Davidsun

21 minutes ago, Davidsun said:

I have also made comments 'advising' (various) people to examine the 'nature' of the way in which the Spirit has flowed and continues to flow through them, being openly critical of and objecting to the 'nature' of said flow when and where it has been condescending, presumptuous and designed to 'get' me to change to suit what I consider to be 'lesser' (in my hierarchy of) values - hence not augmentative of my Spirit flow, but potentally 'diminishing' of its 'radiant' vitality .

As an 'educator' - for the uninitiated - I wish to point out that there is a significant difference better the 'nature' (which I have and continue to 'criticize' others here for theirs) and the 'style' (which I am primarily being criticized for) of something. 'Style' just being a a matter of 'superficial' appearances.

Of course, there are degrees of superficiality! All (different!) 'natures' are emanations of/from the same core Essence, which is Life Itself.

From The Bhagavad Gita:

"O Arjuna! I am the Fluidity in water, the Light in the sun and in the moon. I am the mystic syllable Om in the Vedic scriptures, the Sound in ether, the Virility in man.

I am the Fragrance of earth, the Brilliance of fire. I am the Life Force in all beings, and I am the Austerity of the ascetics.

Know, O Arjuna, that I am the eternal Seed of being; I am the Intelligence of the intelligent, the Splendor of the resplendent.

I am the Strength of the strong, of them who are free from attachment and desire; and, O Arjuna, I am the Desire for righteousness.

Whatever be the nature of their life, whether it be pure or passionate or ignorant, they are all derived from Me.

O Arjuna! I am the Fluidity in water, the Light in the sun and in the moon. I am the mystic syllable Om in the Vedic scriptures, the Sound in ether, the Virility in man.

I am the Fragrance of earth, the Brilliance of fire. I am the Life Force in all beings, and I am the Austerity of the ascetics.

Know, O Arjuna, that I am the eternal Seed of being; I am the Intelligence of the intelligent, the Splendour of the resplendent.

I am the Strength of the strong, of them who are free from attachment and desire; and, O Arjuna, I am the Desire for righteousness.

Whatever be the nature of their life, whether it be pure or passionate or ignorant, they are all derived from Me."

All of the recently made comments, some advising 'change' on my part, are accepted as being respectful of my attitude and positionality.

My response is that (I think) my writing 'style' varies (sometimes being more 'difficult' and sometime 'easy' for others to process) depending on the 'state' of my mind and heart at the time, which as I said in my original 'apology', sometimes (often even) gets 'carried away' with 'excitement' which often intensifies in the process of my idea-expression-flow.

I do not wish to alter my (writing or any thing else) flow-process to suit anyone else because that would interfere with it its being what it is and continuing to 'develop' on that (isness) basis.

The apology was merely meant to communicate that I am aware that people may sometimes have difficulty 'processing' my 'process' , to the point of even electing to simply 'notice it in passing'  or to bypass it completely.

Having heard and now acknowledging certain 'judgments' (in the sense of 'assessments') shared above as 'making sense', I nevertheless reiterate my choice to continue to write as the Spirit (in me) moves me to and to not 'alter' my 'style' of 'flowing' with IT to suit the 'needs' and/or 'wishes' of particular others.

I invite any and all readers to continue to engage with my writing or not as the Spirit of Life moves them to (or not to   ).

If there is something 'in' you or something 'in' (i.e. conveyed by) my writing which 'pulls' you into 'munching' on the ideas I present, you are very welcome to do so. If not, you are hereby 'advised' not to.

I hope readers 'see' that (anyone) trying to to 'get' me to change myself to suit them is basically not honoring ('trusting in'?) the 'benevolence' of the 'divinity' of my Spirit (i.e. of the Spirit as IT flows through me).

If your comments (which, if really respectfully offered, will be truly welcome) are going to have have 'an effect' on 'me' (hence on how the Spirit flows through me), they will. If not, they won't. Just don't keep 'nagging' me as though you are a 'loving' and 'caring' (of me and my process) 'advisor' to change so as to have your 'tastes' satisfied. That will incur the same kind of response that Thormas has already 'tasted'. I will be the 'arbiter' in terms of deciding and choosing how 'best' to proceed 'in face of' said commentary.

