fatherman

Interesting topic. I've heard this same principle outside of Christianity applied to non-violence. Consider the following excerpt from "Autobiography of a Yogi" I think Jesus was pointing out that true faithfulness is a matter of the heart and mind, not just a matter of behavior. The only difference between cheating in the mind and cheating with another person is whether or not the other person is directly involved. Certainly adultery begins in the mind. The affair is simply the physical manifestation of what has already happened in the mind. This also makes me think of that poem by Mother Theresa that ends,

Hey! That's my wife's job!

Thanks, Lolly! Peace to you as well.

James has raised a point that I have more or less held my tongue about with this forum. Some, not all, of us on this forum have layed the groundwork for demonizing fundamentalist Christians as a general group. We've got a silly little name for them, we've all but determined that they are either of enferior intellect or sitting lower on the developmental ladder than we enlightened progressives. How arrogant are we?! I understand that many of us have felt harrassed and abused by fundamentalist forces, but we should be seeking to overcome this instead of nursing it among ourselves. I know that this site does not have progressive/conservative dialogue or debate as a primary objective (or as an objective at all), but I believe there is room for it. It is my sincere prayer that we progressives start the journey of forgiveness and reconciliation with our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. We are all a part of the body of Christ. This is no accident. Will we be crippled by hate, fear, and anger or will we be strengthened and made whole by love? To James and any other fundamentalist Christians who may be lurking, This is a two way street. You've so far presented yourself well on this forum IMHO. I appreciate your desire to understand the progressive perspective. The fear you are encountering is that you will not recognize the ground rules for this forum and begin engaging in harassment. You have to understand that many of us are here because their few havens for open, honest discussion for progressive Christians with other progressive Christians. There are a billion places for moderate and conservative viewpoints to be discussed. James, I am sure that if you continue to present your viewpoint with respect and as just that: your viewpoint, you will be recieved (perhaps more so over time). I realize this might be a compromise for you, especially if your viewpoint is that your viewpoint is actually God's viewpoint and that it should be received, therefore, with absolute authority by this community. If you truly want to understand progressives you must make this compromise. If you don't and begin to attack, you will only learn that progressives are defensive and unwelcoming (just as any group is when attacked).

SweetTea wrote I suppose it is the government's job if what we put into our bodies has a harmful effect on the people around us. But I also suppose that that's not the only criteria that lawmakers use to determine the laws regulating or banning controlled substances.

Humbling words, DCJ. Yes, this really brings up the issue of discernment. We have to start with the assumption that the writers of the Bible were centered on Truth. What they experienced, observed, and felt has Truth as its core. Imagine that Truth is like the center of an onion. Every layer of the onion is, in fact, a part of the onion. Every layer is both connected to and removed by the core by 0 to many layers. (gee this is a crappy metaphor!) The discernment of Truth involves identifying the layers and working our way to the core. When I meditate, whether on a specific Truth or just Truth itself I first do a little exercise where I imagine that I'm removing every layer of me (computer programmer, singer, father, husband, Christian, anxiety, ego, man, human, form) until I am right at the core (or just nothing). Here I can experience Truth. Likewise, when I study the Bible, I want to identify as many of the layers (culture, purpose of the writing, form of the writing, nature of the writer, relationship of the writer to the subject, etc.). Some of the writers (Paul for example) seem to have fewer layers than others. Paul seemed to live a life so in tune with Truth, so close to the core that the Truth is more easily discerned. With Paul, I consider his Jewish background, his connection with Greek culture, who he is writing to, and his mission. DCJ, you are correct in pointing out that the writers were much closer to the events, people, and experiences that they were recording, but this doesn't exempt us from the responsibility of our own limited discernment.

