thormas

In the story, written by the gospel author, Thomas is overwhelmed and convinced. This is a story told to deliver a truth about believing (which always comes without seeing); if you 'see' there is no need to believe. Thomas was overwhelmed by the evidence/proof presented by Jesus; there was no real choice (or need) to believe what had just been 'proven.' I think by the very make up of our existence, we are given a choice. At its simplest, one can choose to believe (or not believe) that life is meaningful; that there is purpose; that we can become truly Human; and, that Life, once given and received, is never lost but Fulfilled. A Christian's choice for meaning/purpose is belief that Jesus is the Way; for others (Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) their choice for meaning and purpose is belief in the same Way - seen and expressed differently. There are many ways that make up the Way. So not believing in Jesus in not an invitation to hell and I allow there is no hell that is eternal (the Father shown in the Prodigals Son parable waits until all the prodigals turn). I would put your last sentence this way: God makes 'a way' for all and the answer or 'Way' is presented by/through Jesus and by/through others - so it can find men and women in the particular circumstances of their lives. In our sameness (as human beings) we are also different. A hat might be 'one size fits all' but it will never fit all human beings unless it is adjusted to their particular size and shape. So too the Way.

Jeb, Historically (by that I mean, any 1st C CE Jews) neither Thomas or any others disciple would have been capable of conceiving a man as the God of Israel. So too, Jesus fit none of the Jewish expectation of a Messiah: they never thought that the Messiah would die, so the resurrection of the Messiah from death was also beyond them. So, the gospel story (probably) does not reflect history: Jesus never did this for Thomas. And, he wouldn't do it for us because such an appearance and information would so overwhelm us that our believe would not be a free response to the Divine; it would force our hand. So I think all of us are blessed because we don't see but can choose to believe/accept: that Jesus is the Messiah; that his death (like his life) can enable us to become whole(saved); and, that such a life (and death) is Life giving and 'overcomes' death. I admit that this view is neither literalist or theistic, so it might not answer your question.

I guess I have never had too much of a problem with the 'knowing' issue. I believe that there is a 'knowing' in the doing or the living (of Reality) but we are self-conscious beings and we become by knowing the world and ourselves in the world. It seems that life, born into the world as it is, evolved to consciousness and then, as man, to self-consciousness (I'll let the scientists among us comment further) and now the 'task' is to choose the Power that is in and through all, and, 'consciously' and by our efforts, enable all to become (or realize) one. So I agree with O'Saichi (is that Irish?) that, ultimately, there is truly no self power or other power - only the Power that Is. Again, seems that we need the relative dualism to freely become.

I get the difference between 'either/or' and 'both/and' and I also understand the idea of becoming, process and inter-being. However it still seems that in 'both/and' there remains a dualism. This is not an absolute dualism but it is at least a dualism that happens in time and space and is a necessary condition of our knowing. In other words, man, through evolution, comes to know himself in this dualism, then man moves 'beyond/through' this dualism as the way to become Human. I think :+}

Welcome Bonnie!

Joseph, You have entered a whole other area that is simply foreign to me. I was in NYC once, in the summer, windows down, driving in the Village and was stopped at a red light. There was an older man begging at the car in front of me and it looked like there was an argument: I assumed the driver told the guy to "f--k off" and, as luck would have it, I was next in line. The light turned red and the bigger came to my window - a college kid, driving his father's car, with little to no money. I was polite but before I could do anything, he, in broad daylight, put an incredibly sharp blade to my neck and started to rant and rave about the other driver. The light must have turned at least twice (but it felt like forever) and, being in NYC, no one, I mean no one noticed. I remember saying to myself, "talk for all your worth." And so I did, I listen, commiserated, treated him as worthwhile and worthy of dignity and slowly the knife came away. He eventually thanked me, reached in his pocket and brought out his social security check and offered it to me for being nice. I thanked him but said I couldn't take his check. He smile, took it back, thanked me and was on his way (You were offered help in finding a building for a church, I was offered what the man had at that moment). God was never mentioned by either of us and there was no invocation of God. And it could be said the man was healed in a way more profound than physical. Indeed, it could be said that in that moment, in that particular time, he was made whole. And I too became more in those minutes witnessed by none but the two of us. Any gifts given were not merely in the moment but had been given (and received) through others and brought to bear in that particular moment. Was God involved? Yes, but the 'revelation' (God's Self, i.e. Love) was in and through all the ordinary moments of my life and when the call of Life (in the form of a plea for recognition, for respect, for the value of an individual life) came again, I was enabled to hear and respond (be it with some trembling). Was it a gift of the spirit? Again, yes but it was not confined to the one moment and faith was indeed heightened in response to the Word in our human words that called to us. I too "... didn't realize it could be so simple..." and I realized that once one loves, sometimes it bears fruit, other times it falls on barren ground but one continues. As for being a vessel for further actions/healings, there was the time I was mugged at gunpoint in NYC (I was in there a good bit since I grew up within 10 miles on the NJ side) but that is a story for another day. I guess the point is that two experience with some similar elements have been given or elicit somewhat different (thought not entirely) interpretations of those experiences. Intriguing, I will have to read and ponder more.

