thormas

Okay, but I must be missing something here and might have to go back and reread this thread. Not sure what the logical proof is or what you mean by the possibility of evidencing nonmaterial realities, like beauty. Also not sure one could or how one would ever be able to demonstrate the reality of "Oneness."

Sorry, it seemed logical to combine religious, pilgrimage and non-material reality and 'assume' the reality was God?? I will wait for the complete argument. Anyway,

I can't buy that all the journeys of all pilgrims (think the Crusades) establish 'physical evidence' supporting a nonmaterial reality. First, I question the motives and second, "God" is not an entity and only an entity and its existence can be supported by physical evidence.

Hope, as I understand it, is merely the outcome of faith, defined as man's response and commitment to, call it what you will: God, Is, Being, Really Real, etc. There is no betrayal at least in a more reformed or progressive understanding of Christianity. The response and commitment are realized in love where one is found: here and now.. And the 'hope' is that Being has given itSelf to man and what is given is never lost or 'IS" never abandons man. What you call pure acceptance of 'what is,' I call faith: response and commitment to what is and therefore the transformation of all (without end).

Seems there is a need for reform in Christianity simply in that it has been, to follow the thought, seen as a noun not a verb. The idea of emptiness still doesn't resonate with me perhaps because I don't understand the concept at this point. If we are talking about emptying the self, okay but if it means more than that, ???. It is fair to talk of a metaphysics of hope and fear although with Spong's reformation or the insights of other theologians, the fear is out.

I have never read Spong as an atheist, although certainly not a theist. I don't agree with everything he says but his 'reformation' for the most part resonates.

Burl, I think you're right on Spong as there is a criticism of Church teaching 'from on high' but he also criticizes theistic understandings be it magisterial or congregational. Be that as it may, it is amazing the different expressions of Christianity. I just started a book on 'The Faiths of the Founding Fathers' which does a nice job of explaining and defining the many different expressions present in the 1700s in America.

Tariki, I think Merton is exactly right in this: The gift is God, as revelation is Self revelation given so we might live from/because not for. The point of existence is not to 'worship' God, it is to Live.

There is the biblical use of the phrase but there is also the 'everyday' use of the phrase it seems. I was referring to the everyday take on nothing new under the sun. I have no idea what you mean by Spong being based on "majesterial/hierarchical nature of the Anglican/Episcopal communion." Please explain. I think the opposite: it is the gift of the spirit (God) that empowers us to live in a godly manner: the initiative or first act is always God or to put it another way, salvation is not earned, it is given.

Tariki. This is a great insight, to recognize that one is not always their action and allowing the person to still 'be' before our eyes. What an impact it would have on ethics and judgment. And, for me, these kinds of insights are 'new under the sun.' Although we could probably trace back into the histories of various traditions and find others who also thought this, for each new generation or at least some in a generation, to see this is indeed new. As for Pure Land over other 'utopias,' although I do recognize that many Christians still have an old version of and eyes on heaven, I do not believe that all, including the Spong group, do. Belief in life after death does not (for them) mean betraying the here and now - their focus in on the here and now - it is simply that the work begun here and now continues and life, once received, is enhanced never lost when one empties Self of self(ishness) and becomes love. I also have to add that even brought up in 1950s Catholicism, where we had pictures of heaven we did not live for tomorrow and forget today, we lived in the now.

Thanks Burl, but a bit off putting since when my daughter was little, we loved Disney - although she was freaked out by the characters roaming the street, thought I'd have to take one out if it approached her. But nothing transformative that we brought back to normal life, except Princess crowns. However, the author makes a good and interesting point. Tariki, I liked Merton's person instead of individual self and I agree that Greek philosophy categories were used and they are no longer helpful to many modern Christians. And then you throw in Spong and others referring to the Divine Person as a verb rather than a noun.

Of course you could dissect it Rom because ...................it was humor! Although I could have 'chosen' a more serious response but the night did not call for it. And you can make a suggestion - which suggests there is a choice on my part to take or leave it. If not for the possibility of that choice, it would be absurd to ask.

Rom, the universe seemingly would weight heavily on someone if they bought into it and lived by it, although, then again, whatever they did wouldn't matter. There is no freedom, all is cause and effect and there are barriers (but, we didn't erect them) to block communication with ..... well, who knows what. And now, there are no rainbows! And if there are no rainbows, there goes a lovely Irish fairytale. Anyway, the really good news is that if there is no freedom, there is no culpability and anything is up for grabs - because, the universe did it. That's okay but there are downsides: we can't even tell people to keep the noise down. 'Keep the vibrations in the air down?' It might work, if they can hear me but even if they did, they'd just blame the universe. And then there is some kind of mesh we have to worry about. But there should be no real worries because there is an 'unseen' interconnectivity in the environment. Unseen? - well maybe I can hear it........oh no, air vibrations! One could ask, why? Why is there anything, rather than nothing? One could ask what is 'this' all about? But, we can't get past the barriers, we can't communicate with .....well, who knows what. So, no answers but it has something to do with one. How many? One, just one. One what? Don't know but hopefully it won't take many of us to figure it out. How many will it take? Probably more than one. But at least we're not in it alone, we're really not - just look at how many...............Ruh Roh. Weren't there many a minute ago and now there's just one? Where did that magician go? Well, at least there is comfort in the choice I made in a partner to share.............ah, damn: cause and effect. and if that was not enough, the universe made me do it. Don't think I'll share that bit of news - it could ruin the evening. Well there is always the comfort of home, just a short walk, and look, in the sky, I see a rain..b..o...w - ah, damn, I forgot for a minute. What a mesh! This was just a bit of lighthearted fun. I have enjoyed the company of all on the site. It has been challenging, enlightening, frustrating......and rewarding. Happy New Year and thanks.