Grace, I'm at a loss for words after reading your post. I want you to know that I'm holding you in my heart with love and awe. The courage and wisdom of your soul is glorious. Fatherman

The theodicy question may never be resolved, perhaps not even when we meet our Maker. We had this discussion in my Sunday School class recently. One thing that I got out of it is that regardless of which way you look at the question, we, as Christians, always bear the same responsibility of love. Believing one way or the other doesn't change the Universe or God in any way. It does, however, change how we live our own lives. I may never fully make up my mind on this issue, but I'll express my view anyway. Since I'm not some kind of Saint with direct knowledge of the mysterious inner-workings of the Universe, I have to choose a different way of determining my belief in this matter. I've chosen a particular belief on this by examining the effects on my life and on the world (as I see it). The biggest plus for believing that God does not cause bad things to happen in the world is that no one can judge any person including themselves based on what happens to them. This belief is the way to go if you believe in a single earthly life. It keeps the playing field even... I mean we cause enough trouble for ourselves without having to deal with God causing trouble for us as well. However, if you believe in reincarnation, you've got to go with the notion that things happen for a reason. What would be the point of an endless string of earthly lives with either no hope of progressing to heaven or receiving some arbitrary salvation? Given reincarnation, you tend to look at life as a series of God experiences or lessons either to taste life in every way possible or to learn and grow and hopefully to realize your soul's fullest potential. I lean toward reincarnation, so I lean toward things happening for a reason. In writing this, however, I'm struck by the notion that even given reincarnation, the answer is not clear. The point of living life after life after life with no end goal would be to live for the sake of living. The possibilities for experiences as a human are infinite.

James, You've established an excellent bibilical context for the concept of 'original sin'. Thanks for that. To understand what that means to many folks on this board you have to understand that as progressives we do not take the Bible as a whole entity that is inerrant and authoritative. So what you've established (at least for me) is that the concept of original sin was deeply entrenched in the culture from which those writings emerged. What the writers have observed is real, but their perspective of it (I suspect) is their own. All, Having said that, I do believe that humanity fell and that the Adam and Eve Story describes that fall. It describes that oldest possible human thought: the first conscious thought. The Fall is the story of the human animal becoming different than other animals with the dawning of individual consciousness and free will. The Fall is a way of talking about the process by which humans came to see themselves as separate from God and the Universe. I don't believe it was a punishment, but it has had some pretty painful consequences. (Just some general sweeping assertions pulled together from nameless books, sermons, discussions, and personal thoughts)

St. John of the Cross (given the title "Doctor of the Church" by Pope Pius XI) Comments on the above quote by Swami Kriyananda

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I heard a report on NPR this morning about it. I wonder if some of these countries have the infrastructure to even begin thinking about the human trafficking problem. My heart aches at the thought of it. The form letter can at least keep the issue on the radar screen while important decisions are being made.

Thanks, Aletheia. That was beautiful. I've done labyrinth and chakra work, but never at the same time like that. That's worth bookmarking for later.

Actually, in the title, I was trying to relate what Paul wrote about the individual parts that make up the body of Christ to the perpective of qualified monism that was being discussed on another thread. I really resonant with what you said about "mini-universe" or kingdom. At my calmest moments I experience myself as a kingdom of God where all the elements of the divine are integral to my soul, just as a single cell contains the entire DNA pattern of the whole organism.

DCJ, You've brought up an interesting point: the Trinity. Can you give any kind of a scriptural basis for the Trinity? (not that I stand on firm biblical ground all the time either). The Trinity can certainly be inferred, but is there a specific scripture that you had in mind? My personal view is that it is a way of conceptualizing our relationship (and Jesus's relationship) with God; whereby God is Creator (Father), Created (Son), and Relationship (Holy Spirit).

If we are related to God by being a part of God, then what is the full nature of that relationship? What is the full nature of our relationship with the Universe....more specifically, with each other?

It seems that we have all been writing furiously at the same time....and posting at the same time! I hope you all look back to the three concurrent posts before moving on.

Woo Hoo! Thanks for hanging in there with me, PantaRhea!

