thormas

This is very good and helpful summary and I love the Dowd quote. But, I don't agree with all of it. There is a substantial, though not dominant, 'this world' spirituality from Jesus to the present, including Church Fathers, mystics and theologians; it is not the typical take on Christian spirituality. And, I disagree that there is or can ever be evidence for any take on the spiritual, be it this or other worldly. There is and must be a rational element to belief: reason must play its part and one's belief must make (some) 'sense.' Then comes "the leap of faith.' Finally, as an Irishman, I do take exception to the inclusion and dismissal of leprechauns.

Jack, What country?

Some think the beliefs should never have been taken literally and if that is part of the problem, a different interpretation might be worthwhile. People can indeed go out and live without a new or another interpretation but some feel there is value in the Christian story and a different take is worth a go. So, why not for those interested? In spite of new insights and better education some still desire faith and those involved in new interpretations already live by your 5 concluding points. Spong is a case in point.

I would tend to agree with your first sentence. However, I disagree with the second sentence as is evidenced from the decline in the western world and the rise in other parts of the world sometimes spread or preached by the people in your first sentence. I witnessed what was wrong as both a participant and a teacher of Christianity: it wasn't understood by people (although they longed for something) and many of the guys in the first sentence didn't get it and couldn't help; they couldn't translate it to a language that spoke to people, people sometimes desperate to understand. If something doesn't speak to people, doesn't make sense in their lives and how they understand the world, it is slowly placed to the side and contact is lost along with interest. Even the idea of "worship of Jesus Christ" goes to the problem: did Jesus do what he did to be worshipped or so others could 'be him' and Live? Traditional Christianity goes for the former, life is found in the latter.

You may not need Christianity for the natural world but I was trying to make the point that Christianity needs or pertains to both: if it goes too far in either direction it loses something essential and becomes distorted. I partially agree. They are not one and the same but there is more to it: one is 'in' the other. As Paul writes, "we live, move and have our being in God (the 'supernatural')" or, conversely, God is ever-Present in creation (the natural). I do agree that God is 'other' or 'More than' but man can only become his true self if he embodies the 'supernatural' or Divinity. I do disagree with your statement on Jesus. It was precisely the incarnation of divinity/Love by the man Jesus that made him (truly) Human. To put it even more starkly: man must become God to be Human and becoming Human makes man (a Son of) God. All I have said is that man/woman must incarnate Love; he/she must be Love. The caveat is that the very creation of man, the very possibility for his (true) Humanity is God. God calls, man responds and the Beloved becomes One with the Lover. This, I think, is the first of the ten commandments: I Am and there is nothing else (the only Life is God). The true humanity of Jesus did make him (First Born Son of) God but this was (is) only possible because Jesus took up the life of God. There is a 'sameness' although we are not and will not be God: we are by birth, born to become the sons and daughters of God (this is panentheism not pantheism). Not sure Bill, I think it is Christianity, but it was lost in the one-sidedness of theism and the world view that dominated when the religion was born. I think this theme of divinity in/with humanity runs through the biblical story but has been overlooked. I agree that the Presence is (potentially) in each of us but it must be 'taken up' (the cross when 'taken up' symbolizes the death to selfishness and raising up love in one's life) or actualized. I think the his followers experience this full actualization in Jesus and thus the need and the struggle to say something about it, about him. And I agree: it is the actualization of the presence and love that is God that transforms the world. I think Jesus spoke to this possibility when he began his ministry with the words: "behold, the Kingdom (the Presence) is upon you."

Most of the writings of the serious and dedicated biblical scholars and theologians are anything but abridged versions - of anything. And the best of them bring out and enable many others to truly appreciate the wisdom and artistry of the Bible and Christianity. As for prayer, many find prayer is listening - and listening to wise, passionate and dedicated scholars (among others) seems to be a high form of prayer.

