thormas

For the Christian (and others) the eternity that is now (perhaps the experience of a depth dimension of Reality) is never ending.

Interesting, and the source?

Of course, all of these are opinions. We, none of us, know for sure. For the Christian is is Hope. And the now is all we know but the rest, fun to consider.

I gave the why - it ties to one's view of God/Reality. I don't buy the universe without purpose but neither side can prove their case so both are statements of belief. I like what Sagan said but, for me, it goes beyond the cosmos knowing itself. Isn't that like having a kid because it all about you, his/her only purpose is so you can know who you are? We experience ourselves as 'independent' beings, in some way both part of and separate from the cosmos. I believe there is more to it in that 'we' are not merely a means to an end (cosmos knowing itself), we are also knowers and to be known in ourselves. In other words, we have our own value. But again, no proof, both sides deciding what speaks to them. You might be right on Campbell (has been a while since I read him) just going on what you wrote that, for him, eternal life is now. Either he shouldn't use the word eternal if there is only now or the now partakes of eternity.

A great and unanswerable question but fun to consider. As mentioned, eternal life is usually conceived in a linear time frame but if, from a Christian perspective, the idea is to live in relation with God/Being (or what the Eastern Fathers called the deification of humanity) the belief is that once achieved, such a life never ends. Life (eternal life because it is God or Reality) is given in the moment of creation and waits to be lived; it begins now and continues. Of course there is the reality that very few achieve such 'eternal life' in this present life, so one wonders what might be necessary if each of us must continue to purge the ego (or self-centeredness) until we become truly Human Beings (until we become Reality)? Some have speculated about different lives in different worlds (check out the late John Hick in this article on Resurrection where he also talks about Buddhism: http://www.johnhick.org.uk/jsite/index.php/articles-by-john-hick/18-resurrection); others speculate that a kind of purging continues after death. I also liked Spong's take on it in his book, Eternal Life: A New Vision. Even with Campbell, if eternal life is 'now' he still calls it eternal which suggests 'more' or continuation or a deepening. But to the original question: why believe? For me (and I believe for many Christians) it is tied to what I believe about God. Using metaphors, I accept/believe the insight that Reality is Love: this is the why of creation, the way of Reality and we are graced (gifted) by and with Life: the chance to be. For me, the Lover creates to become one with the Beloved (or, to reverse it, so the Beloved may have Life, Abundant Life). I belief in the faithfulness of Reality: 'this' is not a mistake, not cosmic happenstance - rather 'this' has purpose and that meaning is of utmost importance, so it will be sustained. I do not (and oddly have never) fear death (for myself) so I don't fear or even think much about not existing and I have no idea what eternity means or looks like (I don't dwell on the details). I think we find our meaning and our life 'around the kitchen sink' and once found - it is ours! We not only find life, we give life and are life in all those moments; and once 'We Are' it begins and continues.

Matthew, Let me start with three: Gregory Baum's 'Man Becoming' (the first theology book I ever read and still powerful - still the best 'description' of the Trinity and the Immanent God. Probably out of print but can be found). Dale Allison's 'The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus' (a well respected biblical scholar yet different from many) and John Hick's 'The Metaphor of God Incarnate' (also check the Hick website: http://www.johnhick.org.uk/jsite/index.php). This guy was insightful and bold in his presentations. See his website for the article on reincarnation. Hick and Baum did a great job re-presenting an understanding of God for today's world. I used Baum's book as the text when I taught Christian Anthropology to H.S, seniors in the 80s (high school kids reading what could be a college or a graduate level work and it 'spoke' to them).

Matty, Thanks for the answers. I grew up Catholic, discovered philosophy (metaphysics) in college, then had the opportunity to teach and study theology. Although I consider myself a Christian, I belong to no particular Church simply because they preach what is for me an 'old time religion' that no longer speaks to me, no longer does it for me. And, from my point of view, I think you have a good understanding. I basically agree with you on God and add, that, again for me, we live and have our being in God/Being. Or to flip it: God is the transcendent presence immanent in and throughout creation. So God, for me, is not only the one time creator/source; God is the continual Presence -creating and empowering us to Be. I understand Jesus to be human, 'like us in all ways' but one who 'incarnated' Love(God) and thus became fully Human by being Divine(Love). This is the Way. The Holy Spirit is one I don't dwell on much but, if I do, the Spirit is simply Love that must be made flesh in us and thus empowers us to become truly Human Beings, the sons and daughters of the Father. So for me, the Trinity are the modes of God, the ways in which (from our perspective) God is present to give Life: Source, Alpha & Omega; the Word, always only heard through creation, through humanity, that calls, challenges, judges us to higher expression of being/Love; and, the Spirit, the love, only and always given through creation, through humanity, giving us the courage to move forward, to become More. But all are the One God. I no longer call them persons especially since this can cause confusion given what modern people understand as a person. Mary, is frankly one I don't think about much but I agree with you. And I certainly don't accept the Catholic understanding of her immaculate conception or assumption into heaven. Quite simply and wonderfully, she was a mother and her son stands on her shoulders and the shoulder of the Jews who came before him to become 'the son of God' From my perspective, you don't seem confused. But I can understand you are not settled yet and still searching for a fuller understanding - as are we all. My suggestion is to read and then read some more. There are amazing writers who have taken Christianity and struggled to talk about it in ways that would resonate with people of today. You might have your own list but let me know if you want suggestions. tom

Hi Matty. You have had quite the spiritual journey. What is it you presently believe about the Trinity, God and Mary? Perhaps that could be the starting point to a discussion.