I agree with much of what Paul has written. I believe that a fetus will become a human person and I am against abortion (the action) but as a Christian I do not believe we can or should or have the right to judge the person (who could possibly know the particular circumstances faced by any woman having to consider this option). I can only begin to imagine the fear and anguish that some women must face when considering this action. And as a citizen of the USA, I do not believe we are or were created a Christian nation and one set of religious values cannot be imposed on all others. So I support a woman's right to choose, and agree that other options should be available as Paul mentioned (including as Burl mentioned, birth control and abortifacients). I know there is 'help' available for women facing such as a decision, but I have never thought that individual Christians, who are sometimes the most vehemently against abortion, or Christian leaders and institutions have truly put their money where their mouths are. It seems they should build mansions and offer complete no-cost services and support to those women (especially women of little or no means - the least among us) who abide by 'their faith,' do not have an abortion and bring their babies to term.

We had the whole priest thing who was 'necessary' for mass but prayer was ours and God, not the priest, was accepted as the one to answer prayers. True about Jesus although one can truly understand such a prayer to 'let this cup pass' even for a non-theist. Spoke to God or 'into existence' seems the first part of the prayer just couldn't be answered. One wonders if Jesus knew this all along but utters the pleas of a scared, mortal man before gathering himself to be on his way. I always thought this was a very human action.

Joseph, Growing up Catholic is the 50/60s, and having been educated in Catholic institutions thru grad school, I don't remember any models on the 'what' and "who" of prayer or revelation. Rather, if anything, it was a rather open, simple model based on the understanding of Jesus. And there seems to be a history of 'everyday' people who had revelations and also many of these same people whose 'pre-conceived notions' displayed a real belief in and openness to (the theistic) God - and were fertile ground for prayers. I remember praying as a kid, nightly, for the health and safety of those I loved, praying to St. Jude to find lost 'stuff' and, as an athlete, saying a prayer before a game. I also probably said a little prayer, now and again, that Lori or Marcia liked me as much as I liked them. I knew of no model and I know first hand that any guilt never inhibited me from the traditional prayer of my youth. My experience, for myself, those I knew then and those I taught and knew later, was that there was not any (overwhelming) sense of unworthiness that stopped us from believing that we could get a response. I, we, did believe we were heard and God could indeed respond - in ways small and big. Perhaps this was specific to the millions of Catholics: we heard some of the 'sinner' rhetoric but we 'received God' into our very bodies every Sunday, Holy Day and, for some of us, everyday (and we were told to dress for the occasion :+}). I guess I see no difference between your prayer for a job and the prayers, for example, of one of my Irish grandparents for safety on their voyage to the US or a prayer that my grandfather get good work to put food on the table to feed his wife and kids. Regardless of the notion of God, it seems there was a faith in God and a vey human need for help - coupled with their own efforts. Actually, it is my current, well thought out notions that now lead me to question (respectfully) the kind of revelation we have been discussing. Perhaps we are not far off from the other's position. I not only believe in God, I think revelation, understood as the presence and self-giving of God, is an everyday event; revelation is the very way we become human in the ordinary moments of our lives. Even if it is not recognized, it is at work and effective. I think the difference (among us all) is that some become aware (through belief) that they live in the Presence and this is where the 'insight' of the mystic is born and/or a life, in Conscious Love, is lived. "The more we rid our self of our limited possibilities the more we will see answered prayers and revelations in our life." I read this and think about Jesus: even though the man comes to us through the lens of the early Christian movement, I believe it is safe to day he moved beyond limited possibilities and I believe he had an Insight into God, yet his prayer was not answered as it seems he wished. Probably because it couldn't be, God/the Universe/Being could not alter the course of Jesus running into the power structure of his day - and, seeing this, Jesus said, "Your Will' and gets up and continues to do the Will of the Father, to Love, even uno death. Perhaps. p.s. agree with faith in Hebrews.