But I have been to those conferences and weddings where the fine dining is 'squeezy chicken.' At least with the buffet you won't starve :+}

Not sure how we would measure the present "poor spiritual state" with the same poor state in past eras. Even in Biblical times, you have the people of Israel who again an again and again and again lose faith and create 'false' gods to worship - yet good people still existed and the 'miracles' occurred. And consider Jesus: he was rejected by all - except a small group of disciples and followers (and many ran in his hour of need); talk about a poor spiritual state, yet for Christianity, it resulted in the greatest miracle. So too in any age, there is a mixture of those lost, those who deliberately go another way and good people. On this reckoning, if there was 'supernatural activity' in some of those ages, that activity should be present in any age. One wonders, then, if there was ever such supernatural activity as recorded in the bible. The paradox (and the wisdom) of Christianity is that the spiritual (or God) is not found in another dimension and not found above and beyond the natural: the spiritual is not found in the super-natural. Jesus proclaims the treasure found in the beginning of his public mission: "Behold, the Kingdom of God. " The Jews and Jesus believed that God would establish his Kingdom here, 'this world' would be (become) The Kingdom of God. The paradox of Christianity is that the supernatural is in the natural; it is in the natural that one finds the 'supernatural.' For Christianity, God's is incarnate; he is only found with us (Emmanuel).

I must ask: is the echo of the lost paradise poetry or do you take Genesis literally? And, again is the talk of another dimension poetry? Next, I think there is a space between faith as an addiction and faith as a calculated investment. Faith shares something with falling in love, choosing a partner: there is an element of the 'addictive" in that one can't live without the other but there it is also a choice and a decision (with probably, hopefully, some thought put into it) to consciously accept and live a certain way (with this other). As mentioned previously (with reference to Macquarrie), there is a dialectic between the seeming, opposing elements, if this example between the supernatural, spiritual and the natural (teachings of Jesus). Christianity has and must have both.

I agree that Christianity is one path of the Way. It has been the dominant western approach, with many born into it, many returning to it when they have kids (which is scary), many still interested enough to remain. I agree that it could very well continue to decline but the original true insight still (and can in the future) speaks to many; it colors how they see the world. So I think it needs to be, not re-invented so much, as re-told so it 'makes sense' in a modern world (and then when the world changes in the future, it will need to be re-told again and again). I understand the notion of "invention of man" but, this misses something (for me): it was born (as are all religions I suppose) out of man's need to understand and his natural inclination to reach beyond himself to more. It wasn't perfect (how could that ever be expected) but something of it resonates still for many, It is a pointer but it (like all religions) is more; it does not only point the (a) way, it is (a) the way. Much like it can be said Jesus does not merely point, he is or lives that which points (the pointing is the way). And I think there is (for those interested and not all are which is fine) a responsibility and we have the capability to 'clarify' this particular way so it can at least be tried by those interested.

Agreed, I always like cafeteria style

But you have already answered this: it is not the 'word of God' or the definitive take on God; it is human insight and coupled with the belief in tribal gods that the people of Israel were part of and grew out of, it is not very surprising to see the remnants of such tribalism in the stories. As for the creation story, compared to other ancient creation myths, it is an amazing statement on why the world is created and the relationship of man to woman and human to the divine. And it helps to come to grips with there belief and yet the reality of life they experience which is full of strife, struggle and death. Hell, people still agonize over these issues - although modern man has, perhaps, distracted himself from the 'dread.' Plus the story takes an incredible turn with the NT and Jesus. And, on close inspection, not all the gospels have Jesus' death as appeasing the wrath of God. As for Paul, many of his letters are not his and he also writes and approves of woman in power in the early church (I have learned to read this guy very carefully and context, always context is important - after all, he literally expected that the world would end in his lifetime). Also, I think a great deal of the trouble came afterwards with people like Augustine. Yet, still all did not agree: one of the early Church Fathers did not accept an eternal hell, did not believe in a perfect beginning and knew that mankind was an 'infant' subject to mistakes yet capable of growing into a 'perfect' humanity - which was in the future not in the past. Still other Greek Fathers spoke of the deification (becoming god?) of man. If one doesn't accept the Bible as the word of God and does not read it literally, then it is possible to shift through the story of a people to the insights that speak to you and reflecting on your own experiences (yet for me, trying to remain faithful to the best of the biblical tradition) retell the story so it might speak to others. That is what the best of theologians have been doing: telling the 'Christian' Story so it can be heard by new generations and actually be 'good news.' Given this, wading through the stories of fallible men, looking at its later chapters and its main character, I believe, one can say the story of God, and the true God - is Love. People should read it for what it is -- human failings and successes, attribution of these to a god and limited but growing insights about Reality that still speak to people centuries later. The god of the stories might not always be loving but God? Never a doubt.

