cunninglily

Walter Wink must throw out huge portions of the Old Testament, then. The God represented in the OT is a very jealous God. That was His main issue with the Israelites, time and time again--that they were "adulterous," worshipping other gods and idols. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes. The Israelites were pagan polytheists, and much of the Old Testament tells the story of the on-going battle to wrench the Israelites away from their belief in the "many gods"...this is true. And being pagan, these were a tribal people (something we are not any more btw) and so unity under one god was of utmost importance. For centuries, the Israelites were not interested in converting people from other tribes into their fold (and still are not)...quite the contrary....*other* people from other tribes were unclean and mixing in any way was not encouraged. Jesus, in fact, changed this basic Israelite tribal tendency toward elitism and exclusivity...this is one of the most revolutionary things that He did...circumcision was no longer of the flesh, but of the heart (as Paul put it). more later lily

Maybe its not so much a matter of right or wrong, but where a belief leads. I think its important to expand a belief, even exaggerate it, to *see* how it may progress if commonly held. Do you see what I mean? Take euthanasia, just as an example. If we believe it is okay to end lives when its *usefullness* or *quality* decreases (or before it achieves depth or usefullness as in abortion) then what happens when you EXPAND this belief? What happens to our sense of life as sacred? Who then decides when life is viable or useful or not? There are beliefs that are destructive to life...if not evident immediately, evident upon expansion. The simple belief that Jesus is the Way to the Father has expanded to mean that ALL who DO NOT believe in Jesus are damned. I think it was Walter Wink that said that any god who does not love the people who serve another god is a false god and any prophet who preaches that God does not love ALL men whether they believe in Him or not is a false prophet. There are beliefs that are destructive to life and which do not expand in Love. It is our responsibility to speak out against such beliefs, no matter who holds them, or how authoritative the source from which the belief came. Or so I think. lily

Wilber is great stuff. I always recommend starting with A Brief History of Everything, and then tell me what you liked about it, and I'll tell you where to go next. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I love "A Brief History of Everything" and admire Ken Wilbur a great deal. Its so cool to be on a message board where the other members read what I read. I'm really enjoying the company here. thanks, you guys lily

I was hoping you would add your thoughts on Jesus Christ as the "microcosm". lily

Yes. It is a tremendous challenge to put these things in words, but its not necessary to talk in specialized language to do it. Much can be said for speaking from the heart. If you are coming from the position that Jesus, the man, is God Incarnate; that Jesus is God Himself and that God become Man is a once in all eternity event, then yes, it does seem grandiose to think in terms of mere man being filled or anointed (or Christ-ed) with the power and glory of God. But, if you can assume the position that Jesus was in all ways human, whatever else he may have been, then, it is possible to imagine that God demonstrated through the humanity of Jesus what He wishes to accomplish in and through ALL humanity, and through humanity, ALL creation. It wasn't God that went to the cross. It was Jesus, the man, and all of humanity with him. Can you not imagine that Jesus KNEW that in going to the cross He would lose NOTHING that as a man he would not lose anyway? All flesh rots. All personality fades away and personal memory gets added to the Book of Life, and you, des, as you know yourself in your particulars, will cease to be. Your spirit, however, will live forever. True freedom in God comes from dying before you die; laying down *your* life that does not endure, for Life that endures forever. This is what Jesus the man knew beyond a shadow of doubt, and only Love gives this assurance...and that is this: That who and what you truly are never dies. The Anointing, or Christ in you, will not make you more than human but more fully human; we were made to be filled with the Love and Power of God, to be transparent vessels of Gods Good Pleasure, to mediate the One Will to all creation, to be Christs, or Anointed sons of God. The burden is light. What wears us out is grasping and clinging and holding on to *our* lives under the illusion of separation; ruled by the fear of death, more afraid of "what the neighbors think" than any of us care to admit, bewildered by lack of purpose and meaning, blinded by despair, craving what never satisfies and so on....when the Truth is not far from any of us. It is my belief that in "laying down our lives" we make room for an in-filling or in-dwelling or incarnating of God, and that this is what is meant by "Christ in you". It is not glamorous or out of reach or reserved for only the few...it is a Reality that we are already in the midst of. We need only to be Aware of it. lily

