The Trinity

[soma]

I think Trinity has become doctrine and repeated over and over, but I think it was intended to be used as a tool to know the mind of Christ. I think it was used to help one know how dualism exist in the non duality and harmony of God's pure consciousness.

[Realspiritik]

There is a fear of the word 'closed' and an ignoring of the word 'if'.

--

Natural Systems Theory is an interpretation of the known, established facts of natural science.

The naturalistic view is: there has not been, nor can there be, an outside influence or revelation from God. In other words: nature (universe) is a machine, all on its own with no external influences.

 

That world view of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system is closed to the concept of knowledge or influence from outside- from God.

 

If you hold this naturalist view, as many liberal theologians do, eliminating the reordering and outside knowledge from God, you would be at a dead end trying to explain the trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, atonement, or salvation. As some posts can attest.

 

If you believe God has and can reorder and impart knowledge to man, you believe in an open system.

--

We agree the universe is complex. There has been no implication of acquiring our entire understanding of its physics comes from the Biblical text.

 

"There has been no implication of acquiring our entire understanding of its physics comes from the Biblical text" . . . While I agree with this statement, I am curious to know why you have tried so hard in the past, Davidk, to convince us that the Old Testament contains advanced scientific insights into areas such as cosmology. Maybe you don't remember the arguments you made, but I do, as I'm sure others here do.

 

"If you hold this naturalist view, as many liberal theologians do, eliminating the reordering and outside knowledge from God, you would be at a dead end trying to explain the trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, atonement, or salvation" . . . Now this is a most interesting statement, Davidk. It would appear, from what you're saying on this thread about closed systems and open systems, that you are looking for what you suppose to be a logical philosophical argument to explain to us poor progressives why we are wrong and you are correct about the trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, atonement, and salvation.

 

So . . . by your reasoning, an open system is one where we, as Christians, do not begin our journey as spiritual beings by asking what Jesus said, and what Jesus taught, and what values Jesus lived by, but instead -- because we live in an open system where God is imparting knowledge to man [humankind] -- we are not Christian enough unless we accept later Church dogma on the trinity, on the nature of the incarnation, on atonement, and on salvation. If I'm correctly reading between your lines, Davidk, your explanation and justification for later Church doctrines that don't match the original teachings of Jesus is that these later Church doctrines were revealed. According to you, then, the writings of Paul, Augustine, and Anselm were revelatory in nature, and therefore must be kept, even when they have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus' teachings about love and forgiveness.

 

So in your open system, which in my humble opinion is a sieve that invites the worst possible kind of human psychopathy to pour through in the guise of divine revelation, the musings of later Church leaders take precedence over the teachings of Jesus, even when those musings lead to systemic injustices against women, against those of non-white origin, against those of different cultural backgrounds, and so on. This is not acceptable.

 

It is beyond obvious for me to say that I believe in a system where God imparts knowledge to human beings. Many Progressive Christians I have talked to in my community know that God is continually guiding us and showing us new ways of understanding our relationship with the divine. A belief in the guiding presence of Spirit an indication of one's spiritual wisdom and maturity. It is a powerful emotional and loving experience that can only be described secondarily in scientific and/or philosophical terms. It is a waste of time to fill up a page with philosophical terms if you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is -- if you are not willing to be vulnerable in the presence of God's intensely vulnerable love.

 

There are many liberals (both religious liberals and secular liberals) who hold to a closed system, just as there are many conservatives who hold equally stubbornly to the closed system that comprises the Bible. It has been my observation that when a religious conservative shifts from a closed system of belief to a truly open system, it is impossible for that person to maintain a conservative stance. He or she will inevitably "lighten up" and find joy in the wonder of ambiguity and empathy.

 

I love you, Mother and Father!

 

Jen

[davidk]

Jen,

Thank you for your comments.

 

Although I do have to say I was led on by an earlier post, which now must be considered an exaggeration.

"... I am tired -- very, very tired -- of conservatives such as you, Davidk, who try to squeeze our entire understanding of a very complex scientific universe into a tiny and very old machine called the Bible."

Then there followed an added comment making much the same accusation as the earlier one:

... I am curious to know why you have tried so hard in the past... to convince us that the Old Testament contains advanced scientific insights into areas such as cosmology.

To live at all is not possible except in the understanding that the universe is there, has a certain form, a certain order, and that man conforms to that order so he can live in it.