I would go with Gregory Baum and a former Professor I had in college. For the former, "God (revelation) is what happens to man on the way to becoming human." Man achieves consciousness because someone (for example, his mother) summoned him as a baby. For Baum, consciousness must be woken; it is called forth through dialogue - being addressed and responding. It is God/the Word that awakens and calls man. The Professor is even more to the point, "we are wakened as cognition, ontic cognition (the awareness and ability to 'grasp' being)." So I understand revelation not as rare moments or interactions, rather it is the eternal way that God is with man and it is the very possibility of cognition and being. I believe there can be (as more traditionally understood) 'revealing or revelatory moments' when upon being addressed/called in dialogue (be it a conversation, reading, listening to music, a lecture, watching a movie, being quiet, reflecting on something) we have an 'insight' or a new awareness that can carry us forward and enables us to become more.

Joseph, I agree our perspective is limited but I think we should be concerned how others see it (the appearance of favoritism) - if we (which I thought, in part, this site was about) are concerned about (to echo Spong) 'charting a new Christianity.' I allow, that others can hear such stories of personal revelations and, not having their own revelation, in spite of fervent prayer, come to believe, as others have in past times, that prayer and revelation work this way - but not for them: something is wrong with them. Many of these believers have the 'right' notions, for example, faithfulness and trust and follow that with a prayer, like yours - but nothing. Many faithful people, believing that good things can happen, have looked and prayer for the good (be it health, a job, a good cancer check up, successful chemo) - and nothing. Seems talk of preconceived notions and limited perspective would fall flat in trying to help another understand. You did throw me here when you said. "Perhaps God doesn't look at peoples intentions because God is not a man and has arranged an order/balance by which things operate here" which seems to be at odds with an earlier statement, "believing in my heart that God would get me a job." I do agree that "perhaps sometimes our experience is our best teacher" and that " belief seems to me a powerful tool that can be productive or destructive." Please take this as it is intended: I respect your experience, although it is foreign to me, but I am trying to understand/explain revelation in a way that makes sense to people and is neither a hinderance to their belief in God nor their sense of worthiness.

Sorry Burl, I don't know what you're waiting for. I wasn't looking for proof, just making the point that I don't think many Christians think about revelation. I have given my thoughts on revelation, what other thoughts are you waiting on? If I can know, I will try to respond.

But if it works for some few and not all the others and is believed to be from the Universe or God, that seems like some are favored? And, I believe that is how many who don't have prayers answered feel. I really don't think it is because of preconceived beliefs as there is an entire history of, for examples, Christians of the same (first thousand years) and different expressions, who are good people, faithful to their God and prayed like Jesus instructed. And even if there are preconceived beliefs that are problematic, seems like the Universe or God would look pass that to intention (much like the best of human beings do) and grant a few more prayers. Again, I respect your experience and understand why you would value it.

Isn't that the number of Methodists rather than how many actually think, know or can recite the 4 points? Self-generated thought?

Really, millions find it helpful? I wonder, throughout all of Christianity, how many Christians think about or even know about this. I think Christianity has accepted that revelation is information which is then place in a doctrine and faithfulness is conditioned on acceptance (even without understanding). I think a more modern take on revelation (and one the mystics probably shared) is that revelation is the self-revealing (which is the self-giving) of God to humanity. It is not information but rather Self that is given. Burl, your thoughts?

Thanks Joseph. I actually get the revelation from reading Mark as that is the way i understand revelation: Life/Being/the Sacred calls/challenges/judges us in and through the words of men and women - and Mark was such a man. One can get, in my opinion, such insights from very, many written or spoken words both sacred and profane. The voice in the morning is beyond me and I am a skeptic but that is fine as I respect the report of your experience; I (and no one I have ever known) have never had such an experience. But again, I allow that much is possible. Again, with limited knowledge (like all of us) I just don't understand God/Being operating in this way. Not to mention, what could be seen as favoritism. I imagine many, actually countless others across history (including Jesus in the garden before his death) have prayed to Being or their God over issues even more pressing - such as health, life, even edging out a stark existence - and they would say their prayers were not answered. Now I know others can come up with ways those prayers were answered or the answer was missed but you got 'the answer and result you wanted' and they didn't. And to fall back on the inscrutable ways of God or the Universe, as some believers do, is both too easy and a bit heartless. Still sounds theistic to me but leaving that aside, I do believe the universe or God responds to its creatures but the response (or Presence) is continual or ever-present; it is not particular, rather it is available for or given to all and it does not discriminate. The Universe or the Sacred is always 'here' and 'calls' to us - and waits on man/woman to hear (insight) and respond. But, I think, the call is for our growth into a full humanity (and Life), not to find things or get things or even overcome a sickness, or avoid hardship or even death. I can hear countless others, hearing your story, crying, "Why not me, why not us, are we not worthy, can't we have a voice speak to us, why aren't we so loved?" To me it comes down to love, the best parent should not have favorites, they should love all equally, be there for all equally. So too with God whom the Christians call Daddy (and I mean even this in an panentheistic way). Again thanks for sharing on a very perplexing topic.

