can be known or said about it. It is akin to the Pleroma of the Greeks. Like I said, I'm exploring it, but it is an alien concept to me as a Christian too.The sense is that we can know God but we can not know the Ain Soph...this is unknowable. anyway...you guys are the coolest, lily

I am also enamored by this idea. There is something altogether "sound" in it. Yet I am not sure that I subscribe to the understanding that all our choices were made in eternity by us as God...and I know Fred that you probably mean this in an entirely paradoxical way that can only be said as you've said it, as a tensive symbol perhaps and not a steno symbol...I am rather exploring the idea that there is Something prior to God that we may call Fate...which leads to the assumption that God too acts within Her Web. In other places I have called this Something the Source and suggested that this is the "Ultimate" Reality in which God too has His Being. But this is not something that I am settled in at all. I am settled, more or less, in an understanding that what we call "free will" is an illusion. But actually living in the light of this understanding is still something I am struggling to flesh out, as well as reconcile with a distinctly Christian theology. ...wish I had more time this morning, lily

As it so happens...Matrix Reloaded just showed on cinemax. I viewed it for the second time with an ear to our discussion. What interested me the most this time was the relationship between Fate and Choice. Everyone seemed only free to choose their Fate...there was no other Choice; whatever one chose one was Fated to choose and yet "Choice" was the chink in the machine as it were. But the only real choice was to be Aware or to Understand the inevitability of ones' choices. Pretty mind-boggling stuff. lily

After reading the thread on "Star Wars" it occurs to me that what I've written above sounds frighteningly like "The Force" depicted in the movie. Arghhh. lily