fatherman

I've been reading and posting on this board off and on for several years now. I feel a sense of community here. I suspect that for some of us, this is the only place we can be fully open up about our faith and ideas. That is special. Thanks TCPC! Having established a virtual community with each other, I want to propose an activity that communities of faith often engage in together. Let's think of this as an experiment that we can try and then decide if it was worth while. Prayer is a difficult subject for many of us. It's complicated for many of us. Who are we praying to? What exactly is prayer? What do I prayer for? I don't always know what's best for me...how am I supposed to know what's best for anyone else? Regardless of how you view or what struggle you may have with it, prayer is something to be considered. I know that many aspects of traditional Christian prayer may not work for us, so let's break it down to something that most of us could swallow. Here's an approach that has worked for me: -Find a quiet spot. -Get still and relaxed (breathe, meditate, chant, listen...whatever works for you, but give it at least a few minutes.) -When I feel full of peace and light then the prayer begins. -I place the thought of a person (or situation) in my mind's eye -I take time to feel love or compassion for that person (simply opening up the heart center usually gets that going, but if that doesn't make sense just think loving thoughts...usually I'll get a little flutter in my gut like when I'm around someone that I love deeply) -I imagine them surrounded in light -Then I express my desire for their highest need to be met. NO SPECIFICS. Just something like "May your highest need be met, <name>" -Then I might move on to someone else, but I always end with a prayer for myself. The only belief that this kind of prayer requires is a belief in the power (or importance) of love. My proposal is that we take a little time during the week (once a day would be best) to pray for each other. If you want to be involved (either to pray or be prayed for) post a smiley face on this thread. Let's begin today and go to next Thursday. I'm very aware that this could put some of you out of your comfort zone, but I challenge you to consider doing it for just one week.

I find your words here comforting, flowperson. Mother Theresa spoke of a mystical period of her life that she never recaptured. But the knowing of God's presence sustained her ministry for the rest of her life. Your wisdom and experience is a blessing to me tonight.

Nice break down, flow! This is the proper way to answer the unanswerable. I agree with both of you. The relationship between Seeking and Knowing is not a one or the other, it's a process...a cycle. The problem arises when we try to make them exclusive...when we take one without the other. Here's a plug for knowing. The act of creating/manifesting ultimately requires knowing. Seeking is not enough. If a person wants to engage their own God given power of creation it requires knowing fueled by powerful intent. I am healthy. I am wise. I am wealthy. I have already found the love of my life. I have Peace. There is no room for seeking. Their is only knowing here. Why seek out something that is already here?

As you may already know, friends, one of my favorite things to do on this forum is to present two things as if they are mutually exclusive, appear to affirm one over the other, and then conclude by claiming that I might be the opposite or both. Here's my blanket generalization: Seekers live the questions. <<WARNING: heavily biased statement >> Knowers content themselves with knowing the answers I'll rephrase: Knowers are content with the answers. Which are you? Are you so obsessed with asking questions that you don't take the time to listen for the answers. Or are you so arrogant to believe you have the answers and don't ever ask the questions? Yo! Yo! Yo! Break it down now...

This is a magnificent phrase!

As usual, Soma, we are of one accord here. The act of seeking Christ Consciousness has been my most precious and fruitful spiritual pursuit. In the flickers of time that I reach it, I am restored in body, mind, spirit, and wisdom. It gives me the sense of a personal encounter with Christ. It allows me to see with Christ eyes and hear with Christ ears while I wear it. For me, it is the path to the Father. "No one comes to the Father except through me." Lord, give me thirst that can only be quenched by your Spirit and give me hunger that can only be sated by your by your Truth

You guys are too smart for my puny little strawman question! I think you're making a better argument for a strengthened faith than a weakened one, Aletheia. I'm no alchemist, but it seems to me that faith might work a little like metal. Few metals have all the desirable qualities required for its practical usage. It's the wise blending (alloy) of metals that gives it strength, durability, and usability. Both too much rigidity and too much maluability create a vulnerable product. Sure, an unalloyed metal is considered pure and more precious, but for what practical purpose? (I'm sure there are dozens, but work with me here!) Has Christianity thrived because of its purity or its adaptability? Certainly these are mutually exclusive.