Can you give an example of such a revelation? I ask, because with the mention of "if it comes to pass' it seems to suggest information. The idea of revelation as providing information is one that is still believed in Christianity and, I believe, becomes a stumbling block as such revelations become or are captured in creeds and doctrines that should be accepted. If the request is too personal, please ignore the request. The idea of an answer to a prayer also seems to suggest a theism of sorts.

I don't see it that the Divine can't be trusted or is incapable of revealing itself to a person. Rather it is the reverse; it is what we are capable of, the way we learn and interact in the world that is the issue. We exist and come to be in time and space and Being 'reveals itSelf' in and through being(s) in history. There is the Self-revelaing (giving) of Being to Humanity but it is accomplished in a way that truly respects and allows man to be free to say Yes or No and then assume the responsibility of 'creating' his/her humanity. This seems to be our modus operandi but I do allow that one can begin to perceive the Divine but, although more apparent, it is still, always mediated through creation. One would have to assume that a 'direct revelation' by Being/Reality/the Divine/God to man would be so overwhelming that all freedom of choice and responsibility for one's life would be rendered obsolete. So, I disagree and do not believe people experience revelation on their own (as the poet said, no man is an island) for no man is truly on their own. And people definitely need to compare or share their 'revelation' because the world seems to have had too many people who think they just had a one-on one with the Divine and some seem to be definitely off the chart, steering to the edge. We live in community (we don't or shouldn't avoid others) so, I say, share your 'revelation,' compare your 'revelation' - let it see the light of day for if it is true it should speak to others. If it doesn't, it wasn't. But even with this, I believe such revelation is not from the Divine to the human but, rather, the human'insight' into the Divine. The Divine is always present, always self-giving, always self- revealing all we need is to develop (with the help of others) the eyes to see. As always, musings.

Ultimately it is a personal issue but as with the gospels, there is a great deal of scholarship to help in these areas. It had not dawned on me, because it is not an area on which I concentrate, that Buddhism has similar issues with the main sources being considered diverse and somewhat contradictory. To that end, how do we know if the Buddha did or did not have teachers at points in his life? Does it make a better story for ancient 'biographers' to paint a picture that he didn't need them? And, if he didn't have any, how did he come by his 'wisdom?' If he needed no others, did he have direct insight into Being/Empytiness (or what westerners call God) and, if so, does this move us to the type of divine inspiration/insight, common in western religions, that is seemingly tied to a theistic understanding? Just asking. I am not a student of Buddhism (although I have done some reading) as I have my hands full with Christian theology - the non-thesitic type.

I am not familiar with the life of Buddha or how much is to be believed or was, rather, the writings/imaginations of his followers but it is interesting that both Buddha and Jesus, if they did not have teachers, both were teachers or, at the least there are Buddhist teachings (based on Buddha?).

I, too, just don't think this is how God works. Traditional prayer seems to tie into a theistic understanding of God, who one can reach and ask for an intervention of sorts in everyday existence. I think that God is immanent in creation and there is no need (nor is it his way) to break into creation (he's already present). Plus, I don't think there is any 'direct' link or communication with God; I believe God can only be know in and through others, in and through creation: the Word calls or summons us in and through the words of men and women. The Word that is God echoes in our words. I have always like the idea of prayer as a focusing or attentiveness as in the example given above. Much like when we prayed to St. Jude to find something that had been lost and then proceeded to tear the house apart. We focused and sprang into action. My prayer is for 'God' to be with someone - still theistic I know. My faith acknowledges 'He' already is with them, so it is meant more that the person realizes their possibilities, finds the courage to act, to be and finds the strength to endure if they don't get what they want/need in the moment. Even with Jesus' prayer to ask and it shall be given, I have often thought that the only thing we can ask for is "thy will be done' and that will is to Love - and it is done when we do it. I also immediately acknowledge that Jesus did not say this but it is interesting to note when he prayed in the garden for something he desperately wanted in the moment (to escape death), he found the courage to continue and got up and on his way to do the will of the Father (to love unto death). I recognize this might be a gospel writer's creation but it still seems to reflect the reality of the man, Jesus. God's will? I often wonder if God has a will for us that covers all the particular needs we have in a lifetime or is it a singular will for us to Be, to Love, to have abundant life? A God of relationship not choreography. I like it and it seems to hit the target.