Bill, Although I agree with your take on the Bible, I don't see it as only how ancient humans understood God. By that I mean, I think the human insight was cumulative (and therefore has enduring value) and there is something timeless about what it means to be human in any age. Perhaps the problem was literally assigning authorship to God and then the 'necessary' role of some of his followers to safeguard, at all costs, the 'word of God' and past it unchanged even to the 21st C. With this comes a fear of new interpretations of or new insights added to the ledger. Thus, the need to be fixed and reinvented.

Bill, The baptism scene, if I remember correctly is altered somewhat across the gospels. However, interpretationI depends on how one understands the Bible: divine revelation/authorship or human authorship and a religious community's growing insight and understanding of God. For me it is the latter. The baptism is the synoptic gospel way to show that 'this man' who comes to be baptized is special and the words placed on the lips of the Baptist function to create a separation between the men, establish the priority of Jesus and possibly deal with something which could've been awkward for the early church: that Jesus began as a disciple/follower of the Baptist. I do believe that Jesus, stood on the shoulders of the Jewish community (centuries old) who was particularly sensitized to the present and reality of God in their lives. And, that Jesus was a man who grew in "wisdom, grace and knowledge" and came to 'know' the Father. So I too believe he spoke what he had learned 'from the Father.' I simply don't understand it as a theist. As for Paul, not sure what account records others hearing the voice, thought it was only him according to the story.

Seems the whole story of God is the story of Love. In the NT: the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the acts of power (miracles) always healing, making whole, the one, long act of selflessness (i.e. love) that culminates on the cross, the giving of the spirit, the continuing presence. God is Love and or better God is the loving. The 2 great commandments are love - it is the be all and end all. And what is it that enables others to 'see' God in Jesus and later move to a full blown concept of Trinity: it is Love. And when we say of a man or woman, "what a good person," what a selfless individual, how 'godlike' the are, it is all about Love. It is Love that we are drawn to, love that we celebrate and wish for others, it is love that overcomes, it is love that makes us truly Human. It is by loving that we image the Father. Put it together: it is and always was God: God is Love and I think the 'insight' is that Love is God. There is no distinction: essence is existence: love is not an impulse or motive, it is the Way. The great command got lost in theism. So given the shades of gray comment, you do not take the bible literally - except is some places? For the minute if we take it literally (and perhaps even if we don't), the choice by God of certain individuals (Abraham, Moses, David, Mary, Jesus, Paul, etc.) is always on behalf of the people; it is never merely for the individual. If so, then any present 'one on one' would seem to have to follow: personal 'revelation' is only valid, only (and possibly) from/with God if it is on behalf of the people of God. If it is a '1 on 1' for the individual's sake ...........then, given the biblical witness, it is not. There is something about a light and a basket that rings true. I don't deny that individuals the world over have life changing events, I merely question that they are (theistic) personal revelations by or a '1 on 1' with God. And I press, because I believe this 'stuff' is important, especially since it can impact others sense of self, sense of God and understanding of everything. I believe in human experiences, human insights that are life changing and have everything to do with God/Truth/Reality but it is the man or woman seeing or finding (perhaps with help from others or even the created order) what was always there. And I believe it is a 'seeing through' so to speak, almost an "aha moment" when the immanent God, already and always present, in creation - is glimpsed. In the '1 on 1' the One is always there, the seeing is always possible - it is only necessary for the other '1' to finally see. No one is special, we all are; it is not exclusive, it is inclusive.

Indeed I am curious. Not simply an intellectual answer...........any answer. I simply believe there is a necessity to attempt to explain such things so others can understand and perhaps move forward one way or the other...............oh well.