I agree. But to say that this destiny awaits us all "in Eternity" is NOT to say, to my mind, that this destiny awaits us in some other place or time. Eternal life is NOW. As soon as you can say with Paul that "it is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me" you enter Eternal life. This is the doctrine of "dying before you die", of "laying down your life", of "whoever attempts to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake shall find it." We know that we all die. Our bodies rot and our personalities fade away. So what life do we find in laying down our lives or in dying before we die if not Eternal life? In other words we begin to live not as mere flesh and blood, which returns to dust, but as eternal spirits, incarnated in flesh and blood...which is arguably what we already are. lily

Good thread! I likewise really like Fox's treatment of the Cosmic Christ idea. What I get out of Fox is that the Truth is more, not less, than the literalizations of it. Knowing that Fox is well acquainted with mysticism East and West (Eckhart in particular), the idea that we are to become Christs is not at all foreign to where he's coming from. (This teaching is explicit in Eastern theology, if only implicit in the West.) Lily also points to many of the Pauline texts that can certainly be read this way, though it never occured to me to do so when I myself was a Baptist. Now, I find it hard to read them any other way. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What I am trying to stress in what I say is the absolute crucial role HUMANITY plays in the revelations of God. It is primarily THROUGH human beings that God is revealed, exemplified through the humanity of Jesus in the Christian tradition. This is not to suggest that God does not reveal Himself through ALL of creation, but that humanity plays a unique role in the unfolding of the plans and purposes of God, and that God may indeed be hindered, for lack of a better word, from expressing His Will to the extent that we remain unaware of Who and What we are. This accords with an understanding that our purpose is NOT to leave this "fallen", "sinful" world, but that we are exactly where AND what we are to mediate the purposes of God, and that we did not *come into* this world so much as we *came out of* this world; we are One with it, and to the extent that we are changed (transformed) so too the entire world is changed. And I believe that this change or transformation comes through the *vehicle* of the *Christ* , which I also believe is universally accessible and not solely dependent upon the Christian tradition, although, granted, it may not be called or named the "Christ" in other traditions. In other words, there is a Truth that is not boxed in by what we may or may not *name* it, and that it was this Truth that Jesus shows the way to. It is difficult for Christians to imagine that they hold such a powerful place in the unfolding of Gods Will. The emphasis on *sinful*, *fallen* humanity, completely dependent upon the sacrifice of one man, the man Jesus, to carry the whole burden of Gods plan, is too much with us. At the very least we should realize that Jesus Christ paid the burden of sin in full, which frees us to act in intimate relationship with God without condemnation, which is an incredible realization right there, and still brings us to the point I am trying to make: we too are called sons of God. This leads to an understanding that *Christ* is the Anointing of the fully realized Sons and not the title given to one man alone. lily

To me, the whole Christian message breaks down if we CANNOT become Christs, or Anointed Ones. There would be no movement, no development, no evolution of the Christian *experience* without it. "Christ in you the hope of glory" would be meaningless. Jesus would go from "the firstborn among many brethren" to "the only begotten Son of God" and I could go back to the Baptist Church on Sundays, "once saved, always saved" and await heaven when I die and do my best to be "good" in the meantime. But if Jesus demonstrated IN HIS humanity the role or purpose OF humanity in God and if this can be expressed through the word "mediation" then we are called to be in relationship with God in the same manner in which Jesus was in relationship with God - as Anointed Sons of God - Mediators of Gods Will. I believe that humanity is pivotal in the unfolding of Gods purpose; that we are not being acted upon so much as acted through, and if we do not embrace our calling in God, which is "Christ in you the hope of glory", then the "whole creation groans awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God" in vain. lily

Hi WindDancer I am drawn to the Ancient Greek conception of the "Hero" or the immortalization of the mortal man, and my thought is that we are going to have difficulty discussing the divinity/humanity of Jesus Christ without *going back* to pre-christian ideas, perhaps especially ancient Greek ideas. (for instance, I believe the "adoptionism heresy" has its roots in Greek thought and tradition; that the Greeks had initiation by adoption) The problem is that I am no biblical or ancient religion scholar and would have to rely, to a large extent, on the more learned on this list to carry this discussion. This is very frustrating because I have so many intuitions regarding this topic that I am ill-equipped to articulate. I'm also seeing that if we are to find common ground in this discussion that we are going to need to establish a worldview. If our worldview is in part, or in full, influenced by a "Spiritualist Worldview", such as found in Gnosticism, then it will be more difficult to envision Jesus, fully man, fully flesh, fully embodying or incarnating God, or God being *in* the creation as God was in Christ Jesus. Our basic understanding of what is possible or not possible concerning Jesus the Christ will depend a great deal on who and what we think God is and who and what we think we are in relationship to God. Whether or not it is important that Jesus the Christ be the *only* begotten Son of God, and therefore unique in all of history, both before or since, or whether He was in fact the "firstborn among many brethren" is what is *at stake* in this discussion, at least to my mind. I'm hoping that Fred will give us orientation. lily

