thormas

I too believe Christianity 'overstepped' when trying to come to terms with the divinity/humanity of Jesus. I think it was a human effort gone wrong; I think believers, Church leaders and thinkers were trying to 'capture' or say something about this man in whom they 'experienced' God and lost their way. They were limited by their worldview, by Greek philosophy and by the desire to head off what they seriously thought was wrong opinion. However, harm was done, yet one wonders if Christianity would have made any impact if not for them. I agree that the theophany is and continues to be a stumbling block yet many theologians and thinkers have moved to the ideas that we 'are born to be' the manifestations or embodiments of Divinity. And realizing and living out this reality would/could be incredibly transformative. As to the idea of God doing something about suffering and death in the world, I accept that the latter is inevitable since we are mortal. It is the former, especially the undeserved tragic suffering (cf. Wendy Farley) that is the issue for many. Following others but especially influenced by Farley, I believe she has hit on something important and I believe you have hit on it too: Love which created and by its very nature must 'step back' is immanent, impacting creation. However, that Love must be incarnated or embodied in and through humanity to heal (very broadly understood) and effect a change in the 'undeserved tragic suffering' that robs us of our 'humanity' before death takes us. Source will follow soon.

I love Ehrman and being in his backyard have attended a few of his presentations at UNC's Adventures in Ideas; I thought God's Problem was insightful and witty but left you hanging for a theodicy that one could live with. Let me get back to you on links, most are books and I can provide the titles and authors. My take on panentheism is that God is not a super, external being but Being itself (for lack of a better description right now) but I agree it is hard to get one's head around the entire topic of being. I was introduced to the idea at the age of 20 by a philosophy professor and it turned my thinking (and that of my friends in class) on its head. He stood in front of us, hands behind his back and said the word "nothing"repeatedly then his hand came out from behind his back, he held a small rock and said, "being." Or, sitting in a circle on the floor, he would roll a ball to someone, they would pick it up and he would ask, "What is?" The most radical (re)learning I have even encountered. He is still alive, living in NM and I exchange emails with him but have to have a bottle of red wine opened and at the ready and a quiet space when I sit down to read/interpret his latest writings. So for me, in a nutshell, being does occupy time and space but I also allow, without fully understanding, that there is also a 'transcendent element' along with the immanence of being (thus the dialectical idea in dialectical theism). I agree that beings are physical in nature but also that there is a 'part of us' rooted in the physical that is 'more than;' there is something transcendent (reaching/moving beyond self) that is part and parcel of our physical being. I am less concerned with evidence (of the 'supernatural', of Being in Itself) because I don't think it is or will be forthcoming - yet there is human insight which led, my old professor, to talk about the 'Realm of AM' (the insight of Moses?) in which, out of which, by which (?) all IS and man is called to relationship (covenant). Now I need the wine! I too disagree with the idea of Jesus as the only incarnation. For me, Jesus is the same in kind (and possibility) as all of us, the difference is one of degree not kind. In other world, if God is incarnational, then the way or mode of Presence is in/through creation and as man/woman embody (incarnate) that Presence, they Are or become Human; they become as the Presence Is (gets easier with more wine :+}). Jesus was the one, or one of the ones, who most embodied Being. And, for me the resurrection tries to capture that once man IS he cannot not be. This goes to the Greek Fathers' idea of the deification of humanity. I have come to 'suspect' that the gospel writer was onto something with this insight: God is Love. I believe it is best reversed: Love is God. What we incarnate and give one to the other is love; what we incarnate and give one to the other is (literally) God/AM. It seems the most loving among us are the most human, the ones who 'miss the target' are not (but, having said this, I still do not believe in Hell) Human is something you do and in the doing become, You ARE (I AM). Love is both gratuitous (gift, freely given) and transcendent (more than): we must be given love to be able to live, to become Human, yet we who give it, also stand in need of that which we give. No one owns it; we give More than we have, More than we are. Yet we are the essential ones: it can only be given in and through us. We are not puppets, we are essential, we are the co-creators. Love is Power, upon reflection, the only true Power: Think of the mother: she creates, she calls the child into consciousness, further and further into life, she gives the support and courage that are essential to meeting the call/challenge of life - she is the incarnation of love yet she is not Love's author. She too stands in need to receive it, to be gifted by others. She gives more than she is and, in the giving, becomes her Self. She is, I think, humanity expressing Divinity; she is Being embodied. Or so I suspect. And this idea of Love as Power picks up where Ehrman leaves off and leads to a meaningful theodicy.