I agree that Jesus should not be worshipped and I agree that Jesus is not God (as traditionally, theistically understood, from the top (Divinity) down (humanity). I do believe he existed, and that it matters, because, although the "story of his life and teaching remain and can be tested" Christianity believes that the test can indeed be met by others because it was met by Jesus; it was shown to be a real possibility. I also agree that it is "not limited to any single religion or person for that matter" and the test can be said to have been met (passed) by others. I also agree that his teachings cannot be verified but can be tried or applied in one's life. This to me is incarnation: when one applies the teaching or the Way of Jesus (of say love and forgiveness), he/she is giving flesh (embodying) or making actual that Way and, thereby, is becoming the Christ or a Truly Human Being. This is exactly what Jesus did: he made the way of God (Love) live in himself, in his 'flesh.' Incarnation of the Sacred/Love enables (empowers) us to become truly Human. We become Human by incarnating (by manifesting) Divinity. Therefore, we should not worship Christ, we should be Christ (that is true worship, the only worship necessary for Wholeness). In Christianity, because Jesus is believed to have done this, he is called the First Born Son and we are invited to actualize (Maslow) and also become the Sons & Daughters of Reality. In some Christian circles this is considered adoptionist: Jesus is not God to begin with, rather he is 'adopted' by God later in his life and we too can be adopted by God. I disagree and believe this is shortsighted. Man is a process, existing in time and space, and it takes time to become himself; man (including Jesus) does not begin with his being complete. And, second, if we are 'part' of Being, then from our first moment we are, the 'natural' children' of Being/the Sacred. We were never adopted, we were never other, because there is no other. I speak in Christian terms, but I, too, do not attach priority to any label. And I agree "that one's life and behavior speaks more accurately" and is our true measure.

I don't accept that the early Christian movement robbed Jesus of his real identity. It seems it must be remembered that these people, were destroyed with his crucifixion and, then, with the experience of his resurrection (no matter how you understand it, it appears indisputable that they had some experience or insight), they tried to make sense of what this meant, who he was, what it all meant for them. They, like most fallible humans (and like we on this site), did their best and all we know of Jesus is because of the Christian movement. In spite of the quest (including the Jesus Seminar) for his authentic words and actions, it is all part and parcel and, I suspect, ultimately inseparable from the Christian movement. There is no Jesus beyond the Christian recollection and faith profession of his meaning for them. I do agree that even later generations 'buried' Jesus under more and more doctrines but I still allow that, for the most part, these were people of faith (I know some seemed more interested in power) who tried to 'marry' their faith with the dominant philosophical system of their day (for examples Nicaea) to understand, explain (and, yes, protect) their 'Christian' faith. Was it a question of what Christianity wanted to promote? No, rather, it was the best effort of people of faith (Origin, Ireaneus, Augustine, Aquinas and on and on) to explain and profess that faith. I think Christianity got 'lost' when those in charge did not (could not?) let new world-views and new philosophical systems help to present anew this shared faith. In these cases, the 'need' to protect and defend took precedence over explanation and profession (of faith). I allow that his disciples understood Jesus, each, according to their gifts (intellect, insight, knowledge, etc,) and I do believe they were (tried to be) faithful to their 'teacher' but there was an inevitable movement from the message (of Jesus) to the messenger himself (Jesus). Christianity is the story of a group trying to explain and share their experience of the man, Jesus, who they believed provided insight into Reality or Being or God and by which they could be more and in which, they could know Life, Reality, God. I think the 'trick' and the responsibility now, for those who value Christianity, is to try to explain this insight into Reality/God/Meaning, that was offered by and through Jesus, with their world view, in their philosophical and thought systems for each new generation.

fatherman, You were part of this site well before me but I, for one, would welcome those discussions on spirituality - with the benefit of, perhaps, some further experience/reading/insight and in dialogue with some old and new members. I don't really care where a person stands on the continuum of faith as I have best friends who range from committed Catholics to progressive Christians and from atheist (not theists) to atheists (no God) to agnostics to other faith expressions.

Calvin lost be at 'pure election.'