If we begin with an impersonal beginning (time +chance) it cannot be demonstrated how the complexity of the universe (unity & diversity), let alone the personality of man (aspirations, morals, knowledge of man's meaning, etc), exists.

In short, the infinite-personal beginning (creator God) provides those answers. If He does, it would then be reasonable that if there is an infinite-personal God, he can and will communicate with us, since we are beings that rely on communication and are created "in His image".

Obviously we recognize, God's knowledge is infinite while ours is not. Therefore, we cannot be expected to recieve infinite, exhaustive knowledge on any subject (history, spirituality, cosmos), but we can expect what is communicated to us by God to be true. That source of our basic knowledge from which to explore and discover must begin with the truth so any subsequent knowledge gained can be relied upon. (The founder's of modern science understood this.) And that basic source is the Bible. It is a reasonable concept that can be discussed. Hopefully with out further derision.

 

It would appear, from what you're saying on this thread about closed systems and open systems, that you are looking for what you suppose to be a logical philosophical argument to explain to us poor progressives why we are wrong and you are correct about the trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, atonement, and salvation.

If you hold to the naturalistic view, you would have no basis for explaining the above, because teleological conceptions are considered invalid. This is philosophically true.

Whether open or closed, neither view denies the operations of the physical world. They differ by accepting (open) or denying (closed) the revelation and reordering by God.

Explaining these differences in philosophies is merely a clinical view. You simply have to decide on your view, based upon the premise that things do exist, and exist in their present form and complexity.

 

So . . . If I'm correctly reading between your lines, ...

Not only is your reading "between the lines" incorrect, your reading the lines themselves is highly suspect.

 

It is beyond obvious for me to say that I believe in a system where God imparts knowledge to human beings. Many Progressive Christians I have talked to in my community know that God is continually guiding us and showing us new ways of understanding our relationship with the divine. A belief in the guiding presence of Spirit an indication of one's spiritual wisdom and maturity. It is a powerful emotional and loving experience that can only be described secondarily in scientific and/or philosophical terms. It is a waste of time to fill up a page with philosophical terms if you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is -- if you are not willing to be vulnerable in the presence of God's intensely vulnerable love.

How do you have the audacity to say you believe in what you previously claimed "invites the worst possible kind of human psychopathy to pour through in the guise of divine guidance"? The problem may be one of inconsistency in your position.

 

There are many liberals (both religious liberals and secular liberals) who hold to a closed system, just as there are many conservatives who hold equally stubbornly to the closed system that comprises the Bible. It has been my observation that when a religious conservative shifts from a closed system of belief to a truly open system, it is impossible for that person to maintain a conservative stance. He or she will inevitably "lighten up" and find joy in the wonder of ambiguity and empathy.

There is a strict avoidance of considering the Bible as the written revelatory communication of God to man, while relying on self-centered, ambiguous, human emotions.

 

There is an unambiguous joy in the Lord.

[minsocal]

davidk,

 

You overstate the relationship between science and the Bible. Galieo found it necessary to reinterpret the Bible based on his findings and Descartes found it necessary to reject miracles.

 

minsocal

[davidk]

davidk,

 

You overstate the relationship between science and the Bible. Galieo found it necessary to reinterpret the Bible based on his findings and Descartes found it necessary to reject miracles.

 

minsocal

minsocal,

 

I cannot overstate the impact of the Bible.

--

This has apparently been something you have forgotten. For if you may recall I have shared the philosophic positions of Whitehead and Oppenheimer saying, modern science could not have been born except in the milieu of Chistianity. Why, you ask? Because in the area of Biblical Christianity, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon all the way up to Newton and Faraday, men understood that there was a universe there because God had made it. And they believed, as Whitehead has so beautifully said, because God was a reasonable God one could discover the truth of the universe by reason. Again, this came, as Whitehead said, out of the fact these men really were sure that the truth of the universe could be pursued in reason because it was made by a reasonable God. (note: I did not say W, nor O, was Christian.)

--

Galileo defended Scripture passages and claimed they were not contrary to his... heliocentrism, for example. This defense was one of the reasons he was in such hot water with the Catholics and the Jesuits who argued in direct oppostion.

Descartes believed God is benevolent. He had faith in the reality his senses provided him, because God has provided a mind and a sensory system and does not desire to deceive. From this presupposition, Descartes establishes the possibility of acquiring knowledge of the world based on reason.