I agree that in an earlier age (and continuing for many) what is properly understood as belief has become a claim of knowledge. And of course, 'evidence' and knowledge of God is delivered via revelation from that God to men and contained in his Holy Book. Tis a bit circular. Many do not accept this understanding of God, revelation, the Bible - especially in light of the work of critical biblical scholarship. Some (believers) have a more progressive take on theism while others have moved to a dialectical theism, also called panentheism. I am also skeptical of mystics because I do not believe that 'God' can be know directly; the Christian understanding, properly understood, is that God's mode is always incarnational, in and through creation (not direct), always embodied. However, mystics, reflecting on experience and attempting to 'see' in and through creation to God (so to speak) and offering insights based on this work is valuable. To me it is not very different from the insights of the greatest poets. Again, I don't disagree with your take on 'hearsay' religion but I do recognize that some have moved beyond the baggage and found a true/new relevance. I agree with the UCC adage and I have studied and liked much of process theology - then the interesting question becomes how do they understand the continuing speaking of God. Interesting comment on theodicy as I have been disappointed in the writings of some process theologians on this issue. I have recently read the insights/perspective of Wendy Farley on the topic and am in the 'process' of reading Douglas John Hall.

I agree the term (God) is loaded but I also recognize that many have made great strides to unload it and I agree with much of this work/insight. I too live as if a deity isn't running the show because this is not how I understand 'deity' or Reality (which is not defined or limited by the universe). I too do not consider myself a puppet, rather I consider myself and all of us as essential actors in creation. Also, I too don't recognize some arbitrary basis for sin but I have always liked the old understanding of sin as 'missing the target." This target does not seem arbitrary, it is our only path or option: becoming and being truly Human and it seems evident, given the history of the world, that some are more Human than others - and it seems to be what we most fervently wish for our children. I don't look for evidence of a creator as I think such 'evidence' if it existed, would overwhelm our freedom and compel us to 'believe' or accept. I also have moved away from anthropomorphism when trying to talk about 'God (although I do think it is helpful to think on man/woman and reverse it a bit - if, indeed we image God); but I do like the human depiction of the God that appears to Moses: I AM. This is a good reflection point and shares something with metaphysics: the emphasis on Being/Is.

Bill, Did you intend to say "part of the problem is the binary approach" and also "knowledge and beliefs are best considered in binary terms?" Thought it might be an oversight but not sure. I agree, especially in the realm of belief, we must guess (at times called a leap of faith) and one literally bets their life on it. Have to think about the sliding scale but, at first glance, not sure I agree. I'm comfortable with a sliding scale when considering, for instance, which NT words might be attributed to Jesus or if a particular passage is this or that kind of literature - but for the basic questions of whether there is God, of the meaningfulness of reality or the 'essence' of Reality - there is no scale, it is a faith decision. There is experience that one reflects on and the insights of others (those who have come before and contemporaries) to study and consider and this can lead to new insights (and growth) but this is not 'evidence' as traditionally defined. However, I do agree that since it is belief, we do not own Truth; we stay open, we strive and we live and commit to the Truth that we believe. In other words, at some point, people live the Truth they accept. One never arrives because Truth is (for me) primarily something to be, something to do and Truth must be done endlessly: one never fully arrives. And, it is out of one's Truth that we try to present our insight to others, question when another's position does not resonate (or to clarify) and disagree when necessary.

First to Mark Vernon: what he calls an agnostic theist, I simply call a believer. Without scientific grounds, without surety, some believe (anyway). A theist believes; he/she is not 'sure;" there is no scientific ground for belief I have no problem with the broader definition (Bill's definition) of agnosticism, I merely stated how: "I tend to think of agnosticism." And I have no problem with Huxley's statement as it pertains to "the essence of science." However, and Huxley should have known this, the one who says he believes in God does not do it because of, nor does he rely on, scientific grounds for his profession of belief. So an atheist, depending on their self definition, is one who does not believe in god and/or does not believe god exists. And, as a further aside, many modern believers describe him/herself simply as one who does not believe in the theistic god: like Ben & Jerry, they move beyond vanilla and chocolate to new and sometimes bolder flavors. Oh, Rom - if, as you said, all are belief statements, how can my stating this be dismissal while you agree with the statement - even unto infinite regress? Goose and gander, my friend, goose and gander :+} And corroborative evidence? Huxley links belief (including religious belief) to scientific grounds (certainly his right but not a universally accepted belief) and Vernon simply calls belief by a different (although catchy) term? There is no dismissal, although there is, at times, disagreement - or as we say in the business: a difference in belief statements.