I have also made comments 'advising' (various) people to examine the 'nature' of the way in which the Spirit has flowed and continues to flow through them, being openly critical of and objecting to the 'nature' of said flow when and where it has been condescending, presumptuous and designed to 'get' me to change to suit what I consider to be 'lesser' (in my hierarchy of) values - hence not augmentative of my Spirit flow, but potentally 'diminishing' of its 'radiant' vitality .

And I have chosen to not continue to relate to such of them that don't meet my minimum (cut off!) standards in terms of what I regard as important in relation to Life (to the point of being 'sacred'). I advise and hope that others do likewise, here as well as in the rest of their life, based on the value-hierachy that they have organically constructed on the basis of their experiences and observations.

Attempting to get back 'on topic' of respecting-and-harmoniously-engaging/relating-with-other-thought-and-feeling-systems-(if-and-as-they-are-not-disparaging-and/or-violational-of-other-thought-and-feeling-systems-tjhat-is!) ECUMENTALISM:

What do interpersonal assertions ('tactical arguments'?) such as

"You are mistakenly taking things (too) 'personally' ''
"You are being (too) 'sensitive' ", and
"I am/we are really just trying to address your issues nicely/helpfully" etc.

suggest to you?

BTW: I am not just challenging the postures of the apparent (i.e. currently displayed?) 'leaders' here, but wondering about what the spiritual stance and agenda of the 'regular' members here generally is as well. I mean, is the cap P 'Progressive Christianity' movement "worth its salt?" (idiomatically speaking)

17 hours ago, thormas said:

You're a very sensitive guy to take offense at a helping hand. Interesting but ...

This is said to share my thoughts as well as stimulate further thoughts on the part of everyone else here:

I agree that I am a 'sensitive' (in the 'sense' of sense-itive , IMO at least) guy.

I hope others can also see that I wasn't and am not now 'taking offense' (in the usual sense of the phrase), but, rather, conscientiously objecting to the verbal and spiritual behaviors of peeps who smugly 'advise' other people to be something and/or behave in ways which they would like them to be (falsely IMO) projecting themselves to be in the 'side' of Life (i.e. Creativity, Love. God, Truth, etc.) as though they were doing Life Itself, said others included, a 'favor'.

Assumed 'leadership' is presumptuous, aye what?

11 minutes ago, Burl said:

I used to think a little like you Craig, but you are missing the forest for the trees on the OT.  Some of the big messages are:

There is one God but also a rich and diverse variety of other extant supernatural and human/supernatural entities.

God communicates to us through intuition, voice, visual theophany, poetry, fiction, song, history, myth and human rationality.

God has an active interest in human development and protects us under a mutual covenant.

God reveals itself to humanity in a gradual fashion.  Not exactly dispensational, but rather progressive revelation.

YIKES!

Talk about exclusive-ness masquerading other-inclusive!

He that hath ears that here, let him hear! As far as I can see (or hear ) the above statements don't at all (not really at least) relate to the substance what Craig said in is post.

Other may of course 'see' (or 'hear') it differently I'm just telling the truth like I see (and 'hear') it, folks - in single sentence'paragraphs' no less! Caveat: I could be deluded!

13 hours ago, Craig V. said:

Since the Old Testament describes our shared Abrahamic deity as a barbarian who seethes about slack commitment and commands genocide and slaughter of infidels, ...

It is criminal to attribute much of the OT to God! It has nonsense fit for the “Trump University School of Theology” . . . myth as repugnant as Ezekiel’s special barley cakes [Ezekiel 4:12].

Yup!. Methinks 'ecumism' as an unqualified 'ideal' is therefore not worth being taken 'seriously'. Hitler thought he was 'inspired' by 'divine' (in his eyes that is) 'spirit' as well!

Maybe some here will suggest 'qualifications' (like 'amendments' to the concept of that 'bill') which might result in the discussion of the concept becoming more enlightened/enlightening.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

p.s. I remember when a fellow member said one of my post was too long, so I tried to shorten it and another was confused by my use of certain words, so I tried to clarify: style issues. Now when someone else flatly disagreed with me, that was her/his right but I held the substance of my position (even after playing with style so I was heard). Simple!

Great! For the reasons I have stated, which apparently aren't 'valid' in your eyes, I don't 'respond' the way you do. News flash: because I am me, not you.