--

 

Enough of this. It is distracting from the topic that no one of a progressive/liberal ideolgy can defend, the Trinity.

[JosephM]

minsocal,

 

(snip)

Enough of this. It is distracting from the topic that no one of a progressive/liberal ideolgy can defend, the Trinity.

 

David,

 

There is nothing to defend.

 

Love,

Joseph

[October's Autumn]

David,

 

There is nothing to defend.

 

Love,

Joseph

 

Joseph,

 

I love reading your responses and take on various things. You have a way of speaking that really hits the nail on the head.

[Realspiritik]

QUOTE(canajan, eh? @ Jul 17 2008, 08:07 AM)

It is beyond obvious for me to say that I believe in a system where God imparts knowledge to human beings. Many Progressive Christians I have talked to in my community know that God is continually guiding us and showing us new ways of understanding our relationship with the divine. A belief in the guiding presence of Spirit an indication of one's spiritual wisdom and maturity. It is a powerful emotional and loving experience that can only be described secondarily in scientific and/or philosophical terms. It is a waste of time to fill up a page with philosophical terms if you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is -- if you are not willing to be vulnerable in the presence of God's intensely vulnerable love.

 

How do you have the audacity to say you believe in what you previously claimed "invites the worst possible kind of human psychopathy to pour through in the guise of divine guidance"? The problem may be one of inconsistency in your position.

 

There is a strict avoidance of considering the Bible as the written revelatory communication of God to man, while relying on self-centered, ambiguous, human emotions.

 

There is no inconsistency in my position, Davidk. My position does not fit neatly into your black-and-white categories of understanding. Therefore, you conclude that I am inconsistent.

 

I will say, and continue to say, that the worst possible kind of human psychopathy pours through in the guise of divine guidance. This is a fact. Jim Jones, mastermind of the horrific Jonestown massacre, is but one recent example of a human being afflicted with severe mental dysfunction who engineered the "martyrdom" of over 900 people because he said -- and others believed -- that he was a prophet.

 

So get a life, Davidk. There have been more false prophets -- psychopaths who use "divine revelation" as a ticket to power -- than there have been true prophets. But the fact that false prophets have existed (and will continue to exist until we get things right) doesn't alter the reality that true prophets have also existed. Just because I try to hammer home to others that it's dangerous to allow psychopaths to masquerade as prophets does not mean that I have abandoned belief in a world where divine revelation exists.

 

Let me be clear. I think Jesus was a true prophet. I think Paul, Augustine, and Anselm were false prophets. Can I be more clear? I think Jesus's teachings about love, forgiveness, empathy, inclusiveness, and the present "kingdom of the heavens" were true teachings that were divinely guided. I think the teachings from Paul, Augustine, and Anselm about sin, eschatology, salvation, and atonement theory were false teachings that were not divinely guided, and have done very little to help us forge the world of love, forgiveness, empathy, inclusiveness, and present joy that Jesus envisioned.

 

My position, in case you didn't get it the first few dozen times I said it, is that we live in a complex quantum universe, where God does intervene, and angels do communicate with incarnate beings, and miracles do take place, but all within the context of scientific laws and principles that we are only barely beginning to grasp. In particular, the emerging laws of neurophysiology as they pertain to the interrelationship between our soul and our physical biology must be studied and understood using rigorous scientific principles so that we can begin to correctly recognize Jim-Jones-type-"prophets" and refuse to become enablers of their psychopathology.

 

Davidk, you continue to see ambiguity and nuance as a "negative." You think we Progressives don't see anything of value in the Bible, but this isn't true -- we are trying our hardest to sort out the teachings that come from false prophets (for example, scriptural justification for slavery and discrimination against women and smiting one's enemies) and to identify, understand, and embrace the teachings that come from true prophets. We are seeking the word of God that appears in parts -- but only parts -- of the Bible. At the same time, we are refusing to accept as "biblical truth" the false teachings that take us further away from our ability to have loving, trusting relationships with God and each other.

 

Jen

[Realspiritik]

Jen,

Thank you for your comments.

 

Although I do have to say I was led on by an earlier post, which now must be considered an exaggeration.

 

There you go again, blaming other people because you can't control your own thoughts and feelings. If you now regret what you previously said, and wish to change your position, then have the courage to say so in a forthright manner. We will respect you if you find the courage to say that you have done some reflecting on your previous position, and now see that you spoke up before you had fully reflected on the matter. We will not be able to offer you respect if you continue to blame other people for your own lack of patience and courage.

