thormas

Perhaps we can join when we are very, very old men: an elite monk force - sounds like fun. My wife would not be pleased if I joined anytime soon.

Perfect but what better way to deliver the holy water at a moving car?

Thanks - I thought it was code for an elite monk force.

C21 monks? But I also see why might be similarities.

I do like your humor. Monks in prisons?

Unless I'm misunderstanding, I simply don't get hermetic individuals (unless it is temporary). One should not withdraw from the world but live in it. That's why I liked the Benedictines, they were always among us, their monastary was part of the campus.

I am not very familiar with pietism but will re-look at the article in that light. My favorites were the Black Monks of Benedict, living in community but with an incredible spiritual and educational outreach to others. I wonder what a new monasticism would look like?

While I agree - it does seem that progressives, like Spong, given his past comments and books (ex. Why Christianity Must Change or Die) would have 'issues' with 'weird' Christianity.

You make a good point. I agree there is a 'primordial' God that draws us to him (nice image btw). I also agree on ritual, beauty and sacred spaces but I no longer think of them in a traditional religious context. I remember going to a Protestant church in NYC with a friend a few years ago. It was a 'high' church' service and it brought back memories but they were similar to memories of my old childhood home and street - fondly remembered but something I have grown beyond. And once the priest started his sermon, it was time to leave because it was 'old time religion' and, rather than draw me to God, it had the opposite effect. I recognize that, obviously, not everyone in the Church had the same reaction but I also remembered the 'hunger' of many Catholics, many students, for God that was never satisfied by the theology that accompanied such services or filled the classrooms 5 days a week.

Came across this in the 5/10 Sunday NY Times. I had never heard of it but found it both interesting and .......weird: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/opinion/sunday/weird-christians.html

I understand atonement but the experience of God in/through Jesus is, of necessity, limited.

I follow you from a theistic POV but from a more progressive and/or panentheistic perspective , I don't see it or agree with it. Plus, it is evident that God has no experience of the female equivalent to a kick in the nutz or pregnancy or childbirth or miscarriages or menopause or breast cancer and on and on. Plus unless Jesus was raped or sold into slavery or thought of as less than a man - God has no experience with that and so much more. Thus God does not know human kind and has never fully experienced humanity.

Why does God 'need' our experience and isn't part of experience both knowledge and information..........so He needs that too?

Well it was 'tongue in cheek" but I was quoting Christina who stated just that. Go figure.

Well Christina is still trying to figure it out, so too Brandon West, others and of course many of us. Plus how else will God become self aware if not for us getting information and knowledge to provide 'him?' Most of the people I read, philosophers and theologians (even many 'ordinary' people on various PC blogs), are not mad and display, in their writings, lectures and videos, no indications of madness. So we're safe. Or, in truth God does not exist since God is no thing on which existence is bestowed but the very possibility of anything/everything existing. All 'are one' in God; unity in diversity rather than the unity of the one in itself (which is not even aware according to Christina) is as Whitehead said the highest Beauty (the highest truth).

I listened to and watched Christina's video; she is friendly and chatty and I enjoyed her. However, there was much to question. First, there still is a 'difference' between the top of the funnel and the I: if it were not for the funnel which comes from the nameless, the "I"s wouldn't be. The Nameless One still is and is the cause of the funnel that 'produces' the 'I's. Also, the idea that God 'needs' the funnel, needs the 'I's to become aware of itself, begs the question what is there to know and how could God not know God? And if God is unaware of God (prior to the tunnel) how is it possible for total unawareness to be aware enough to even create the funnel? Christina mentioned that that we have consciousness and enable God to become self-aware (self-conscious), but how can we be the source of awareness if God had none to begin with? Where does our consciousness come from if all is God and God, admittedly, is not aware? Then there is the rather humbling and not very hopeful idea that the many ‘I’s help God or are the means or source for God to become self-aware. Well given how many humans there have been and how few have become enlightened (??), God, sadly, cannot be much more self-aware that when he started the funnel. The method seems madness. And when we die and return to the source, Christina say we bring God ‘information.’What kind of information does God need? We have information on all sorts of things over out time on earth from how to hunt large animals, the initial use of fire, how to build and run a railroad, to baseball stats, etc. – this is information we bring God? And what of the child who was conscious for 7 days and then dies – what possible knowledge could that child bring God? I appreciated Christina’s critique of traditional religion. It’s not the whole picture and it’s not how all other ‘progressive Christians think about God but some of her comments ring true. Some of her views about God are dated and are no longer the insight of many modern day or progressive Christians. There has to be greater nuance as it is not simply God as man/person vs, we are God: there is a lot of territory in between the extremes. However, all in all I liked her. She is sincere, nice and extremely passionate about her belief. Thanks.