Joseph Campbell collaborated on a book on Tarot entitled, "Tarot Revelations" with Richard Roberts. I would be interested in discussing Tarot symbolism etc. but would prefer to start that when things slow down a bit here and HERE (in my *real* life). Maybe in a few weeks? I have a feeling that Freds new discussion topic will be keeping us all busy at least until then. lily

Are you saying that latent within and as one with the physical universe God was, is, and shall be? Or are you saying that God incarnate was latent until the birth of Jesus? Is God latent within the physical universe now? nascent? or fully realized in Jesus? Christ? and therefore no longer latent? Also, do you mean "Jesus" is the Cosmos in miniature? Jesus as a man? as the Son of Man? or Jesus as the Christ? Do we mean when we say "God Incarnate" that God in His Fullness dwelled in the body of Jesus? that Jesus WAS God? Or are we saying that Jesus as a man embodied the fullness of God and became immortal or as God? lily

I think what I (we?) was more going for, is that the propensity for faith itself is a drive that is innately human, as opposed to culturally conditioned. It is built into the very fabric of being human, and we all possess it, though some spend their whole lives trying to drown it out. Perhaps, some personality traits factor in too; but I prefer to believe that everyone in their own way, and in their own personality-style, gets the opportunity to use it, or drown it out. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh again. I apologize. I thought we were talking about something completely *new* to me. I misunderstood. I have held that the propensity for faith is innately human and not just culturally conditioned. It was the word "genetic" that threw me. Thanks for clearing that up. lily

This rocks Fred. Please don't think that i'm not interested if I can't engage this discussion full bore this weekend...which starts for me tonight when we pick up my partners children. I'll steal as much time as I can though... lily

Fred wrote: I think des's statement that '"What" we believe is shaped by experience, culture, language, etc., but *that* we believe is shaped by something inborn' is a good observation. Ohhhhh...I get it now. (sorry des) You guys are saying that there is a theory going around that *to believe*, the propensity for faith itself, is the result of a genetic predisposition. Hmm. That is interesting. I don't like it, but its interesting. I can also appreciate how someone, through observation, would have been inspired to search out that possibility. But, I still don't like it (which of course means not much, if its true). I know a few people intimately who are not religious. I get blank stares from them often. And it does seem quite true that they can't *help* this anymore than I can help the fact that I am. This seems to fit in with the brief discussion we had recently concerning free will versus One Will. It does seem that we can not like what we don't like or not like what we do like and so forth. Hmm. Very interesting. What I don't like about it is that it does away with choice entirely, if drawn to its logical conclusions, and yet I've explored the concept of Fate quite a bit in the last year or so and much of what I've learned and intuited resonants well with me. I'm going to need to chew on this a bit... Fred wrote: And for my own sanity, I'll continue to keep company with others who have made different choices. Yeah, I hear ya. I have a "Please God: Save me from Your Followers" button. hehe But seriously, I too like a motley crew. lily

Not at all. lily

This discussion might fit in "Selling a Liberal Christianity", which has *petered-out* (i wonder where this phrase came from? some. I'd certainly be interested in participating. lily