 

Jen

[Realspiritik]

QUOTE(canajan, eh? @ Jul 17 2008, 08:07 AM)

So . . . If I'm correctly reading between your lines, ...

Not only is your reading "between the lines" incorrect, your reading the lines themselves is highly suspect.

 

So . . . now I'm not allowed to read your lines? Or maybe you misread my statement, and you're trying to say I'm not allowed to read and interpret the Bible's lines? Or maybe you don't use the idiom "to read between the lines" in the same way I do (I use this phrase to mean that I am trying to infer what you were indirectly implying)? Or maybe you're saying I misinterpreted what you were trying to say? What do you mean?

 

Jen

[Realspiritik]

minsocal,

 

This has apparently been something you have forgotten. For if you may recall I have shared the philosophic positions of Whitehead and Oppenheimer saying, modern science could not have been born except in the milieu of Chistianity. Why, you ask? Because in the area of Biblical Christianity, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon all the way up to Newton and Faraday, men understood that there was a universe there because God had made it.

 

Hey, and for all you scientific history buffs out there, don't forget that Newton was an occultist! He believed in all kinds of weird ###### about the occult arts that I, as a Christian mystic and a modern scientist, wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.

 

I do rather like calculus, though. It's a pretty nifty math.

 

And hey, Davidk, I like that incredibly broad, sweeping, black-and-white statement you made about modern science requiring the milieu of Christianity in order to be born. Nice of you to mention the contribution of Muslim scholars from the Middle Ages. And nice of you to be so honest and up-front about the 1755 Lisbon earthquake that rattled a lot more than the buildings in Portugal. It shook up the minds of scientists, theologians, and philosophers all over Europe, and helped spur Enlightenment thought.

 

Jen

[davidk]

David,

 

There is nothing to defend.

 

Love,

Joseph

Joseph,

you demonstrate precisely my point, it is unthinkable in progressive/liberal ideolgy.

Love, Dk

[Realspiritik]

minsocal,

 

I cannot overstate the impact of the Bible.

 

Enough of this. It is distracting from the topic that no one of a progressive/liberal ideolgy can defend, the Trinity.

 

Okay . . . so the impact of the Bible can't be overstated. And, in another quote above from Davidk:

That source of our basic knowledge from which to explore and discover must begin with the truth so any subsequent knowledge gained can be relied upon. (The founder's of modern science understood this.) And that basic source is the Bible.

Okay, so the Bible is, like, Number #1. But wait! The christological construct of the Trinity isn't in the Bible. It was developed by later church thinkers. But since those later church thinkers didn't write the Bible (although, of course, they did edit the Bible), those later church thinkers must have received divine inspiration in the form of divine revelations about the Trinity (Davidk's open system). So the Trinity as dictated by the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan and Chalcedon Creeds is, like, not biblical, but is Number #2 (or maybe Number #1) anyway. And so the authority of later church leaders has to be respected and fully adhered to (even though these later church leaders were almost all male and all in positions of great political authority, so yeah, I really believe they were only thinking of God's word and not their own power when they wrote those creeds). And Progressives who go back and look at what the Bible actually said about the Trinity are completely wrong, although the Bible is Number #1, except not in those cases where the Bible does not agree with Church leaders and theologians on the topic of the Trinity, in which case the Bible is wrong and the Church leaders (and Davidk) are right.

 

The paragraph I just wrote doesn't make any sense to me, but it is my precis of Davidk has been saying here.

[JosephM]

Joseph,

you demonstrate precisely my point, it is unthinkable in progressive/liberal ideolgy.

Love, Dk

David,

 

Obviously, it seems to me that you still don't understand. Truth needs no defence. You seem to be so bound to the Bible and your interpretation of it, as if it is Truth that you must constantly defend it. And the irony is that it only at best points to Truth which is elsewhere.

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

There you go again, blaming other people because you can't control your own thoughts and feelings. If you now regret what you previously said, and wish to change your position, then have the courage to say so in a forthright manner. We will respect you if you find the courage to say that you have done some reflecting on your previous position, and now see that you spoke up before you had fully reflected on the matter. We will not be able to offer you respect if you continue to blame other people for your own lack of patience and courage.