I tend to think of agnosticism, not as a humble approach to objective/scientific knowledge but rather as one religious statement along side of others. The atheist says he does not believe in God (at least the theistic God?), the theist believes in God, while pantheism and panentheism are somewhat different takes on God or Reality. Next to these, agnostics are merely saying they don't know whether or not there is a God. All are belief statements about (objective) reality. I too, as a non agnostic, don't find the claims of mystics (or others) binding on me

Good stuff but nothing beats Mr. Potato Head..........

If that is your belief then of course we respect it.

OK - isn't it assumed given the big bang theory that some star dust eventually become part of the oak (and all). Sounds like love.

Wasn't focusing on cause/effect more on the possibilities inherent in something: example, the acorn. It's possibility is to become a tree.

For me, man's (the universe's) 'destiny' is God or Unity (this can be expressed in multiple ways) but, for man it is not 'pre'determined which men will or will not become truly Human beings. I don't believe in fate, as it is fate that this or that happens to someone nor do I believe in destiny that it one will/must become a President for example.

Right, some religions believe that the 'purpose' for humanity and all (junks of the universe) is, as has been said before, Unity (understood in different images) It is 'determined' that as the acorn is to grow into a tree, so too, we can only grow into our nature. However, by predetermination, I mean it is not determined prior to existence who will and will not be successful. So agreed.

I did love not wrong but not profound either. For me, the 'development' of the human being or, better, to a truly human being, is an attraction and response to God (for simplicity sake), so the future. There is that which attracts but there must be a 'decision' to respond; there must be discernment and cooperation. However, it follows, with this admission, that the 'force' is not controlling.

So a human being will not become an elephant but unlike that creature, his/her fundamental life is not 'predetermined?'

My understanding is that teleology when it pertains to theology (or religion) is concerned with the purpose and design of the world. Believe mine is therefore on record.

Rom - I must admit for me this was way too short and if I may say so the garden was barren: could have used more flowers. So much for serious dialogue..................oh well.

Rom, Early Sunday: will read a bit later. As for flowery - eye of the beholder.

No thanks Rom, I'm not the site summarizer-in-chief or even a deputy and they were discussion points. Yeah, you do want things only your way - so, right, fair enough. The discussion point are there and I would appreciate if you read what you suggested I include for ..........wait for it..............discussion :+}

Sorry Rom, you suggested and I took the time to respond to that request. There for the reading, hardly a wall of text, appreciate the snakiness but still a dodge. Turn about is still fair play: don't start asking even more questions - respond or not!

Sorry, should have been more clear. I reject happenstance as the reason for being, for creation. I totally accept happenstance in the sense that 'stuff' happens for which we are not responsible. Sort of reminiscent of Kushner's 'When Bad Things Happen To Good People.' As for the rest, a nice dodge especially when you suggest the topic. Besides, turn about is fair play: you ask and ask and ask (like above) but when asked...................nada.

If you say so, who am I to disagree :+} But it could be an illusion - but on whose part??????