I just tell the truth as I as 'see' it, as do you Bro. Some experience that (the parts of what I say that they don't 'soft-cotton to') as an 'attack'. From my point of view I am simply declaratively identifying (what I think of as) a spade as a spade without pretending to be 'nice' just for the sake of thinking or myself as being and appearing to being 'nice' - that isn't one of the personal-social 'mores' I personally don't think of as being especially 'good'.

I am always 'personal', BTW - and don't think of that as being a 'bad' thing either. Neither do pretend, as some holier-than-thou's (ahem, ahem) here do, to be or do otherwise.

You understand what I say in your  way - I fully accept and relate to that as a FACT of LIFE which pertains to everyone.  I sincerely hope you will someday make 'peace' with your understanding that I understand what you (and others say) in my way and then proceed to relate to that as (news flash!) me validly (personally) being me and me legitimately (personally) doing what I am here to do. Till then, we are just likely to repeat the current not-so-merry go round circle. So please know, that unless there's evidence of such a change having taken place, this will be my last attempt at communication with you.

Sincerely - David

No, I wasn't saying you or anyone couldn; or shouldn't comment on my style or share personal reactions to it. I was just 'calling' (both) you and Burl out on your "nothing personal" and "I'm just saying what I'm saying to 'help' you to 'serve' your purposes", dare I say (condescending?), posturing.

Regarding what you say in your last para, have you still not registered what I told you - that I am fine with peeps not reading or skimming and/or not responding to the ideas I share. I hope you understand, in retrospect at least, that you (and Burl) have been trying to foist your preferences off onto me under the guise (even hiding the fact from yourselves) that you were just doing so for my sake (any by extension or the sake of my ideas and values). That's what it looks and feels like to me, and so what I believe has been really going on here.

Ecumenism - i.e. 'rubbing shoulders' with peeps who have different sets of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and values than 'you' or 'your' reference group - is great to talk about - but its required more than that to actually put it into practice.  I hope some readers at least get an 'object lesson' pertaining to what's involved from what's been displayed above/here.

Anyone want to respond to the video I posted the URL to, relating to the comments I made while posting it?

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Not sure of your point. Burl (and I) was trying to make suggestions so others would want to dance with you. 

Maybe this will get my 'point' across: That (what you just said) strikes me as being like a parent who, thinking and feeling that he or she is thereby really giving his or her beloved child 'loving' advice and support in order to further said child's soul's 'success' in 'the world', tells him or her that it would be 'better' if he or she took up and practiced 'ballet' or 'the piano' instead of 'going out' for 'sports' (or vice versa).

Has it occurred to you that  my souls' 'dance-muse-ic' inclinations an preferences may be of a quite different nature than his or yours?

Also, has  it occurred to you that you are 'dancing' my kind of 'truth'-meaning-full dance with me right here right now (precisely because I didn't just 'graciously' 'accept' Burl's and your 'advice' but made a point of saying it didn't suit my purpose(s)?

I imagine not, or else you wouldn't be persisting in your kind of 'lovingness' (of truth, spirit, etc.) in relation to someone as different from you (in said 'truth' and 'spirit' regards) as I am.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

He was talking about writing style - you are the one who has made it personal

News flash - my writing style is personal, it is an expresssion of who I am quite consciously aiming to reach, those who can/will 'hear' my 'voice' (parallel with Jesus's saying intended), i.e. what I wish and choose to express as part of my God-Life-'service'.

That you one-sidely (IMO) only see it from and sympathize with his 'points' says something (personal) about you to me (personally), Thormas.

Continuing with the topic of "Ecumentalism" (great word coinage, BTW! ):

I wonder what peeps think might be entailed if they were to seriously consider 'ecumentally' including of this Irishman's world-view and belief-system:

This is the first of a two part video exposition, which I heartily recommend as being 'right on' (in my opinion, that is) in terms of real 'truth':

In it, he speaks of being "religiously" in collision with "the Bible" - meaning what's been includedThe Old Testament and so widely embedded in 'Western' cultural thinking about mankind's 'place' in 'nature'.

I wonder how anyone using 'Christian' (progressive or otherwise) as a personal- or group- identity moniker can 'ecumanize' (lol) with such as he and vice versa. An interesting 'problem' to be considered and hopefully playfully resolved, methinks.

13 hours ago, Craig V. said:

Thormas, I am guessing that David is pleading for more tolerance about his writing style, and yes, It is starkly elaborate if not too obtuse for this lamentable Twitter/Facebook age..