It strikes me that many of here have blended faiths. We freely integrate ideas and practices from other cultures and other religions into our own Christian faith. Some would call it cafeteria Christianity. Some would call it watered down. Some wouldn't call it Christianity. However, Christianity has always been this way. Christianity formed as an amalgam of various 1st century ideas and traditions. On this site I've seen humanism, buddhism, hinduism, wiccan, pagan, new age, and traditional Christianity. What do you blend into your faith? Does it strengthen it or weaken it? Shouldn't we just stick to the basics and try to be the best Christians we can be? Buddhism's enough for Buddhist. Judaism's enough for a Jew. Isn't Christianity enough for a Christian? << Look out Fatherman someone's likely to take you seriously! >> Please do! It's an honest question.

AMEN!!! Jesus' teaching, as recorded in the Bible, spans a wide and radical range. We tend to gravitate toward the easier parts: judgement, miracles, charity, conditional salvation (including heaven). These are very attractive aspects of the Jesus story. Judgement? Oh yeah. We know what to do with that one. If we can't practice it, we at least want the satisfaction that our God will. Miracles? Who doesn't want miracles? Believe in them or not, we want them. Charity? Of course. Requires a bit of generosity and sacrifice (maybe even some hard work), but we don't have to give it all (do we?). And we get something back (don't we?). Salvation with conditions. That's easy. We have everything to gain, and everything to lose. Universal Salvation? Much more difficult to accept. You mean all my charity and my weekly subscription to the Christian Church doesn't buy me anything accept for plain ole happiness and contentment on earth? Now the Radical Ethic that Jeanot spoke of. You can count on a short line for that one. Churches wouldn't make a dime off that stuff. If there's a part of the Gospels that isn't taken literally (even by the literalists) it's that stuff. We have a name for the few that have: Martyr.

Soma, It is bizarre that you brought up the phrase "don't cast your pearls before swine", because I nearly wrote that phrase in my previous post but I wasn't quite sure what I wanted to do with it. What made me think of it was the dog analogy. There is only so much a human can offer a dog without it being a waste (food, shelter, companionship, play). How much more will God offer us as our species evolves?

"I understand that "tekton" translates "artisan," or skilled worker. He could have been a mason, for example." No! He's either a carpenter or the Bible is just one big lie!

I'm making a public spectable of my self laughing so hard!

Latecomer on this thread, but... There are few things that I think I know, and this one I'm 95% sure of: Something uniquely powerful happened in the 1st century world centered around a man named Jesus. So powerful that we may be talking about it until the end of human civilization. The 5% is that there is always the possibility that it was time for humanity to break into a new age and the Jesus story was just the kick in the butt that we needed to do it. Whether Resurrection happened or not, I think that Resurrection is not the whole story. It's part of what the apostles called the Good News, but it's not the whole story. I view it is as one of the tools he (or the gospel writers) used to justify who he is. It is also, no doubt, a lasting symbol for what he taught: Lose your life, and you will be born into a new life. Jesus' mission? Everything he tried to do and prove was for one purpose: To show what God is really like. Virgin Birth? Angelic Messages? Miracles? Son of God? To establish his credibility. Teachings? Love? Sacrifice? Resurrection? To show us what God is like. <<Ok, Fatherman, you're just stalling. What do you BELIEVE about the resurrection?>> In the immortal words of Mel Brook's Young Frankenstein after reading his grandfather's book entitled How I Did It: IT! COULD! HAPPEN!

I first encountered this notion in the movie The Matrix. I was shocked by how true it sounded.

