thormas

Burl,

You do have a way: throwing in a disparaging characterization,description or comment that must apply if another does not accept what you are selling (ex. poor Ms. Blackstone's education must be lacking). Merely because one does not subscribe to some of what is mentioned in these posts, does not mean they do not believe in the 'supernatural realm' - if that is what is meant by or includes 'God.' As has been discussed in these topics already (see theism, panentheism), there is a difference in defining/understanding God and, therefore, this term.

For me, we live in a Presence (in Being/God so must be the realm of God) that is so subtle that it is often missed (called by some an ‘epistemic distance’) yet so powerful that it thrives even when unrecognized; we are of the only realm that IS: Holy Being (this is not to deny a greater actualization or fulfillment in Being). However, If the characterization of God's realm as supernatural suggests two worlds (man's and God's) and presupposes that 'God' is 'outside' the natural world, it simply does not resonate with me. Nor does the idea of miracles or other phenomena/beings that suggest a 'breaking into the natural world' of man or breaking the laws of nature. I simply don't believe that God interact acts with us in these ways. Are there mysteries, are there unexplained experiences? Hell, I took Silva Mind Control in college and we amazed even ourselves but, if anything, I chalk that up to the power of the mind, not the way of God. I simply don't accept that that is his modus operandi. Others can, that's fine, we disagree - we will never know on this side of the grave and, sure, there might be things we discover about the power of the mind but never 'things' that we can analyze about the realm and way of God. Humbly, don't think so.

You stumbled on it when you said "not believe or disbelieve" (and I assume we can also include believe): those are the options. The supernatural, God's realm, God - cannot be analyzed. One can analyze things and even offer proofs for some things, but I suspect that God does not give us information to be analyzed, he gives him-Self (revelation is the Self-Revelation of God) and faith - the giving of oneself in relationship - or not, is the option. Our speculation is fine and fun but ultimately it is faith.

Finally, isn't it accurate that Blackstone wasn't chasing geese, she was chasing the 'paranormal' and she concluded it wasn't there. And, doesn't paridolia mean wrong image?

Burl,

Thanks for this take on heaven, it is hilarious and I intend to send it to my friends.

Burl,

I have spoken to Ehrman a couple times and he is actually a very happy historian - and a good man. His website donates, I believe, 100% of earnings to the hungry.

I see no cynicism in him, especially in his accomplishments or ongoing work. Nor does he try to convert anyone to his point of view. I find him a great resource in that he, as much a possible, tries to present what can be known about early christianity, no more, no less.

Burl,

I, humbly, just don't buy it. It is perfectly fine to question the true reality of the experiences you mention. It is not feigning ignorance, I simply don't buy that God works this way. And as have said, you have met people who had God speak to them (and there are people who say a Saint has performed a miracle or that Jesus' image appeared in a crust of bread) - but that is simply what they are saying. I know that Jesus speaks/prays to the Father, does God speak to Jesus - that is not an addition like at his baptism but one that has some true ring of the historical?

Aha, so there was also a tortilla!

Burl, I did say such things did not 'speak to me' (and also some/many? others). So that part can't be disputed.

I know about personal testimonies concerning such matters but I also know that people see Jesus, Mary or God Himself (whatever he looks like) in paint, in the clouds and in a crust of bread. All are 'religious or spiritual' testimonies but even such group testimonies are not proof*. Also you are talking about hospitals and who is normally is a hospital over night? People who are not well at that moment in time. Also, I deal with hospitals regularly and have relatives who were nurses - so not every experienced nurse has witnessed patients with these experiences or would agree with the patient interpretation of these experiences.

Such 'religious or spiritual' testimonies are not 'evidence.' And this is not a quarrel about the Great Spirit, it is a disagreement about...........angels, demons and other things that go bump in the night. To not see the difference is to turn to another animal and it's not an ostrich:}

* the witness of the disciples concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus were testimonies, even group testimonies but they are not 'evidence' and prove nothing. Rather they invite us to believe.

I'm Thormas - a name given to me by my daughter when she was little.

Raised a Catholic and educated in Catholic schools through grad school. My undergraduate degree is in Philosophy, with the Benedictines, my favorites and my master is in Systematic Theology. I taught for 12 years in Catholic HSs in NJ before deciding I had to make money if I ever wanted to have a family and afford a house. I have lived in NC for over 20 years a short distance from 3 great universities, including UNC-Chapel Hill. I have continued to read, discuss and write (for myself) about Christian theology ever since leaving teaching. As a teacher in the late 70s, early 80s I had my students reading Gregory Baum's Man Becoming and Andrew Greeley's The Jesus Myth along with The Velveteen Rabbit and East of Eden (timshal). I found then, as now, both a 'we've heard all this before' attitude with a great hunger to really understand, perhaps to hear it again for the first time.