I'm getting closer to understanding your argument. By "God is impersonal" in a pure non-dualist world you mean "God is without relation". Ok. Yes, a non-dualistic view cannot be taken unless you also view God as the ultimate reality and substance as an illusion. My personal view is that God, in a desire to experience itself, manifested itself into a Universe, thus creating relativity. How can a conscious thing experience itself except in relation to something else? This is not necessarily Dualism, though. The most perfect real-world example that I've encountered of qualified non-dualism is in Object-Oriented Programming (OOP). I'll try not to get technical. One of the principles of OO is Inheritance. Inheritance can be described with the "is a" phrase. An F-150 is a truck, A Ranger is a truck, A Silverado is a truck A truck is a vehicle. A car is a vehicle. A vehicle is an object. An object is. Vehicle is a Superclass and Truck is a Subclass. Truck has all the basic properties and behaviors as Vehicle, and so does Car. Each of these different kinds of Vehicles has it's own unique properties and behaviors, but each has the same basic purpose (to transport). Because all are Objects each has an ultimate purpose: to be. In a sense, the Superclass can know everything that the Subclasses know because of the "is a" relationship. When a Vehicle is instantiated (brought to life) as a Truck, Vehicle naturally knows everything about Truck. Same for object and vehicle, and object and F-150. The same is true in reverse. However, an F-150 does not know everything about Ranger because it is not a Ranger (except by a principle called Reflection, but that's a whole other topic!). Consider this relationship: David is a human. Laurie is a human. A Human is a a life form. A Plant is a a life form. A life form is a creation. A dead form is a creation. Creation is a Manifestation of God A Manifestation of God is a God God is. Of course, this only works if the Object-Oriented principles equate to reality outside of programming.

Yes, Aletheia, Shankaracharya is the guy who introduced these concepts (non-dualism and monism are the same...I think). Interesting side note... the current incarnation of Shankaracharya (Jayendra Saraswathi), has been thrown in jail. He is India's top Seer/Yogi. He is said to be framed by political powers. DCJ, you are right. Christianity is not a monistic religion. But if we practiced Christianity just as tradition dictates, we'd be whooping it up at the 700 Club web site. There is a similar discussion going on at the christian mystics web forum. Some have expressed a desire to dig deep into one well (Christianity) while others found that when they dug into one well here and another there that somehow their Christian well kept getting deeper anyway. Different strokes....

It is very cool, Lolly! Apostle Paul works very hard to communicate this idea when he talks about the body of Christ. I like how he works to find a balance between our individualism and our oneness.

PantaRhea, There is either something missing from your friend Bruce's perception of reality or their is something missing from your perception of his views. What you are saying is that non-dualism leads inevitably to nihilism. Am I understanding you correctly? I argue that it does not because by definition of non-dualism: you, me, and God are one in the same. And don't morals and values apply to our relationship to our own selves as well as with others? Personally, I hold the view of qualified non-dualism which is what Jesus expresses when he said "I and the Father are one." There is an "I" and their is a "Father". This view is that we are all of God but no one of us is alone is God. Just like an individual drop of water in the ocean is ocean, but by itself it's only a drop of water.

Jen, I hope you don't mind that we've hijacked your thread for some useful discussion! It was inevitable. I've read Walsh's book and attended one of his talks. I've thought a lot about him and his message. I will try to stop short of drawing conclusions that I should not attempt to draw, but I will share my thoughts about him. I'm willing to accept the authenticity of his conversation with God. It's happened before and it will happen again. What I've discovered for myself is that it is useless to judge the authenticity of his experience based on how he has lived his life since. I'm not crazy about his admission fees and such. I'm not crazy about his theatrics, arrogance, and sexual suggestions on stage. The truth is, many of us encounter God in many remarkable and unremarkable ways, but it does not exempt us from our own human struggle. If anything, it only proves the role of God in such a conversation. Who would be surprised if such wisdom and clarity came from a remarkably wise and clear-thinking man? The miracle is that such words came through such a struggling and lost man(as he admittedly was at the time). Thanks for being willing to have this discussion TCPCers. I know that it cuts to the heart of the progressive perspective.

I'm not sure if it is even possible or credible to make this claim, but Borg's book is one of the best books I never read. My former pastor preached a sermon series on this book and I was deeply touched and stirred by the content that she presented. I was particularly interested in the notion of the paradigm shift from holiness to wholeness. It seems that holiness (which still has meaning to me) has been used since before Jesus entered the scene as a way of keeping the world separated (this is holy, this is not). I'm quite aware that it is absolutely ridiculous for me to comment on this book given that I have not read it (like high school english when I didn't read Madame Bovery!)

One more option, PantaRhea: 5.) It ultimately doesn't matter because we all have the Christ spark (Christ-self, divine-self, true self, god self, anything but ego-self) at our core. So whether Jen is channelling Jesus or calling on her own divine nature, she is still sharing Divine Truth. I ask, good fruit or not? P.S. - PantaRhea, sometimes I just want to say that "You Rock!" on this board.