Have any of you read the faery romance, "Phantastes", written by George MacDonald? C. S. Lewis introduced me to this book in his own book "Suprised by Joy" many years ago. Lewis claimed to receive his sense of *holiness* from this book. At any rate, its an excellent read and the entire text is available on-line. I re-read "Phantastes" every now and then when I want to rest my head. It's a lovely and imaginatively written book. I highly recommend. lily

hear, hear. welcome to the forum Fred. ~lily

You make good points Darby. But there is no getting around the fact that if you think Jesus is the *right* way to the Father, then you pretty much have to concede that any other way is wrong. And this is a problem. It's not that I think you are wrong for thinking the way you do...I don't mean that kind of problem...I mean that this is where the trouble starts. But again we are butt up against an issue of language: what does it mean that Jesus is the way to the Father? Do you mean Jesus Himself or what He embodied; what He taught and demonstrated or the Man Himself? Is it possible that Jesus embodied a nature in relationship with God that reveals a way to the Father? and that this nature is what is important and not the religious vessel that transmits this understanding to you? I mean, is it possible that others from different cultures and belief systems can embody what we would call the "Christ Nature"?...I'm just thinking aloud here...asking questions. It does state in the Bible that Jesus said we would be despised and persecuted...but for what? Would it not be possible that we would be persecuted for going against the Powers in our day the way he went against the Powers in his own? I mean, Darby, murderers are persecuted. Persecution alone doesn't make someone a follower of Jesus, obviously. I suggest that its possible that He meant that good men would be persecuted in their battle against the forces of evil...ANY good wo/man. ~lily

Whoa I've read the Q&A and interview with Sam Harris concerning his book "The End of Faith" (i have not read the book). He says: "There is a pervasive piece of wishful thinking circulating among religious moderates, and it could get a lot of us killed. The idea is that all religions, at their core, teach the same thing. This is myth." and "Anyone who says that there is no basis for (Osama bin Laden) his worldview in the doctrine of Islam is either dangerously ignorant or just dangerous." This is heavy. It hits home. I think, from what I gather reading ONLY interviews with the author bear in mind, is that his "literal interpretation" of religious doctrine is more a recognition of the fact that in the case of Islam (and Christianity and Judaism) doctrines and texts exist (and not only exist, but are worshipped) which support both heinous and ridiculous beliefs that endanger the welfare of Everything...and that this needs to be confronted. That NO belief or Faith is sacrosanct that supports domination in any way, shape, or form....that ignorant and dangerous beliefs that are "tolerated" because they are religious is putting everything in danger. Sam Harris stresses that we are essentially talking about language; that the language of faith needs to be challenged, if not completely abandoned. This is tough. Try stating what you believe in strictly neutral terms. To do so immediately compromises the superiority of YOUR religion, the inerrancy of YOUR faith, or OUR faith. I definitely want to read this book. Christianity is a target of much hatred in the world, and the challenge this book seems to make is that there are good reasons for that; that our own faith and Bible and doctrines support domination. There are many, many that want to see Christianity destroyed as a system of Domination, and many that are engaging the Powers to do just that. (and I take it for granted that you guys understand that I believe that the Christian faith and Bible support a great deal more and better than that...) We must recognize how the rest of the world sees us and why. I think that the instinct toward syncretism, is, in many ways, an effort to find a common, neutral language; to let go the *superiority* of your own religion which leads to domination, and to begin to reason together, to have "conversations" as Sam Harris put it, and to challenge those things in any religion that support anything that is not good for the Whole. I have a Pagan friend who once commented that "the problem with Christians is that even when they are moderate or liberal and genuinely interested and accepting of your religion, I can always see in their eyes that they believe deep down that theirs is the right way, the best way, the most true way." I could only laugh. ~lily

Well, the Kabbalah teaches that Desire runs the show...both Gods' Desire and our own; that it is through "our desires" that God leads us. It is out of "His Own Good Pleasure" that God acts. God KNOWS that you catch more bees with honey, and that *happy* people, joyous people spread more health and goodwill than miserable people do. To the Kabbalist it is a grave mistake to try and "kill off" your desires; instead it is believed that we are to *purify* our desires not negate, repress, or deny them. Much of what we desire IS good and those things that we *think* we desire, if not for the good of ourselves and others, will eventually leave a bitter taste in our mouth and we will desire something else; something better hopefully (and I believe inevitably). Purely selfish desires do not give pleasure long, and arguably no real pleasure at all, which is why the selfish are always covetous and never satisfied. If you think about it, the Kabbalists point of view conveys a radical faith and trust in Gods mercy and his power to "finish the work He has begun in you" that is not all up to you, and is not dependant on any perfect performance by you. Dietrich Bonhoeffer stated somewhere that we are free to "sin boldly and trust God more boldly still", and I believe this conveys the same idea. Too many Christians are paralyzed by fear of their own desire nature and risking "going against Gods Will". But we must act, even though we are still in ignorance and far from perfect, and are clearly fallible. Our desires are what spur this action, for without desire we would accomplish nothing. We need to remember that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom", but thats only the beginning....we are called to become "full grown sons" who act out of Love, both out of Gods love for us and our love for Him, and by extension, our love for all of Gods creation. And Love will take care of your desire nature, just as Love fulfills the Law. Condemnation accomplishes nothing. ~lily