Yes. I have had this problem, and yes I have found a way to deal with it (or maybe it found me). Because of the paradigm shift that I and so many others are experiencing, much of the old tradition of Christianity doesn't really make sense anymore. After all, that's why we're on this forum (paridigm shift or not). But God hasn't changed and neither has Christ. At first, I had to come up with new language to describe the new way that I view and experience my relationship with God and Christ. This really freed me up to have a much deeper faith experience. I was free from the language that reminded me of old views and free to experience God my own terms (not necessarily on my own terms, I'm not sure God understands limitation). So for the first time I was livingmy faith. Then, a surprising thing began to occur. One by one, the symbols of Christianity began to take on meaning for me. Salvation, Atonement, Forgiveness, Submission, Born Again, Obedience, Trinity, Resurrection, The Cross, Grace, Evangelism. The concepts and experiences that seemed so new and powerful to me were really not new at all. They were authentic Christian faith born fresh in me. My mind had to break free of the Christian Tradition before I could truly experience Christian Faith. Now that I own the symbols, I can more easily interface with more traditional Christians. The symbols (metaphors) are the common ground for Christians. We may view them differently, but the symbols are generally all pointing to the same exact thing. October's Autumn, this may not help you at all, because you've just got be who you are and where you are. What I described above could only happen by living my life day to day, just as you are doing. My advice? Lean into it! It's all good.

Pure, unspoiled. Are we the world's impurity?

I like the idea of a Jump Time (Jean Houston). That humanity evolves in 300-year cycles (last one being the age of enlightenment).

Thanks for flowing, Flowperson. I needed that today.

"yin/yang kids" In relation to the notion of the indigo children? I don't know much about them, but they are supposed to mark a new phase in human evolution that will usher in the new age.

No, I just had a little too much coffee today! My tone did not come across properly. And it looks like that last bit of writing suffered from premature post-ilation. I meant to say that by taking a literal approach I'm not necessarily limiting myself to accepting its authority. I also think I misunderstood something you said. I somehow mistook your use of the term "historical/critical" as reading the Bible as if it is historical fact. Perhaps that's not what you're saying. Mostly I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I've been quiet for so long, I'm just exploding with thought. The truth is, I'm not a literalist or a fundamentalist. As always, I'm just trying to be open. This Christianity thing is inescapable for me, Aletheia. I guess I'm just trying to learn how to embrace it. Oh! I wasn't sure my Wayne's World reference would come across in print, but I had a feeling you might pick up on it.

My posts are too dang long. Sorry! Skim if you like. It' more for my benefit than yours.

I would say there is a difference between fundamentalism and literalism (although literalism is a key element in fundamentalism). I guess I think of fundamentalism as have more to do with a strict adherence to a belief system; whereas, literalism is the literal interpretation of scripture. Okay, so let's look into future, shall we? <<diddly doop>><<diddly doop>><<diddly doop>><<diddly doop>> Let's say that I decide to take the Gospel of John as literal fact (at least that he believed it to be). Then I have a few more choices to make. First, do I accept the writer of John at face value. Do I believe him? I still have a choice to make. Do I allow it affect my life? Do I dedicate my life to becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ strictly as it is described in the book of John? What about Matthew, Mark, and Luke? What about Paul? Thomas? What about the rest of the books? Okay, now. Do I then accept these "facts" as binding? By God? God's divine Word that has total authority over my life and after-life? And finally, do I decide that God has authority over you, too; and therefore, I need to dedicate my life to bringing you into full submission to God through Jesus Christ as prescribed by the Bible? <<diddly doop>><<diddly doop>><<diddly doop>><<diddly doop>> Ok, we're back. <<whew!>> I'm still a progressive Christian. Why are fundamentalism or extreme liberalism the only possible outcomes? There are a lot of steps in between using historical/critical method and becoming a fundamentalist, and that left turn toward total rejection of the Gospels is not a given either. What about apathy? That's a great option you left out. There are lots of fantastic stories that I believe may have really happened, but I just don't care enough to do anything about them. I think if people knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that their literal acceptance of Jesus Christ as their personal savior would give them a first class ticket to paradise and anything else condemns them to eternal burning in the fires of hell, a surprising number of people still wouldn't do a damn thing. Or --- What if I accept the story as is. Live with it. Ponder it. Let it work on me. Consider its implications. Consider its deeper meaning. Consider it's historical/cultural context -- not to meld it to my liking, but to understand it more fully and as it was intended (I don't believe any of this is outside of the scope of the historical/critical method). I'm still not compelled to let anything true, factual, or otherwise have authority over my life. I need not reject it either.