I don't buy into lovey-dovey divinity or kumbaya oneness either and don't know anyone who does (including former college and grad school professors, fellow students, friends, parents and relatives born in the earlier years of the 20th century, everyday church goers or any of the hundreds of students I taught in theology classes over 10+ years). In addition, I have never read or known or heard of any serious Christian (or writers/thinkers of other religious expressions) theologians, biblical scholars, or religious leaders who have even thought such an idea. Rather, most would dispute such a characterization as naive and not worthy of serious discussion. Although it does make for an easy straw man to set up.........

Indeed it can wait and I have no problem with other's points of view, although validity might be up for grabs. The 'problem of religious language' is probably as old as the problem of language 'explaining' love - yet the difficulty and inadequacy of either language has not proven a hindrance for everybody - some perhaps, but not all.

Rom, This is a big topic and I doubt we will agree (but that has not stopped any of us before) but lets hold it for another day and another thread. As a few have said, this thread is 'a bit' long and we don't want to exhaust ourselves and others with what would be a lengthy back and forth. Finally Burl, this has not been "throwing our existence into a kumbaya pot of 'oneness' " and it is certainly not anti-intellectual: the idea of the many in the One is part of the entire history and intellectual life of Christianity (and other traditions). However, upon reflection, I sort of like the 'pot' image because it is presents a visual of the many in the One (pot). Actually, stew has its individual, distinct components but there must 'be' a pot before they can come together to be what did not exist before: the stew - in the pot.

I do like humor.

Again, say what?

Say what?

Great, we're getting somewhere: I did not say nor do I believe in a "complete lack of individual distinction." However, it seems that 'mutual attachment or symbiosis' falls short and does not do justice or reveal the true intimacy of God and man. So it is not complete separateness (how could it be if there is love?) and the individual is not lost (for what true father would allow for the complete end of his son or daughter?,) but it must be more than mutual attachment - that sounds like the equivalent of the girl you love saying she just wants to be friends. The guy wants more, wants love - so too, I think humanity wants more than mutual attachment with God, sounds too lukewarm. So it is a true unity, perhaps even One-ness that overcomes separation, allows for individual distinction and of course, God is still God. The initiative, the first moment is always God and then man responds. So it is just a question of trying to 'capture' and do justice to what by faith, we hope is the case. Not an easy task, but fun.

As an adjective, used with reference to God or Being; used to suggest that there is something 'more' that is Present in/to existence. As a verb, used to state that man is 'more.' It goes to the idea of existence over essence: that man, the existential being, is 'more' - his existence is before him (open), he creates it; he is more and becomes more. In theology, goes to the discussion of unity, oneness and divinity. Not meaningless at all - unless one arbitrarily calls it a 'none word.'

Rom, Hard to dialogue if someone unilaterally decides that certain words in the language are 'none words.' BTW, I don't think 'none words' is a thing, but it is an easy out. And now we have 'flavors' of monism. You must be fun at cards, always changing the rules when it is your turn Also, transcends in the my last sentence, simply means get in a space ship and 'get beyond, rise above or just get off (or some other none word meaning)' the earthly environment well before the sun expires. Our descendants will surely enjoy this ride given the alternative. And Burl: you referenced the biblical quotes above, is anyone saying we are God? Look at what the scriptures affirm in the quotes: through all and in all; of him and through him; that they (too) may be one. Nuance my friend, nuance: more than separate, one or united is some 'real' way, yet still not pantheism.

And then there is Milton: "Death is the golden key that opens the palace of eternity."

Nice quotes Soma and helpful. So if I understand correctly, sentience encompasses consciousness and man, is also conscious of self - something that we 'assume' that no others are. 'Entirely separate' beggars both scientific and theological belief.

Burl, as you said water and I assume fish are not sentient beings, so we really can't compare and contrast. Well, I guess we differ on this but I don't follow you because this idea of oneness is rampant in Christianity: in a marriage ceremony, the two become one, in the eucharist, one symbolically and really takes God/Christ into themselves, God and the Father are one and we are to be as Christ and then there is the Kingdom. Also, one could suggest that increased presence is at its utmost when two are united or one: the presence of God can't be mere 'nearness' as proximity ranks low on the 'presence' scale. Further, if as John said, God is Love and we are to love or, to become loving, then this is incarnation: divinity/Love becoming 'Flesh' in man; Love lives in man and/or man becomes Love. Can't get closer that this, this is one-ness. In all this, I do not believe that we, individually or together, become God - that is pantheism. I did lose you though, are you saying oblivion or hell is becoming one with God? That's like the philosopher who says, hell is other people. And where is this belief, as stated, found in Christianity? However, I completely agree with your comment on co-creators. But how does this work, how does the Creator enable us to create and any explanation has to resonate or it make sense to a modern person or it falls on deal ears and is useless. Geez Burl, "a self generated series of reflections in the mental echo chamber that creates loopy, useless thought leading to nothing driven by this natural drive to seek and know God." First, just out of curiosity, can you say that 3 times fast without looking? If not, it doesn't count. Second, is this kind of response (even when another approaches you with respect) the real you or just your internet persona? But on a serious note, the idea of oneness is seen throughout the history of Christianity, so are all these great thinkers and 'saints' involved in loopy, useless thought? Plus, the "natural drive to seek and know God" takes place in thought and it is expressed in language, including the language of philosophy: not all such thought and language is accurate or equal but the effort itself is not loopy and useless, rather it is a seeking after God/Wisdom and all would probably be better off if more engaged in it. Finally, your statement is a bit harsh, smacks of anti-intellectualism (as Aquinas is not the only Christian to use the philosophy of his day to 'explain' Christianity) and seems a bit unchristian.