David, I opened up your email and am half-way thru the 24-page work you sent me, thank you.  I had so much junk from my denomination this week, that I did not notice it until yesterday. I think the analogy I would make, rather than to LGBTQ tolerance,  is that you stylistically evoke the Gospel of John, as opposed to that of the synoptic gospels.  I had seminary teachers that were rather dismissive of John, being written much later than the synoptics, and it was already somewhat compromised due to that lateness, and John seems obtuse in parts, but there is beauty and mystery too.  You are a student of other faith movements, and looking for an approach to connect in those directions, and sometimes ambiguity serves a good purpose in that. Especially since God and much of what we discuss here is bound . . . in reality . . .  thankfully . . . to be much more Unfathomable than we can possibly expect by our relatively primitive tangible conceptualizations and traditions..  

High Five, Craig!

The idea of God being 'unfathomable' means we can't get to 'the bottom' of the ocean in this regard, but we sure can enjoy splish-splashing about and occasionall going on some 'deep' dives, both ideationally and experientially, in IT.

As you say, thankfully!

Woohoo!!!

[To everyone else: I presented a link to the article that Craig references in my first reply to Burl. Since that is 'water under the (screen) bridge' right now, I just want to add that it is also downloadable from the Articles page of my website which should be accessible via my profile should you be interested.]

15 hours ago, thormas said:

Also, remember you are on a progressive site and I suspect most are not conventional and do not have to expand their LGBTQ group.

I think you miss my point, Thormas. I'll agree with you on this maybe when and if I feel more understood and (so) included. Am working (in my own way!) to be understood, but as the saying goes, "It takes two to tango!"

10 hours ago, Burl said:

Just observations about posting anything by anyone on any forum anywere.  The message and the medium must be complimentary.

Nothing personal intended.

Fiirst and foremost, Burl, pleas know that I responded the way I did to you first comment to me the way I did because I 'saw' and experienced it as not being 'complimentary'

Second, the "must" in your statement is presumptuously 'dictatorial', unacceptably (by me) so. My guess is that you are  so steeped in an attitude of self-'right'eousness that you will probably remain blind to this fact even tho i use your own words to point it out to you. Sp please know that this statement is really an effort on my part to  share what I 'see' as being the case here with others here.

Thirdly, your disclaimer of "nothing 'personal' intended" rings hollow to me. Your statement in response to my posts have been quite personally implicative.

The joke-line "Who died and made you 'God' here" comes to mind.

I don't know if this will work as intended, but all of the above is intended to get you off of what I 'see' as a being like the proverbial 'high horse' and involved in a truly meaningfull discussion of pros and cons of the ideas being presented.

15 hours ago, thormas said:

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. First, I have no idea what "not just here, but here too" means but no total generation is a bunch of spoiled kids.

I said 'generally' - which indicates that the 'character'ization wasn't 'total'. I agree with you on this.

50 minutes ago, thormas said:

I will read more when time permits but this line struck me as I skimmed.

People are always free to disregard anything but I think you have something to offer - so all the more reason to enable others to more easily read you so you can be heard.

That proposal strikes me as me as a proposal to 'enable' them to sit back and wait for things to suit their 'tastes' - people have to be in touch with their 'hunger' of they are to not look at 'food' with an attitude of "I'll eat it if I like how its tastes" or "I'll eat it if you 'cook' it in a way that 'pleases' me."

As you can tell, I am 'seeing' folks 'of this generation' (not just here, but here too) as generally being a bunch of 'spoiled' (by too much indiscriminate parental 'spoon-feeding') kids.

Jesus's portrayal of God as an indulgently 'loving' 'Father' by saying things like "Ask, and it shall be given you;  seek, and ye shall find;  knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?  Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? " was fine as a 'correction' of old jealous/demanding/punitive (for not being 'obeyed') johovic 'father' image. But the pendulum has swung so far in the 'opposite' direction that there is a need (here for example!) of a 'reverse' correction in the direction of taking persponal responsibility for one's 'creativity' and not expecting 'feed me what I like' mother/fathering.

What's coming down the road is going to be far from 'coddling'! I am just a messenger in this regard (with all of the implications of this word), Bro: The Times They Are A-Changing!

40 minutes ago, Davidsun said:

I truly hope you can appreciate and groove with my unconventionality, ...