I've always liked Gretta and I've read many posts by her. Don't always agree (and have presented my concerns or disagreements and also defended her against some who are a bit vicious) but I've always liked her.

When I looked at this I realized that I had seen it before but passed on it after reading the first few paragraphs. But I tried again. West writes ".... the bible as it is primarily taught today (and in general, for the past 2000 years), is that it teaches first and foremost that we are separate from this force called God." First, God is not (always) described as a force. Second, if that separation has to do with sin, West is correct - but if it has to do with man and woman as human beings, part of creation, being‘separate’it is much more nuanced than he allows. Furthermore, it doesn't follow that the opposite of separate from God is that we are God or gods (oddly, he uses the terms interchangeably). Next, all spiritual awakenings are not an awareness that 'you are God' and he seems to contradict this when he says that a spiritual awakening is "an experience that you are intimately connected with God........that you are loved..." If you are intimately connected with God, if you are loved by God, that suggests there is a God and a you who realizes s/he is loved by that God. He does go on to add, ".... that you are God, because that creative consciousness is within you." But again to realize that 'there is a God who loves you' is not identical with the realization that 'you are God:' creative consciousness can still be within a man or woman who is not God. To be fair to the atheists and agnostics among us, that 6+billion people who believe there is a God could just be another instance of 'a preconception being we have been imbued with." I don't necessarily buy this but if the idea of separation can be imbued so can the very concept of God. As for how many of the 6 billion God only a belief, I would say all of them given that there is no proof for or against and even those who 'channel' God' into all they do, act on belief. Even if we were aware of 'God-consciousness- it remains a finite awareness and it is a process that people come to, if at all, at different stages in life and then we have new generations upon new generations who have to make the same journey. It would take longer than a few months to change the world but I take his meaning: how much would change if we simply loved (agape)? Next, West writes that"None of the major spiritual teachers throughout history were religious. Jesus wasn’t a Christian, Buddha was not Buddhist, and Lao Tzu..." Jesus wasn't a Christian but he was a practicing Jew, faithful to the Law of Moses and their summation in the 2 great commandments and he honored the religious practices like Passover. Here, West is simply wrong. He adds, "they mastered themselves in solitude by looking within and meditating." We are told of Jesus' 40 days in the desert but is this historical or does it mirror the wandering of the Jews before they reached the Promised Land (before Jesus 'delivered the Promises of God). Jesus is depicted as a man of prayer and I have no doubt he 'thought on God' but he didn't seem to embrace solitude to the degree that the author implies. I will leave the others to the side as it has been years since I studied Taoism but the core of Jesus' teaching was about God who would establish his Kingdom for creation, for the Jews and for all nations. A serious Jew, i.e. Jesus, would not see himself as God or as equal to God. All such biblical references are written well after the historical Jesus lived and died and one questions how much was from the lips of Jesus (and not from the writers). A Jew would not believe we 'become Gods' as they believed in only God. Even the 'anointed one' the messiah was not God. Unlike many modern Christians who believe we have a hand in 'creating' the Kingdom, Jesus thought it was all about God: it was God and only God who would establish his Kingdom - all man had to do was repent and be prepared, be ready for God's big reveal. For Jesus, it was not human honesty, forgiveness, kindness and introspection that would create 'heaven on earth’- it was God. I agree with Jesus (or John's take on Jesus) that he who abides in love abides in God and God in him, but this does not go to sameness or identity or that we are God. If God is love and if man loves then it can be said that God/Love is in him and he lives in God/Love. However, this saying, while not suggesting separateness when one abides n God, it does suggest that there is the 'other:' God, in whom we must abide and in whom we don't (always) abide now. In abiding, there is no separation but there is also no absolute identicalness with God. It is interesting that West titles this next part 'You are God' but then quotes the biblical passage which says 'you are gods.' Again for Jews, only 1 God and 'gods' are not the equal of God. The idea of being gods can go to the idea of divinization but even this stops short of saying we are God. ‘Being gods’is not explained away and there is no attempt to hide a big secret - gods are not God. Where does West show that Jesus "realized that he was that creative force, and that all of creation was in a literal sense God?" I can understand someone saying that spirit or love or our true nature resides within each of us but how are we made aware of this? How do we realize this? In most human realization something triggers it, something wakes us, stops us in our tracks and makes us reconsider. What is it that awakens us to the spirit that resides in each of us - especially when we consider that many are not awakened? We might not be separate from that spirit if it is in us but how do we wake to it? I agree we don't need priests per se but we do need teachers or wise men/women - as the Buddha, Lao and Jesus were such teachers (priest or holy men of God). West writes, "If everything in the universe is formless energy, and we are all connected by that energy, and if we are made up of that energy, and if that energy is the force we call God … how could we be anything but God?" Well unless we are the source of that boundless energy, we are simply its children. Plus, can one equate God with energy or is God the very possibility that there is energy at all? West seems to not know that for philosophers and theologians, down through the centuries, God is not force, energy, rock, tree or man - God is the very possibility that any-thing is at all, the very possibility that there is any energy at all. I find West's reliance on science for proof or at least truth about God to be fascinating. Well, that about sums it up for me. I find West to be incomplete in his understanding of the Bible and lacking the understanding of what is meant by 'God' in the western tradition. God is nothing, no-thing, including energy. I also find that West confuses God with gods and he confuses overcoming separation with identical-ness with God. Love is such that each abides in the other: there can be no separation (within the limit of our finitude) but there is also no literal sameness or identity with the lovers.