Explanations and making oneself clear are always tricky in these areas. I don't think I would say the 'divine nature is ...part of us' (although I see how you got this from my writings), rather divinity is immanent in - yet still More than - creation. I say this to differentiate panentheism from pantheism and from the understanding that we are 'self-expressions' of God coming to know himself; we are not God, we are the children of the Father. Yet to seemingly contradict myself, it is by incarnating the divine nature and being the divine nature (i.e. Love) we become what we are born to be: truly and fully Human, yet still 'of' the Father. I think you have it with the commandment: one can only love God by loving your neighbor (whatever you do to the least....). If one loves, they love God (it is one and the same); love is 'doing' what God Is. This is incarnation: Love in humanity. God has no need to be a distinct, separated receiver of our love: the need is ours, to love; the need is for our neighbor, to be loved. Where and whenever we love, there is God (the two great commandment are one). I think it is fine to 'think on' or contemplate God if one means trying to understand something and make (somewhat) intelligible what we mean and believe about God. However, I don't think there is virtue or purpose in loving or seeking direct experience of God nor is there virtue in loving God back. If John is correct, if God is love, then substitute love for what you just said about God: what does it mean to love love or seek direct experience of love or loving love back? The only thing to do with God, the only thing to do with Love .......is to love and we don't love love, we love others, our neighbors. Over the years I have come to see that there is no need to worship God, the only worship worthy of God is to love, to love your neighbors, his children. That is living worship when we (referring to Catholicism) do not 'receive' the body of Christ but we ARE the body of Christ, the body of God in the world. In my tradition, there were monks who locked themselves away to contemplate God, pray for the world, seek direct experience ....then there were the Benedictines who taught me in college. There was contemplation in their community but they went out into the world to teach, to run farms, to work the fields, to befriend college kids. I never had to guess who lived the great commandment of love. Can one deepen intimacy with God? Can one deepen intimacy with Love? If God is Love,the only deepening is to do it, to be Love in the world, to pick up the cross, let selfishness die and allow Love to come to life by giving it away. I don't think there is a difference as long as "good, helpful, productive member of human race" means a loving man or woman. Good god, if we all were, it would be heaven! God is holy, God is love, therefore, Love is holy. There is nothing else. If one loves, there is no greater devotion (which means love). For the saints and for God (I suspect), there is no second part of the commandment, the two are one: Love! As an aside, I think there is a wisdom in panentheism that is obscured in theism: there are not two, the one resides in the other. As mentioned, the walk or the contemplation/study is fine but one still must be the good Samaritan daily and always: one doesn't put the love of neighbor on hold till worship/prayer are complete. I don't see the division of parts in the lives of Francis, Benedict, Theresa or the lives of the saints among us who are never recognized. The first part is never wasted (man the self-transcendent being is always questioning, always trying to understand, always reaching beyond self) but it should be on the job training. I believe the story is one with Jesus' encounter with the rich young man: one should always be primarily concerned with God. Or as been said here: one should always be primarily concerned with Love over wealth, status, impressing others (guests), etc. Theism had value of course, but traditional theism, in its consideration of God, emphasized one 'side' or certain 'attributes' over others. John Macquarie coined the term 'Dialectical Theism" (he likes the term better than panentheism) and he does a fine job of always considering both sides in a consideration of God. Traditional theism overemphasized transcendence over immanence, supernatural over natural, Jesus' divinity at the expense of his humanity etc. and that is proving a bit fatal for Christianity: numbers down, people defining themselves as spiritual not religious, cafeteria Catholics in the US, and of course progressive Christianity, Spong and others trying to suggest a change that reaches people in today's world (radically different from the world that gave birth to traditional theism). Enjoyable conversation Jack, thanks.

apologies for mistakes as I was on the run: library was meant to be literary and the first fundamentally is the following sentence should have been deleted: the Jesus story is fundamentally different without miracles but not fundamentally.