I agree. It's impossible to avoid. I think, though that I've never given the Gospels a fair shake. Anne Rice's book "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt", has been working on me. I think that I've spent so much time tiptoeing around the gospel scriptures so long that I'm afraid I don't know what they really say. <<Oh I don't like this hell stuff, I think I'll just skip it>> or <<Oh, I don't buy this resurrection business, I think I'll dedicate a few years coming up with crackpot theories of what really happened >>. Rice has challenged me to give this books a fair shake. Maybe her assertion pans out. Assertion: The Gospels were written before the fall of Jerusalem rather than after because no writer could possibly ignore something so significant; therefore, the likelihood that the Gospels are at least based on first-hand accounts is increased. If they are first-hand accounts that are corroberated by several witness, then the likelihood of them being factual is also increased. Whoa! If an extremely well-read author and former atheist like Anne Rice is swayed (based on her exhaustive study of 1st century world and the Jesus story), perhaps I should be willing to look at this with fresh eyes. I want to read the gospels the way Rice tells her first story: As if it is factual. As if Jesus truly is not just a son of God, but God's only Begotten Son. That's the job of the Gospel writer, to make a compelling argument that Jesus is the one and only Son of God (or at least that he's the Messiah). So far, John hasn't convinced me. I don't have a problem with miracles. I don't even have a problem with resurrection, but to say the Jesus is the only one? Haven't there been other Christs? Don't we all have the same potential as Jesus? Sure, maybe it would take a few thousand lifetimes to get there, but who knows how many lifetimes it took Jesus? Just one? He claimed to have been around a long time before landing in Bethlehem.

I will most likely read John several times over with different intents. The first reading will be a literal reading focusing on getting the basic events, dialog, and their sequence, setting aside the metaphors and the gospel writer's intent for later. I suspect the two testifying events (whether they happened exactly like that are not) are propably representative of the way Jesus dealt with human authority. What Jesus understands that the Pharisees don't is that no human other than himself can truly testify that he is who he says he is (the I Am) with the possible exception of his cousin John (but even then someone inside the power structure would have to validate John's revelation about Jesus' authority). Jesus is in a no win here. They're asking him to justify himself, but the only authority they will recognize as sufficient justification is their own. Jesus has a tough job. He has to convince folks that he's the Son of God without ever receiving an endorsement from the Jewish religious power structure. True, he has some powerful tools. Plus, folks already have some expectations of what a the Messiah is. They will be disappointed. His first big gun is Miracles. Many are swayed just from the miracles. For some, it's at least enough to get their attention. Second, is his self-possessed authority, wisdom, and personal charisma. When the priests send some soldiers to arrest him, they come back empty-handed because they were blown away by the way he talked. Third, fulfillment of prophecy and scriptural requirements for Messiahhood. He's got all the right creds (Bethlehem, Son of David, etc.) and the events seem to line up with the prophets (especially Isaiah). Of course he saves the best for last, but then it's too late...right? How can he be King if he's dead or in Heaven? I'm looking forward to deeper readings. Readings looking for what Borg calls the More than Literal meaning. Anyway, I'm not a big fan of cherry-picking (proof-texting) either (dangerous, manipulative technique). I was actually working from a context here, but call me on it if ever actually do it! I will consider it a red flag.

It's worth a shot. I'm reading The Gospel According to John again for the first time in years. Let me tell you something that I'm no longer afraid to say about John's Jesus. He's a nuisance. He's annoying. He's confounding. He's slippery. I sympathize with the Pharisees. In John 5:31-40, Jesus says that if he testifies on his own behalf his testimony is invalid. So he sites John (not present) and The Father (invisible) as his witnesses. Then in John 8:12-18, Jesus is again called on to give witnesses to testify on his behalf. By law, he's required to give two. He testifies on his own behalf (as he said himself, not valid) and claims his Heavenly Father as his second (doesn't exactly stand up in a court of law). I understand this on one level, but from the Pharisees' viewpoint...OY! If it weren't for the miracles... And here's the problem with miracle men and women (I've encountered a couple). You have to put up with their crap because you want their miracles...and they know it! Eventually, you say "Screw it! I'd rather just suffer!"