I made mention on another board of how Judaism isn't as dualistic as it's made out to be. The average Jew may think in dualistic terms, but the Hebrew scriptures don't necessarily teach dualism. Body/Soul or Body/Spirit is one example. Genesis teaches that mankind (adam) were formed from the dust of the ground, that the breath of life (spirit) was breathed into them and that mankind BECAME living souls. It doesn't say mankind were GIVEN souls or spirits. Just another way the ancient Greeks influenced theology. Just a tidbit I thought I'd share that I think is rather cool. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just last week I got "silenced" (blocked from posting) on a Pagan list for insisting that the Bible clearly states a difference between spirit and soul. There are even two words in Hebrew that show that the Ancient Hebrews saw the soul as different from the spirit: Nephesh and Ruach. Many Pagans (and perhaps others) are under the impression that Christians believe that their spirits and souls are one and the same, and maybe many Christians too, but to me it is clear that scripture shows a distinct difference between the two. The soul is a great mystery. It is formed of both matter and spirit, as you show, and so is by nature of its very nature the mediation point between heaven and earth. When I was a young Christian I became fascinated by all the "three's" in the Bible and made a list of them. Think: Father-Son-HolySpirit : Outer Court - Inner Court - Most Holy Place : The Called - The Chosen - The Faithful : Gold - Silver- Precious Stones : Jesus -Christ - Lord : the blade - the ear - the full corn : spirit - soul - body ...and there are many more. This suggested a tripartite salvation to me, and still does, with all of the *middle* metaphors suggesting both the role of the soul in salvation and the *way* of the souls salvation. Note that the soul is the place of Sonship according to this model. Salvation of Spirit is by grace, but the salvation of soul requires a "working out", and of course the penultimate symbol of this working out is the Cross, where Christ mediated Salvation and Redemption to the Whole of Creation. The soul can also be seen as that part of Man that mediates salvation to the body and to the Body, which very much includes the Land, and which comes through a "renewing of the mind" and the subduing of the ego, so that it is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives through me. The soul is the seat of sacrifice, and that part of us that answers the call of God...the flesh can not and the spirit need not, for the regenerated spirit is already One with God. The soul is the seat of our personalities and what we call "our life". If the soul is dominated by an ego that thinks its in charge, then its true and highest function as a transparent vessel is darkened, and the Life and Light of God is hindered in shining through. But a soul that has recognized its calling in God mediates all good things to Gods Creation and in this way experiences its own salvation as sons of God. ...or so is my faith and hope. ( I warned you guys that I ALWAYS preach) ~lily

But this is not the only way to think about "accountability". We should use guilt wisely and sparingly, understanding that what we do and say and think and feel DOES matter, that these things DO affect the world around us...even if it seems a very small world indeed. Everything that you do affects everything around you...this is not hard to see....it is hard to assume responsibility for it and only Love can show us how. I don't know where you might have gotten the understanding that stealing a snickers bar would condemn you to eternal torture because I know no one that believes this. This is a distortion of Christian teaching that doesn't even make good horse sense. It is not a matter of the snicker bar, it is a matter of the heart. What or Who oppresses you that you must steal? THAT is the tyranny. Why not just ask for the snickers bar if you are hungry? It is only pride that makes us think that we are alone in this world; cut off from our fellows, left to the mercy of the Powers that Be without assistance. The truth is that we are all in this together and so we are "accountable" for our part in co-creating the world we envision together. Understanding this can fill us with a sense of purpose, the same sense of purpose Jesus knew, and so the joy of the Lord can be our strength...because, yeah, sometimes it does feel that all the good we can do is nothing more than a drop of lemon in a polluted ocean; you just don't get lemonade that way. But we have a promise and a hope that endures and helps us to endure....besides, there is a lot of good in this sweet ole world already. ~lily