Just occurred to me that a humorous way of putting this would be to inviteyou and others to (if necessary) expand their LGBT group(s) tolerance/acceptance philosophy/stance to include 'me' (along with my completely unusual writing 'style' of course!). It could be called LGBTDavidsun tolerance/acceptance - the 'Davidsun', though not actually my given name, designating 'me' as a singularly unconventional (in terms of the 'majority') being who, though unlike any other, may nevertheless really be worthy of open-minded consideration!

I hope that, though it may strike some as having an unpleasant 'edge' to it, you at least 'get' all this is truly said in joy-full repartee 'fun'.

Added P.S. Of course, my whole 'argument' in the above regard will carry no weight with someone who is LGBT tolerant/accepting only because he or she thinks, feels, and believe that LGBT folks are only the way they are by virtue of their having no 'choice' in being the way they are - I.e. 'forgiving' them ' in Christs' name because such folks 'unfortunately' jes can't hep being the way they are! 

Points well taken, Thormas - as mentioned in my 'apology' I often get 'carried away' - I suppose by the intensity of my thoughts and the (thought) 'associations' which spring from them.

People are free to 'disregard', 'skim', etc. when encountering my verbiage. Its all a matter of whether or not something in them 'pulls' them into engaging (with my words) or not.

Please know that I am fine with 'being myself' (in terms of my 'way' of expressing' my ideas) , as well as with others having their 'own' preferences, in the above regard. If someone really wants to 'grok' what goes into my mentation they will - if not, they won't.

Please open to considering the possibility that there may be "a method" to "my madness" - the short version of which is that I am not here to 'appeal' to everyone.

And, to respond to your last 'suggestion', yes, I relate to everything as being 'important' - so the idea of " drawing the reader to one or two things that really are [important]" just doesn't compute in my 'way' of being-n-doing. It is up to any reader to 'isolate' what (if anything at all! ) in what I say is important to him or her as well as to 'hierachialize' any such importances for themselves, that is if there is more than one such 'important' (to them) thang to them in what I say.

I truly hope you can appreciate and groove with my unconventionality, Thormas, because (based on my 'reading' of what your words reveal about you)  you are someone who I genuinely wish to share the way(s) in which I groove with (our Entity's!) existence with. You understand that that doesn't mean that I will alter my communication style to suit your wishes, however. Yes?

Sincerely - David

On 7/19/2017 at 12:37 PM, Anthony Gifford said:

If you think that 'believing' anything gets you into any heaven or sets you apart in any way that is positive, don't take the time to reply.

Hello Anthony!

From some writing I am currently doing:

"... let’s aim to figure out what Jesus may and may not have actually meant when he said things like “I  am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6), and “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47), the implication of that being that one wouldn’t or at least might not (have such life) if one didn’t (believe so). Many, interpreting such words literally, simply think that just believing without any doubt that Jesus was/is (literally!) the singularly Godly ‘son’ of our singularly Godly ‘father’, and therefore unreservedly accepting and embracing him as (literally!) being their personal ‘Lord and Master'** and so just thinking and doing as he instructed (including asking for and receiving his ‘forgiveness’ whenever they didn’t), will surely result in their (literally!) being personally ‘resurrected’ after their bodies die and thereafter forevermore ecstatically living with said Father-God and Son-Jesus in the absolutely blissful (completely suffering-free) heavenly locale where they project He and Jesus eternally reside, and wherefrom an enthroned King Jesus personally decides who will and who won’t be admitted and allowed to join them therein.

** Jesus did express himself using such figures of speech which those around him were familiar with and could meaningfully relate to (as elucidated in Chapter 1), but his focus was always primarily on attempting to alter people’s sense of what were and weren’t desirable, Love and Joy augmentative attitudes and service-functions between people regardless of any differences in social role and power status between them, as for instance in: “Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.” (John 13:13-16)

Notwithstanding the number of the absolutely-believing promoters and guarantors of the fore-referenced belief and expectation scheme, and though I too acknowledge and frequently extol the miraculous-seeming power of mentally focused thoughts (beliefs, etc.) and emotionally embraced attitudes (expectations, etc.), I submit for logical consideration the proposition that the probability that anyone may thereby ensure such kind of ‘heavenly’ forever-after can really be no greater than the probability that believing and  expecting, even without any doubt whatsoever, that any personally subscribed to belief-and-expectation-system related talisman, mantra, prayer, ritual behavior or combination thereof can and will ensure that any of one’s  desires will be fulfilled as desired or that one will be ‘saved’ from experiencing anything one wishes not to as wished.