Jack, that is indeed the crux of the issue. The theist (unless you define it differently) believes in the existence of an external, supernatural, Supreme Being. Whereas, the panentheist (for example) believes in Being (I AM) and as Paul says we live, move and have our being in God/Being: God is not a being, although Supreme; God 'Is' and all that is, is of God yet are also independent beings. In the latter scenario, there is no rationale for miracles (or other supernatural interventions) because God is immanent in creation. I don't take the Bible literally but do note the human insight of the immanent God. The Latin Fathers seem to see more of a 'distance' that do the Greek Fathers. I too recognize the various miracles stories but have already commented (above) on the miracle of prophecy and there is valid, scholarly opinion (multiple denominations) that nature miracles might be library devises, and the healing miracles were 'wonders' because of the time. Even the signs of John are later developments and seemingly highly theological. And this is not to even delve much into the OT with miraculous events associated with the destruction of others of God's children who were not Israel. Then. of course, there is genesis: unless one totally accepts divine authorship, no one was there, so human invention - but magnificent poetry. So with this, I doubt there is an 'ample supply' when the biblical stories are studied. Indeed, the Jesus story fundamentally different without miracles but not fundamentally. Jesus is the God-man: a human so open to the Divine that the Divine lives or is incarnated/embodied in him and thus he is true God (Love) and true (and Fully) Man; he is/become Truly Human -True and First born Son of the Father. And in his life (and death) we are shown the Way to God and thus Healed (salvation). It is simply a low-Christological as opposed to the high-Christiology of traditional western Christianity. So filter out the miracles, lose the idea of 'one on on'e communications with a Divine Entity (although many of us, myself included, speak to God - the insight into experience and reflection on it is a very human experience) but having God answer (like we are doing here) is not a very normal human experience and Jesus only works if he is truly like us, just like us). If we keep them (the supernatural, the miracles, etc.) in place, more and more feel the story doesn't resonate, doesn't make sense and simply turn (it is already happening); it is not and cannot be Good News if no one can hear it. As mentioned above, any 'one on one' cannot be for the one or the few, it must be for the people and it costs, sometimes dearly. Even Spock knew this :+} The concern is that the proxy is 'one's own mind.' The hot potato is best resolved with a look at the biblical history (whether taken literally or not): the one who hears the voice of God, does not hear for themselves but as prophet/teacher/messenger/instrument for the people of God. Once heard (be it voice or insight), once seen (be it divine appearance or the human situation and suffering), there is always, always, always a call to Act now, despite the risk, embarrassment or lost to oneself. If one is not 'called' to act - not for self but for the other, for the people of God, I think the million dollar question has answered itself. At least I think................at this time.

Joseph, Two points: first not so much hung up as curious how advocates of 'one on ones' with the Divine explain why they, and not others - many of whom are extraordinary people, 'close' to God and doing God's work in the world- are so 'blessed' or gifted. After all, in the history of Christianity, in the history of the world (given the overall numbers) such divine communications are very rare. I am interested in how things affect other people, especially those not part of (in this case) such a select few. And, for lack of a better way to put it, I am interested in 'intellectual rigor:' when one makes a statement, such as these divine communications, it is interesting (important) to see how they respond to those others. Seemingly, ones who have had such an experience has thought about it and, being touched by God, should empathize with others and want to address (explain) them. Plus, as mentioned earlier, the don't "get too hung up" seems to be come from "who knows" why this happens. Not very helpful. When discussing favoritism you cite Biblical examples but many, theists and non-theist alike, do not read the Bible this literally or consider it a divine work, so it is an appeal to those writing from an ancient world view that is not shared by moderns. And, if taken literally, how is it that what look like favoritism is not "as it seems?" Actually, "it seems so" - especially when lined up against stories of a God's whose rain falls on all, a God who knows (equally?) the number of hairs on each of our heads and a Father who scolds a blessed son and longs for the prodigal (who is anything but blessed at the moment). If one remains a theist like Jack (you or others here), I get literal references to the Bible but if one has moved away from theism, is it still valid to take passages literally to support a position? However, be it favoritism or human choice - those who 'hear' and to do God's work do not typically fare well in the world (which must be perplexing to or simply ignored by those (cf. Oral Roberts) who preach 'abundant life' christianity. Those who have moved from theism (and those who remain too), recognize the idea of natural gifts: some of us are bigger, stronger, better looking, natural athletes, musical or artistic prodigies, etc. - and some hone those gifts or develop other talents. And if one, like Jesus, Buddha, MLK, Eckhart, etc. are 'gifted' or develop a sensitivity and insight into what we call divinity - most of us can accept that. But to say one (as traditionally or theistically understood) is 'blessed' by or 'favored' by God, seems to be a supernatural intervention that is at odds with the God called Abba and something that many theists and non-theists no longer accept. Second point: the entire Bible is hearsay - with the possible exception of some of the letters attributed to Paul. There is enough research to establish that Moses wasn't the author of the "Books of Moses" and many other OT books were written centuries after events and then put into earlier setting with seemingly prophetic insights. So too the NT: all were written at least 40-70 years after the life of the historical Jesus. With the Bible, if taken as the work of human authors, we are dealing with stories about the insights of human beings and a human community concerning the divine. However, if one accepts divine authorship of the Bible (which many do), the entire bible is hearsay. I do recognize that personal experiences like the ones you, Jack or others report are not hearsay but first hand reports. All cards on the table: I am not a theist and therefore there is no divine 'intervention' in the world and no 'selection' or favoritism in God. I take the bible as a human creation, the human story of individuals in community who 'saw' something 'More' at work in the created order, responded to IT and were so taken that they formed a relationship/ covenant in response to the Divine present in existence (Emmanuel). My question with stories of personal communications or appearances of the Divine to an individual is what does this say about God (and everything else) and given the religious meaning of such 'communications' why haven't we all heard from these people? If one looks at biblical history, after such divine encounters: Abraham started a religious nation, Moses saved that nation and led them to freedom, David made them a Kingdom, Mary gave birth to their new King, Jesus saved everybody and Paul became a new man and he and others extended the new covenant with God throughout the world even at the risk of torture and death. Where is the modern equivalent for those who say they have had direct encounters with the divine? The God of the Bible is a God of people, not just individuals - his 'appearances' are for the salvation of his people; his communications are All part of 'salvation history.' It seems, given the biblical reference and throughout the history of Christianity that people so 'blessed' are driven to save the people, to be for the people. Given this one must at least wonder about any 'divine communications and divine appearances' to individuals that are not part of a continuing salvation/healing of the people of God (everybody?); whose encounters with the divine seem to be for them (and perhaps a few others). I have heard too often Church leaders and preachers literally say they just spoke to God and He wants them to contribute, others whose 'revelations' seem to invite the hate and prejudice they ascribed to even before the 'Divine communication,' others who, having had their one 'communication' now feel free to always speak for God (yet it is so unGodlike) and still others who speak of their private encounter but seemingly it is for them and not for the people of God. If it is truly from God, if it is truly God - or one believes this - then, given the biblical accounts (especially if one looks to them) the divine appearance or communication is never meant (only) for the individual: it is for the people, all the people. We shall know 'them' by their works on behalf of the Father for (all) the people. If not, perhaps it was not.