Some of my favorite teachers are Bart Ehrman, a historian of Early Christianity at UNC where I have taken a number of his seminars. He is an agnostic/atheist but I find him brutally honest and like to measure him against others such as Borg, Crossan and, another favorite, Dale Allison. For theologians, in addition to Baum, I find the late John Hick and John Macquarrie still among the best. The topic I have been reading on and off (cause I do have another life) for months is theodicy. And a couple of my favorites seem to be at odds.

I also enjoy Spong a great deal (not always agreeing) and comment frequently on his website. I have enjoyed this website in the last few days since joining. For me, such discussions are important but they are also fun.

Burl,

If the discussion is about an ancient view of the cosmos, then along with a three tiered universe they believed in angels and demons. However, if the Bible is a living word, then it must resonate with people 'where it finds them.' Thus in today's world, no three tiered universe, no angels and demons and for many there are no non-incarnate prophets or patriarchs interceding with those of us who are bodily beings. Thus this view, while historically interesting, is irrelevant because it does not 'speak' to me. It does not call the living. Simple as that.

Agree, I'll go with silly.

Burl - ancient aliens?

Bill, I was raised a Catholic so neither liberal or progressive (in the 50s and 60s) and I agree that the Bible was considered the inerrant word of god and the pope infallible. And we were discouraged from questioning not only the Bible but for Catholics, the priest and especially the nuns.

Some like Bart Ehrman and Dale Allison and others are still 'resolving these problem' so you seem to be in good company.

Long story, short I don't believe that God authored or oversaw the creation of the bible. And again, this would have to be a theistic god (with a miraculous in-breaking into our natural world) that many have put aside as inadequate to our modern understanding of the universe, our sense of self and the resulting understanding of God. The bible is the story by men and their present and changing understanding of the Presence they experience in their life, the life of their people and the life of the man Jesus. We have grown up in many ways but many still hold to a, in my opinion, a child's version of God. That must develop also.

As you said, not only the different Christian denominations but the different religions and philosophies seems to suggest that it's not God's book but many books, many understanding about the one God. And I doubt God takes sides.

Bill, good points all. I do accept that our language is metaphorical but I have begun to disagree with the understanding that God is so distance, so other than we can never say anything about 'him.' God is also 'part of us' and I think we can say things that, for a lack of a better way to phrase it, 'touch' the reality of God - but it is true that we will never know for sure.

I respect your opinion Burl but you lost me at angels - although I am always open to possibilities. I allow for other life, other worlds but always envision it as akin to the bodily, like us. And, I do believe in the continuation of life after death and that the prophets, saints, patriarchs, and the many ordinary (and eventually all) people live in God. What that actually means or looks like, no idea.

I don't believe, for lack of a better way of saying it, in such non-incarnates interacting with us rather I believe that God is present, calling (Word) and encouraging (Spirit) us to Fulfillment (Father) and that is more than enough.

However I will check the website you mentioned, thanks.

My first theology read after college was Gregory Baum's Man Becoming. Still for me, the most influential.

Also try John Hick and John Macquarie both incredible writers and thinkers. Read Hick's 'The Metaphor of God Incarnate.' You could spend the next 10 years on Hick alone.

As mentioned above Borg, Crossan and Ehrman but also try Dale Allison, especially his 'Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus

And Philip Jensen's The Jesus Wars

Burl, what are the non-incarnate entities you mentioned? I think we are unique because we are most like god and intended to be the Sons and Daughters of Abba but I do recognize that we are and must be the beings we are, i.e. physical.

Not sure what you mean that according to Christianity the body and physical world is our reason for being. It is our means but the reason?

Paul, I think I understand your point but for Christians and most religious people, our reason for being is Oneness with God or Abundant Life. This is not scientific certainty but 'certainty' found in faith, which is still faith.

Bill, thanks for the examples and I believe I get what you mean by nature.

I agree with your understanding of theism and I do not believe that God is a being, just a bigger, supreme being than man. I think this is human thinking over the centuries and still accepted by many today. But I think it is mistaken and misleading.

I guess in my understanding of panentheism God is also not a supernatural being, rather there is only Being and all that is, is 'in, of and because of' Being. I am not a pantheist in that I don't believe we or the world is God (this truth is evident to me when I look at my friends and know they are not God). I am more attracted to the paradox of the One and the many. I believe theism defines God as person: I don't think God is person like us, only bigger or supreme but I do believe it is 'accurate' to describe the relationship of the human to the Divine as personal. I think John hits on it in his gospel when he says that God is Love and Jesus calls God, Abba/Daddy. I have never known a true abba (daddy or mommy) or love that is not personal, that is not relational.

I also believe it is 'valid' in this understanding to say that Divinity in in the midst of humanity. So there is no need for a miraculous, supernatural intervention or in-breaking where God already is. And the footnote would add that no laws of nature were broken in this model. I'm not even sure God 'uses' nature but I do allow that Being 'calls' in and through creation to humanity to grow and Become Human.