Why? Because, though it is indeed amazingly ‘elastic’ (in the sense of being able to parallelly☺ accommodate a wide range of alternative probabilities), which fact allows for it to be locally pattern-shifted for periods of time, the matrixial ‘fabric’ of the stream of Life – which one’s (that is, everyone’s!) experience and expression is part of – is flow-woven together by much more than the power of any one person’s or subgroup’s effect-generating belief and expectation ‘weavings’. Besides, such kind of super-power dispensed postmortem ‘salvation’ and heavenly union-with-God ‘reward’ (or their opposites: hellish separation-from-God ‘punishment’ and ‘perdition’) scenarios may only be temporarily experienced in the context of a personally encapsulating astral realm movie-script, not in super-eminent, actually forever-ongoing, Love and Joy based Reality. Why? (1) Because, as sussed out in the preceding chapter, The Source (or ‘Father’) which sustains our personal existences and The Entity of Creation (or ‘Son’, which Jesus mentally and emotionally completely identified with and so actively represented and spoke in the ‘name’ of ) which flows therefrom (i.e. from ‘the Father’) and contains us are not persons (per se) but actually transpersonal features and aspects of LiIFE; (2) because ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ actually reference spiritual states of heart and mind not spatio-temporal environments; and (3) because the ‘nature’ of the ‘spirit’ of Love and Joy, a/k/a LIFE, is ever evolving, such that no (personal or transpersonal) gestalt of ITs Being-n-Doing ever lasts in the same ‘form’ or ‘state’ (in or out ‘worldly’ contexts) forever!"

2 hours ago, Burl said:

The key to being understood on the internet is to never have more than two sentences per paragraph, and never have more than three paragraphs.

Anything more will be skimmed.

Your 'key' (to your 'lock') ain't mine (either 'lock' or 'key'), Bro. Enjoy your 'corner' of Being.

I apologize for the disjointedness of aspects of my preceding post. I get so wrapped up in the 'totality' my ideas, I often don't see 'gaps' present in my verbalizations. I hope some readers will grok the gist of my 'vision' nevertheless.

Blessings, thoughtful ones!

Very interesting discussion, everyone. It additionally 'informs' (what I think of as) my 'mission', which is to formulate and introduce (i.e. 'inseminate') the best (meaning potentially maximally positive, quality-of-spiritual-experience-and-expression-and-further-evolutionary-development-in-an-Earthly-content) set of woven-toother 'memes' into the 'stream' of human philosophical-n-religious mentation which I can image-'in'.

I am still i the process of developing my ideas and projection possible futures in this regard based on my readings and considerations of others' ideas (historially) conceived of with said best 'goal' mind in light of their historical consequences to date. Here are some of caveats deriving therefrom:

Historically, people have projected an ideal (note the similarity of the word's form to idol), based on the understand that all of 'Creation' is really One, one Being-Doing, of a human-constituted 'church' (or 'society', or 'family') characterized by benignly all-inclusive Conscious Love. This 'dream' is reflected in Jesus' having both lived and said things like: "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father:  and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:  them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice;  and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (in John 10) and others after him, who hoped and lived to establish a 'church' which would serve as a 'key' agent helping to actualize said 'promise' saying: "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord;  I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." (in Hebrews 8) which 'dream' continues to be embedded in the psyches of many who have grown up in the same, now multi-millenial Judeo-Christian-Islamic, 'tradition' which he was part of and who continue said 'dream' today. (For those who may not be aware of it, the latter statement was really just the reiterates of 'the dream' as stated (in Jeremiah 31) in the Old Testament: "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel;  After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;  and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD:  for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD."

But as a (furthering of the) discussion tactic let me offer some what ifs:

What if the 'dream' really stems from unrealistic desires for an UTOPIAN society? What if this world is base-ically (necessarily, practically speaking) a matrixial mix of in infinite range of all possibilities, from 'bad' to 'good', from 'worse' to 'better', frmo 'mediocre' to 'exceptional', from 'failing' to 'succeeding', and that it would best serve the purpose of soul-development (souls gradually 'opening' to knowing Spirit-'Life', 'God', 'Him', 'Christ', whatever you wish to call IT and consequently, a some point, 'hatching' and 'feldging' into full-flight spiritual-realm-'immorality') if it continued to, apparently 'imperfectly', be so?