Actually while I agree that the Source is all in all, isn't that still a belief? Some see you, me and others and deny a source or perhaps only a meaning to/for the source.

I agree and have always liked the idea of re-presenting; for (some) readers, it is hearing for the first time - almost as if it were never said before.

Tariki, I believe I got your point about the veil but there are volumes written by Christian theologians/authors that attempt to present the new and go beyond doctrines, creeds and static beliefs. Such authors include Baum, Hick, Macquarie, Moran, Schillebeeckz, Kung, Gray, Allison, LT Johnson and on and on. Of course the trick i to get it to the people in the pews who have neither the time or interest to do such readings.

Nice summary Matthew. In Christianity since all writings are post 'Resurrection,' Christ and Jesus meld together. As the history of biblical scholarship shows it is hard (impossible) to separate the two. So, I guess it is fair to ask if they should be separated as the writings and prior oral traditions provide the Christian movements 'memory' and understanding of Jesus (and thus God). What we have is all that there is in a very real sense. I also allow they may be a clue to a real supernatural reality if that is understood as a human attempt to say something about the Reality they perceived or believed was 'present' in the man Jesus. I take in your use of the word supernatural is simply a word that for some and especially in a previous age, suggests the ultimate nature and meaning of what it is that we find ourselves part of.

On this I agree completely.

I was surprised by this comment from you. Of course you generalize although I do agree that western countries, or at least the USA, have a problem with what to do with those who are elderly and/or sick. Perhaps the aging of the boomers will help rewrite this....or not, one can hope. As for dogs, if you truly love your dog, you're probably pretty good with people, including the elderly, after all, dogs are social animals. Now cats owners on the other hand..............

For some it might have demonstrable effects then there are others........ I do like the idea of an attractive personality and probably extremely good looking - these have a ring of truth :+} Self satisfaction does not decrease with new questions - if one is still passionately interested in trying to discern the answers. And what about the spiritually dead? Most agnostics (I know) seems rather content and/or they can tread water.

The Egyptians tried animals and it didn't work out so on to imagery that was closer to us. The dove for the Holy Ghost didn't do much for me either. Perhaps one starts with imagining and moves to understanding.

The question of God does have a lot of presuppositions and baggage. Perhaps it is the former teacher in me, but I enjoy the question and the need/challenge to present an alternative understanding to theism. However, I do agree there is significance to our lives and we live not in chaos but in a Cosmos....but, for me, the cosmos and all live in 'God.' Properly understood :+}

But that is written how long after his death? The earlier writings do not go into such detail. Look at Paul, look at Mark. For me he is 'risen,' exalted by God: I have no idea what that experience was like for Jesus since it is beyond history (after death) but I do acknowledge "resurrection' given the Christian movement. But again, be it a spiritual body, vision or insight - I recognize the later stories are apologetics.

Jesus as an extra-dimensional being? I have no idea what that could even mean. But it seems to be beyond the 'witness' of Christianity: Christianity believes in the immanence of God, that means God is 'with us' or in the only dimension we know. I agree that he is 'simply and purely a human being' but I also think one can only be truly human if they 'become' or incarnate Love, i.e. God. This is not incarnation in the traditional theistic understanding. Further, I don't think Christianity robbed or intentionally robbed Jesus of 'his real identity' or wanted to promote anything nefarious. They were trying to get their minds and hands around who he was, what it meant, how it worked. They were limited by their world view and their philosophy. Us, not so much...but still. On the other hand, ".....resurrected in an etherial body, and proved the existence of life after death ...." seems to assume too much for me. First, faith does not deal in proofs and, although I believe that Jesus is 'with and exalted by God" I acknowledge that the disciples' experience of the resurrected Jesus is beyond the limits of human expression. So whether it was an ethereal body, a vision, an insight.......?????

A bit on the theistic side given my understanding and the article lost me at: "worship a spiritually muscular Being who willingly lowered Himself, ventured into our hell, fought our demons, carried our death, ate our pains, drank our suffering." A muscular Being! Yeow!

I think it is a bit of both: that belief or better, faith, is both choice and no choice. And your first sentence seems to speak to that when you mention the for and against and then come away with or without belief. However, I recognize that most/many of us are born into a belief system, so we are predisposed to some degree. However as we grow and our knowledge/experience expands, some of us find ourselves in a position where we look and 'choose' again, one way of the other. And as evident on this site, although predisposed, ultimately there are different choices that have been made: buddhism, science, Christianity - some more progressive, others more traditional, atheism and for some a combo of these. So, on one hand, with learning, experience and maturity, there does seem to be a weighing of 'things' and decision. However, within this, I also think that a particular faith or understanding of existence, 'speaks' to us or resonates with us and thus a connection is made. The living of it is a decision. I guess the same could be said of love, there is a 'falling in love' but there is also a choosing.

I'm missing something here: what and where is Fred Plumer's comments?

ok, I'll buy that.

True but even with your transliteration, some of his words do seem to prescribe attitude and behavior.

Interesting point but why do you say he is not talking about/prescribing behavior? Once the purpose of the law is discerned, one does act, n'est ce pas?