Thanks, I will check this out. For now: Pertaining to the citations from the Gospel of John, I have some questions/disagreements: 'troubled in his spirit' does not on its face suggested 'communication' with the divine; many of us are so troubled and one can understand the gospel writer capturing this in Jesus also. Speaking about what one learned about the Father also goes to the religious education and community on whose shoulders Jesus stands and from whom he also receives insight. However the passage is interesting and I want to check some biblical scholarship on it. As an aside, I would feel comfortable saying also that I have heard from the Father but it was never in a direct one on one (it was in and through my faith community and later in and through the writings of still others and always in the experience of love); does Jesus suggest one? It is always difficult to 'separate' the historical Jesus from the post Easter writings of the early Church. I don't recall offhand the gospel source for the demon conversation. If it was his temptations during his 40 days, it has been suggested those are 'typical' temptations for one with such power or relationship with God and it is a literary devise used by the writer; otherwise one would have to think that upon his return and after a fair amount of time, Jesus retold the experience for the express purpose of it being passed on. And other instances of Jesus speaking to demons that he casts out seems to be part of the accepted religious understanding (of sickness) and his worldview. John 12:28 is intriguing for it seems to be such a communication but with John being the most 'theological' given his arranging of the miracles, referring to them as signs and his heavily theological introduction, there is a part of me that does not take John at face value. What follows is the "when I am lifted up" piece which is definitely post-resurrection awareness and the idea of all nations drawn to Jesus is definitely early Church; Jesus 'came' for the Jews first and foremost. So intriguing. Having said this I recognize that if one is a theist, he/she might also accept the gospel writings in a way that I and other, non-theists do not. And my above questions and interpretations, perhaps reflect this difference. Which is fine as I am just trying to grapple with a different understanding of mystics. Our experiences and our beliefs can differ but Love must reign in one's life or all is folly.

I'm not sure if you care to do this but I would be interested in descriptions of your communications with the divine.