Speaking of the 'problem' being analogized a their being 'different' tabled and as well as 'different' conversations at 'different' tables (is only a 'problem' if one regards it as being 'indicative' of something undesirable, like the unfulfillment of the above mentioned, regarded-as-being-desirable, dream: do you think a maturely 'loving' couple would really the fact that they had to speak to and relate with their children in a different way of different ways than they spoke and related between themselves - that they wouldn't be 'happy' to have their children sit at their own (chidren's) table, at least now and then, that they could have 'dinner(s) at their own (parental) table at least part of the time so they wouldn't always have to talk in ways or about subject that their children could 'handle'? Would they regard this is a 'failure' to establish and enjoy communal worship at a completely universally-inclusive 'church'?

I offer this (parent-child model) as a very practical way of thinking about the whole 'church' (and 'membership' - all members being integrally 'united') subject, which has been framed as very warm-fuzzy  'ideal' dream but which dream IMO is not really 'in keeping' with ultimate soul-development possibilities and considerations. I would go so far as to say that 'waking up' from that dream (in which anything 'less' is 'seen' as somehow being non-'ideal') is necessary for a soul to truly know, embrace and live 'in accord' with what the REAL dynamic of Spirit-Life actually IS.

Not that I don't think that the general level of present 'children's table' talk shouldn't or can't be upgraded in (more) progressive ways, mind you. Just aiming to clarify and introduce more psychologically/spiritually sophisticated ideas into the whole 'church' and 'churches' discussion. I am very impressed by and quite favorably disposed towards Spong-and-associates' endeavors in this regard. Nothing wrong (and a great deal that is right!) with attempting to make something as 'good' (meaning as positively 'creative') as it can possibly be.

On 11/7/2017 at 12:06 PM, romansh said:

I must admit I have a bias for Stephen Batchelor ... here's one of the reasons why.

The Agnostic Buddhist 

Thoughts?.

 

Open-mind-and-heartedness - premised on the suspicion-hunch-belief(?) that what one already knows and relates to (i.e. 'loves') surely doesn't encompass everything (under heaven) that there is to be known and loved strikes me as being the height of secure-in-being-insecure 'sanity'!

3 hours ago, thormas said:

Initially, I see an 'impulse to become' and a 'call to be' somewhat different. I (initially) see the difference as impulse speak to pantheism whereas call speaks to panentheism. The 'impulse' appears to be 'built in' and might speak to your understanding of creation as God's self-expression and becoming. 'Call' appears to be a recognition that there is a gracious-ness afoot: creation is gift and Other (in whom the world is) presents Self and invites response and the coming into the fullness of being (establishment of the Kingdom) for man. 

I will read more carefully but first reaction: John10:38 works because Jesus has responded to the call, thus he and the Father are one: see Jesus, know the Father. This statement is true for Jesus because he has responded: he rejected the temptation of self-centeredness (sin) 'captured' in the imagery of his desert experience; he becomes and is - for others. He 'obeys' (which is a response to the call of Abba) the two great commandments: he loves God by/in his love for others. A call can be rejected whereas an impulse suggests (for me) an automatic becoming which cannot be ignored. History seems to evidence that there is no automatic - man freely rejects the call to Become.

Hi-Ho Thormas -

My thought is that I may not be 'seeing' something (a distinctions) that you 'know' and so are 'pointing' to. Or I may just be using and thinking of the meanings of words in ways that differ from the ways you think of and use them. All I can say is that my understanding of 'the impulse' is that it is the same as what you call 'the call'. IMO, said 'impulse' can be and often is denied/rejected as a result of 'narrow'-minded, i.e. 'short'-sighted, 'immediate'-gratification-oriented selfishness which doesn't 'see' or 'feel', i.e. which doesn't really 'know', that it is thereby betraying the intention of the 'greater' cap S Self 'hand' which it is a 'finger' on.

Whatever the case, the difference between us is not important in overall terms, I think - just that one 'way' of 'thinking and feeling' may indeed 'work better' for 'you' while the other 'works better' for 'me'.