Actually and sadly Joseph, you don't see the consequences of your own position for others. Your position, that you have no position on whether people deserve or don't deserve the tremendous suffering they endure, is an acknowledgement that some people, maybe everybody deserves suffering. If's possible.......you just don't know. Amazingly, you double down: the abused Nazi prisoner can refuse to accept his situation as reality? This is absurd on its face but even if, for the sake of argument, we go with it, what does this mean for an infant or a small child (maybe even a child through mid-teenage years) or a severely mentally handicapped person of any age? If the little girl repeatedly raped or the small boy beaten daily by a drunk, abusive father or any of the others only accepted 'what is' things would be 'mentally' bearable? Even as their bodies are abused beyond limits, their spirit destroyed by an inhumanity that overwhelms them, you would advise each, so young or incapacitated that could not possibly understand your advise, to accept what is and adjust their subjective mental constructs? Yet this position is not insensitive? I understand all too well - to my utter amazement! Now you give definitions? One worries because they are capable of and are compassionate. That worry leads to action, to caring for others. Merely imagine the worry you might have for a spouse, a best friend, a child - does this have any connection to caring for and extending care to them? Context Joseph, context. Jesus: most people understand this to mean that Love does not yet Reign (as one does in a Kingdom) in humanity, thus in this world as it now is. But, it should be remembered that for Jesus, the Kingdom was not another world, it was this world in which the Kingdom would be established, in which Love/God would be all. Things do change but there is no illusion: the caterpillar is real, it transforms and turns into a butterfly. This is not illusion, this really happens - ask a child. Most human being recognize the changing nature of things, but that is the nature of things, that is also their nature which they witness through childhood to adulthood, to middle age to old age and to death. It's not an illusion, it really happens, every day - ask a person. Paul: Paul also 'worried' and wrote about knowing the good and not doing the good, not having the strength to do it by himself. He saw that he didn't always do the good (how human is this insight?) - he desired the good, not that which was not good, i.e. evil/sin (in which he too often found himself part of). And Jesus himself is said to have opposed the evil (as opposed to good) temptations by Satan (don't take the story literally); he actively opposed and 'righted' what was considered evil (not good) by others of his day: he cured the blind, the lame, the 'possessed', the sick and the dead. Regardless, you need to finish Paul's quote: "If your brother is distressed by what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother, for whom Christ died.…" Wasn't there an issue in Paul's time whether one had to be Jewish - and accept all practices, including dietary restrictions - to be Christian? No Joseph, words never disturb me but how those words are used, how they influence or impact others, the tone or understanding they put forth in an entirely different issue. And your words and their context are quite clear. it seems you are disturbed by another questioning them. We don't know definitively, but there is a literal world of difference between the immediate, experiential knowing that the world is real and the intellectual construct that all is illusion. Pretty much ask any everyday (or even intellectuals) person.

Rom, I didn't start a separate thread but did make comments on this. Thoughts?

Joseph, by saying you can't (because of your subjective view) say whether or not people deserve the suffering they must endure, you are suggesting that some suffering might be deserved. Your position owns this. I am saying no one 'deserves' such suffering - not the mother dead in childbirth, the Nazi camp woman continually raped, the child abused, the wife beaten, the hurricane victim, the cancer victim and on and on. Whether you characterize it as a mental construct or illusion, you are telling people their suffering, in some cases their unrelenting agony, is not real. That if they only get their 'preconditions' in order, there would be no suffering. They not only suffer but you lay the responsibility at their door. A suffering free world is illusion of the worst kind, it is not reality. That the world suffers is an acknowledgement and acceptance of reality as presented. Going the illusion route ignores reality, blames those most in need and has no benefit. It is amazingly insensitive to state that "if one chooses to not accept what is - that seems to me to be a choice of no benefit. But each to his or her own choice." if the slave or Nazi death camp prisoner beaten to a pulp, castrated and maimed, only 'accepted,' only had the right precondition, it would be a great benefit ........but, hey, it's his choice. You use a Jesus quote and turn it so he advises us to not worry and care for his Father's people? Worry becomes 'what God (truly) prefers:' love. Your peace is not the Peace of Jesus. Joseph, you have moved from illusion to dreams. Now, it's all a dream? The rape of a child is no illusion, it is not a bad dream or a undigested morsel (as Scrooge suggests in the Christmas Carol) of food; it is real. This is just one example of totally undeserved suffering and depending on the age of the girl, she is not yet able to set the right preconditions would would have benefited her during the rape. Really? Sometimes we dream, hopefully we get the rest we need, then we wake to what is real, what needs our attention. The dream of MLK is much more valuable: what he called evil was evil and resulted in real suffering, it was no mental construct, no illusion, no dream - evil is real. I asked what kind of God is attached with this belief. You write of a God in whom I believe but your conclusions are not those I share or find in Christianity. I believe God is in whom we have our being and these things (evil, suffering, sin) do exist, are real. I do 'attribute' these things to God (see my post to Rom). I believe they are a necessary and a tragic consequence of the Love's creation of a creation 'other' then God, which then is and must be free (if God is love). But then we part ways: creation is real, the consequences, including great and undeserved suffering are real and God really is present in and through humanity to extend compassion, provide mercy, heal and enhance life amidst the very real suffering and joy of existence. Christianity accepts that 'this' is real; it is neither illusion or dream. The Christian story tells of this God, who so continually loves, that his modus operandi is incarnation, present in men and women (most evident in Christ) to be his presence in this real world. God is not an illusionist, this is no dream: God is real and creation is real. I take this as it is, your belief and I respect it as such. However, it neither resonate or makes sense to me; it does not resonate within the history of Christianity; and, it doesn't resonate with most of humanity. Simply, most people do not believe this is a mere dream.