While I respect your belief, the idea of one on one with the Divine raises questions: such as why are some chosen and not others? Of course it is easy to say, who know or not my problem but the bottom line is it suggests a favoritism which in turn seems to be odds with the experience and teachings of Jesus. Again, many/most (?) mystics do not tell of such one on one communications - rather they speak of their insights/reflections of the divine in human experience. And again, I don't see Jesus reporting one on ones, so if not him, why anyone else? I ask this in part because the reports of mystics, such as yourself, create questions about the Divine, humanity, relationships, justice and on and on - and I think they have to be taken seriously and addressed. A further thought is that it is rare - compared to all those in the history of Christianity and also others throughout history. It is rare and many who have had that experience in my tradition (Catholicism) are considered saints. Also, there are those preachers who said they just talked to God and he wants us to contribute to his or their church?? So, rare indeed. Could you share a book on 'recognized' mystics that speak of appearances and direct communications? Experiences and insight/reflection on that experience seems to be more the situation but I too will check some of my books on mysticism. Not sure I'm trying to do that but, as you mention, not all mystic accounts are theistic as even Eckhart seems to move from and between a theistic and a more panentheistic description of the God he 'encounters' in creation - which also makes it even more complex and interesting. However, isn't an experience of the divine an experience of the divine? If we separate the two (theist and the non theist experiences), what does that say about the One who communicates? God is God is God, correct? Perhaps the difference says something more about the human, not the divine 'side' of the experience. Not sure. I'm all for mystery but it doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try to grapple with the questions and differences.

I guess it depends on what kind of recognizable activity from God one expects: for the first disciples it was the simple call, of a man they were only beginning to know, that was transformative. For others along the way, it was the same man who called, challenged, told stories/parables. He spoke, they listened and for many it resonated in their lives: the transformative experience was in and through a man (someone known as a man, perhaps a rabbi but certainly, for the non-theist, a man). No 'recognizable God activity, unless 'seen' by faith, yet certainly not make-believe - since it was transformative. I do like the idea of faith and experience. Perhaps the faith readies one to see 'into' the experience, perhaps it is the experience that emboldens the faith. I have read some of the mystics (not all, some) but it seems it is always their insight (faith, reflection, looking deeply at what is) of which they write and from that make (faith) statements about God - rather than the recording of divine appearances or communications/conversations. For me, the rain falls on all (so to speak), God does not have favorites and there is no one on one communications. However, there are those among us who can see in the created order, the One who resides with us or in whom we live (but again, this too is faith). This seems to be the report and the reality of the mystics.

My issue with this mystical theism and the issue for any 'progressive' believer is that if one has already come down on the side that the Bible is not the revealed word of God and should not be taken literally then is it still possible to go back to that source to cite examples of the theistic God appearing or speaking to humans? So, I'm not sure that the Bible can be a reliable source in this instance: Abraham may be a mythical figure and the books of Moses were written long after his death. As for Jesus, and I have not gone back to do the research, but does the NT have God appearing to Jesus and talking to him? It has Jesus praying to the Father (and not having his prayer answered in the Garden), it has Jesus pleading for the Father on the cross with no answer (of course one can also question if such stories should be taken literally) but it is one way: human seeking the Divine not the Divine communicating directly to the human (at least I think that is the case as I write this). Paul is a different case but it is a voice, not an appearance, correct? And the OT and the gospel stories are 'hearsay' since the stories were not written by those involved. Except for Paul, all these accounts are hearsay. I wonder what changed them? Was it a Divine appearance/communication from the theistic (external, supreme being) God or was it a human sensitivity/insight 'into' divinity immanent in creation? The latter (perhaps even the former) is not evidence and comes with no guarantees: it is faith (which is a different beast). Actually as a theist, I never expected a personal appearance/communication with God, however I always 'believed' that God was with me and, for lack of a better description, that he loved me: I believed I was his 'child' (as were we all). I talked to God but never expected to hear back - if I did I probably would have dropped dead :+} I am no longer a theist, more comfortable with panentheism but I believe that Reality is love and what we are to incarnate but therein is the mystery: I have never know love that is not personal. Do I believe that God is an external supreme being? No. Do I believe that God is Love? Yes and it can't get more personal that being love. For me, it is visible and real when looked at by faith