Do please download the article and occasionally give it a spot read it here and there in spare moments - no need to 'commit' yourself to a close reading of it in its entirety - just give it the chance to 'grab' your attention - it will if it is going to - and if it doesn't, because we all ultimately have to 'walk' our 'own' walks in any case, that's fine too.

I think, except in cases where souls totally 'cop out' (on) themselves, the 'call' (and/or the 'impulse') will ultimately prevail because, like a bird which ultimately fledges and leaves it egg-nest, 'flying' is in Life's program-'code' (spiritually speaking), again so I think.

IMO, though it may appear that peeps only get there by intending (i.e. proactively choosing) to do so, "Resistance is (ultimately) futile!" in said regard. Though I do think that intention and deliberate choice can and will speed the process along once one has been 'turned around' and so faces and sees what lies ahead in said self-transcending/transcendent direction. I have often jokingly commented that I have been 'kicked bass-ackwards (LOL), despite all my 'moves' to the contrary, into heaven' - which is what you may be referencing a kind of 'grace' dispensation.

The latter two paras, whatever their relevancy of lack thereof to your experience,  are just 'me' sharing thoughts aiming to be provocatively stimulating by loose-lippedly babbling.  

3 hours ago, thormas said:

... a call to Become - and that is always a going forth not a folding back (semantics perhaps

I 'see' it as an impulse (i.e. in-pulse) to Become, which may be ex-peer-ienced   as a 'call'. Either way, the concept of an 'urge' in this regard applies, I think.

Also, I see it (the process) as being both a 'going forth' and a 'folding back'. In the article provided a link to, I wrote:

"Many would rather simply believe that by saying “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) Jesus unequivocally asserted that the gestalts of his and his/our Father’s spirits were absolutely identical,i.e. that they were literally one and the same aspect of Life in action; case closed. Such statement may certainly be read that way and, taken by itself, used to support God-concept co-opting narratives such as the one presented in the Nicene Creed [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed] which proclaims that the personage of Jesus was “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made;” etc. But it may also be taken to mean that Jesus thought and felt that his and said Father-God’s spirits were dynamically integrated and functionally co-operational, and so 'united' as ‘one’, metaphorically speaking, in terms of purpose and consequence – analogous to the way in which partners who aren’t identical may accomplish something they both desire when and as they work together in a complementary manner, which they couldn’t and so wouldn’t be able to creatively accomplish if each worked alone. (This is what holism really means, by the way: “Holism is based upon idea that: the whole is more than the sum of its constitutive parts, so reduction of the whole to its constitutive elements eliminates some factors which are present only when a being is seen as a whole. For example, synergy is generated through the interaction of parts but it does not exist if we take parts alone.” [quoted from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Holism)

For those who have reached the point where they are capable of dispassionately pondering such matters, I submit that “The Father is in me, and I in him” (John 10:38) which Jesus added in the same speech-sequence (as “I and my Father are one”) clearly shows the latter understanding to be what he actually meant to communicate. Notwithstanding the meta-truth that every ‘feature’ of Creativity (Life, God, Reality, Being – however you wish to view and reference It) is an inseparably integral aspect of one all-inclusive phenomenon, in light of which any and all conceptual ‘divisions’ which distinguish aspects of It one from another may be seen to really just be navigational aides at best, this saying indicates that Jesus ‘saw’ that there was a dynamic, two-way flow-connection between the primally progenitive soul of ‘the Father’ and the consequentially co generative soul-constellation of ‘the Son’, such that the outflow from one functions as inflow in relation to the other in continuously ongoing outflow→inflow→ad infinitum fashion. (Readers capable of engaging in abstract thought experiments may appreciate the kind of experience an observer walking lengthwise along the seemingly two-sided ‘surface’ of a mobius strip [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Möbius_strip] would have and, if reasonably intelligent, sooner or later grok as analogically ‘explaining’ the never-ending ‘story’ of ever-ongoing Father↔Son Creation.)"

Great groovin' (withchoo!) jehosophats, Thormas!

P.S. I think 'the urge' ('impulse', 'calling') - which is what I think(?) you mean by 'the Word' - emanates/comes from 'the Father' (the 'Creator') and so is pervasively 'built' 'into'  'the Son' (i.e. 'Creation').  One might say that said 'urge' is 'Creativity' (ITSELF!) 'speaking' (as a 'voice' in one's 'head' - do it, I say DO IT, by Gum! LOL)