I had some familiarity with Watts and Tolle. Will read the woman and the PC piece. thanks

OK, just curious if you knew of others who agree. If you come across articles I, for one, would appreciate knowing about them as I would like to read them.

I agree with the fullness of God dwelling in us, albeit a finite expression of God. However to say that we are not God because we die is, in itself, a powerful admission. I also agree with the oneness (with/in God) but paradoxically although we are not separate from God, we are not God. Such 'identification of Jesus Christ and God was a later development yet even then Christians acclaimed Jesus as Lord whom we revere. Realization is a becoming. Even if something is always present (which I believe it is), the awareness of that 'something' is not. I believe that God is always present and 'active' and I believe that 'Presence' presents itSelf (or is ever-present) and the man who realizes this becomes enlightened. To become is, in a real sense, to begin: it is not a beginning for what is always present, rather it is the man who realizes that presence has a 'beginning.' The present doesn't become (it is), it is man who becomes..... aware. I also agree that God is present whether we realize it or not. Yet it is only in realization/enlightenment that one can 'dwell in Christ.' Although I do allow/know that the simple man or woman who might even believe in a traditional theistic God can also 'dwell in Christ' if they love (agape). Faith is nothing without works, realization is empty without love. As an aside: God, the presence does not need to become enlightened. If there is that which needs to become enlightened, it is not God.

If I realize something that I did not previously realize or know, am I different that before I realized it? Am I, in some way, more? Is the mystic different than the one who is so unenlightened that they don't even know they are not but could be? Even the word to realize is to become (fully) aware.

Theism-lite..........I like it. Although there are also non-theistic images of God in the Bible, I do agree that theism with it's extrinsic, separate God is/was the dominant understanding of God in Christianity. Theism-lite or panentheism does have a more nuanced view of God, with the latter actually eliminating the 'separateness' (as did Paul in his letters) by recognizing that 'the world is in God' as opposed to an external God overseeing the world. However, the view still seems to be that while we are not separate, while we are in God - God transcends us. We are 'part of' the God in whom we live but we are not the fullness that is God. Christianity still sees God as Abba/Creator/Being; it is not pantheistic - we are not God. We will agree to disagree on the 'next step' for this touches on yet another paradox: we become or growth into the fullness of what we are. Some theologians have said God's creation is only 'finished' at the end (so to speak) when man fully becomes Human and thus one with God. Some have also said that our I am is part of God's I AM. It seems to me that even when Joseph (and he can speak for himself) speaks of enlightenment - whether it is sometime we aspire to or something we discover 'in ourself' or just discover - still suggests 'something' that we don't have now and that therefore is still beyond or transcends us. We also seem to be more when we are enlightened than we were before we got enlightened or discovered enlightenment. It seems to be enlightened is not seen as a good thing. This is a next step for you, have you seen others speculating that this is the next step in Christianity?

This is interesting and fascinating stuff. In Christianity, God is 'separate' - in that he is Creator and Being and man is the created - and yet 'not separate:' man lives in God and becomes 'one with' God but never becomes God.

Agreed: God in not the hate or evil but, as Hick allows, God presents a world, a cosmos that as a soul-making or a human-making environment allows for evil, both man made and natural to occur. Without an ego or, from my perspective, as the human 'in Christ' transcends self-centeredness, there is no evil.