Interesting what you said about bringing compassion (or Love - compassionate care) to bear in the world. I agree and without it we cannot be Human. It is interesting to note that love is always gratuitous and always transcendent. Meaning it is always a gift (when you love your baby, the baby has done nothing, is not capable of doing anything, to 'deserve' this love, rather you the parent freely gives or bestows it; it is a gift), always freely given (or else it is not love). And the one who gives it, doesn't own it. They give more than they have, more than they are and they, in turn, must receive it from others. Love transcends or is beyond - it is more that the person who gives it. A biblical description of God is that he is transcendent and he graces/gifts humanity. The transcendent is not outside the natural world: the 'More' is in the midst of creation, in the midst of humanity, 'giving' what is necessary for us to Be, to Live.

At least I think this is the case at this moment in my life.

I can allow that a group or tribe of people, believing that there was a God and that this God was 'theirs" and they his, decided to make circumcision a sign of membership. Seems a bit extreme as do some of the other rituals that Burl mentions and I might have gone to the tribe down the road but I do not accept that God had anything to do about it. This was a human decision, a human ritual based on their notion of god and membership.

It would seem that if someone believes these membership directions or the genocide directives came directly or indirectly from God their idea of God would mirror that of an earlier, 'primitive' man.

I have not use the word Holy to describe the Bible in forever but I actually have no problem with it if it means man's stumbling understanding of the Holy, i.e. Divinity (in which he was wrong at times) and his own humanity in that image.

Also, I don't see the Bible as a 'false premise levied upon man,' again it was a stumbling, growing human understanding and as we know for century upon century people believed it just as they believe the sun rises every day.

Scripture is the words of men as they try to say something about the Divinity they believe is experienced in their lives. And, human language is conditioned by where men and women are in particular periods of time, as an example we no longer believe in a three tiered universe. So, It might be good to use even negative scripture to drive home this reality. And, all I can say of all these examples is, ouch!

I wonder if we can ever completely lose our-self or even if we would want to, if that is actually the goal. I suspect not. I think the 'goal' is to transform the self into a truly Human Being. This I believe is analogous to what I hope for my daughter: that she not lose her-self but that she become her truest self, that she achieves her true Humanness.

I think it is not self but self-centeredness that must be overcome and I believe that selfishness or self-centeredness is the only and 'original' sin - which presents itself in myriad ways. And, this (overcoming) is only accomplished by the transformation of self into a truly 'Human Being.' It is also fine and necessary to love oneself: examples include, taking a vacation with your family, going to see a movie, reading a great book, taking a nap, having a cold beer (these last two can be reversed according to individual requirements) and on and on and on. These actions are indeed love as opposed to selfishness as the latter is only concerned for self, literally above all else: I lie for me, I cheat for me, I covet for me, I take the handicap space (when I don't have any qualifying hardship) for me - because in that moment it is all about me.

It seems the point of existence is what some have referred to as deification, or to paraphrase Nikos Kazantzakis, 'to mold the mud of humanity into divinity.' And I suspect this is done as man and woman 'incarnate' Love. Divinity in Humanity so that Humanity can 'become' Divinity. Or as one of the ancients put it (and I forget which one at this moment), God became man so that man could become God.

Thanks Bill and can you give me an example of Nature so I'm on the same page?

Bill, I just saw your latest post. I too am not a theist, more a panentheist agreeing with Paul that we live, move and have our being in God/Being. So I agree that god is no being and I allow that the objects (things) of science differ from the subject of faith. I have never had mystical experiences of god and I also am skeptical of supernatural claims - simply because if we are in/of Being or, conversely, Divinity is in the midst of humanity, there is no need for a miraculous in-breaking of the supernatural into the so-called natural world of man. I however, do not believe that nature is all that there is (at least taking the word as commonly defined): science will lead to greater knowledge of 'nature' but it will not lead the way to our maturity. Rather, I suspect that as we mature, as we become wise, we will use and direct science to better serve humanity.

If we recognize that Jesus, a 1st C Jew, 'came' for the Jews - then it would seem to follow they were his (primary) focus. However it does seem that others were included and welcome (by him or by in the stories create about him): Samaritans, Romans, the sick, the shunned and the sinners. It appears he was concerned with the imminent Kingdom and 'battling' the religious authorities of his day, so that would help to explain the stark distinction between the saved and the not so saved.

Paul did spread the message to the gentiles but, although they came after him, the Gospels (and the earlier oral traditions) appear to tell the story of Jesus as a man who was amazingly inclusive for his (and any) day. I agree that he was only human and, as mentioned, focused on the people of god, but he certainly seems to have had 'incarnated' Love/God to an extraordinary degree. And God or Love by its nature is inclusive.