 

Jen

Jen,

Perhaps you can help straighten out what still appears to be a conflict.

The open system allows for revelational truths from God. You believe in "divine guidance". Could you please explain the differences and how by your own analysis do you determine who is being led properly and who are not? Those that are not Jim Jones, please.

-

I do not say the progressive position on the Bible never claimed whether or not you found "anything of value" from it, but that the P position does not believe it to be the propositional revelation from God. In other words, the Bible has value but is not "The Word of God".

-

As far as science goes, was it your intention to say God's intervention is restrained by the physical world? If you don't mind, one more. How can an 'event' be considered a miracle if it too must only happen in "the context of scientific laws and principles"?

-

To extrapolate or summarize a position I may take on topics not addressed is too broad of an assumption to be reasonably made. However you may continue to criticize my position, the rant @ 10:07 only served to confirm my claim of P ideaolgy being unable to defend any position confirming a truine Godhead. You have not taken this question any further than my post #13 on June 7:

"Dear McKenna,

So by now I hope you have read enough on the Trinity to realize "Progressive" Christianity has no doctrine sustaining it; and for progressives adopting anything orthodox is incomprehensible."

[JosephM]

It seems to me that the mind constantly tries to box things in by subjective labels such as conservative or liberal, open or closed system, etc etc. This to me seems to create conflicts because the label assumes much about the subject that may or may not be true. Why do we have such a need to catagorize and label everything?

 

 

Is there a need to deturmine who is being led properly and who is not? Isn't our own walk and conflicts demanding enough? As far as recognizing a Jim Jones, no analysis is necessary. If you 'ask the father for bread, God will not give you a stone'. The Spirit leads and guides whomever trusts in God with all their heart. And if one falls, will not that one be picked up by God who is the author and finisher of that which was started? Do we choose to be led by the Spirit or by the Flesh? Just some thoughts to consider.

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

Dear Josepph,

I understand you will not defend the Trinity. You have not because you consider it unthinkable for it to be the truth.

What else is there to understand? What are you saying in contradiction to this that I do not understand?

 

The same holds true for The Bible, original sin, Jesus=Christ, Atonement, and Salvation. These doctrines cannot be argued for as true in P dogma, they have no value in the P lexicon. Just ask canajan, eh?

-

I appreciate your answering what I posited to Jen. But, I would really prefer her answer to them. She needs no assistance. Maybe she would answer yours in the process?

 

God's Grace to you,

Dk

[JosephM]

Dear Josepph,

I understand you will not defend the Trinity. You have not because you consider it unthinkable for it to be the truth.

What else is there to understand? What are you saying in contradiction to this that I do not understand?

 

David,

 

Actually, you read in too much. I consider the truth to be self-evident when falsehood is removed. Threfore truth requires no defense because no defence is possible. I do not consider it 'unthinkable' for the Trinity it to be the truth. Whatever I think is always subject to error and defense. Truth is neither subject to thought or defense. Therefore your understanding of what was said is not what was meant.

 

The same holds true for The Bible, original sin, Jesus=Christ, Atonement, and Salvation. These doctrines cannot be argued for as true in P dogma, they have no value in the P lexicon. Just ask canajan, eh?

Truth requires no defence but it seems to me that the Bible and those doctrines of men you mention requires much by apologetics such as yourself. One of the most notable reasoners in our history, Thomas Paine who was a popular figure of the American revolution with his writings including 'Common Sense' wrote a book called 'The Age of Reason' exposing literally hundreds of falsehoods and contradictions of the Bible by the concept of reason, free thought and common sense. These things you mention are doctrines and thoughts of men and many falsehoods are contained therein that can be argued because they are neither self-evident or Truth.

 

 

I appreciate your answering what I posited to Jen. But, I would really prefer her answer to them. She needs no assistance. Maybe she would answer yours in the process?

 

God's Grace to you,

Dk

 

Yes, she is free to answer the post but since this is a dialog and debate section open to all I felt no constraint to not share my thoughts also on the post and I did not address it only to you as you can see your name was intentionally left off at the top on both the original and edited for spelling post.

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

Joseph,

With all due respect, if you are claiming truth to be self-evident, that is a defense in itself. You follow up necessarily thinking the Trinity could be true with saying the truth is not subject to thought (another defense).

-

Truth is always under attack. Gary (thegreatwhitebuffalo) can certainly testify truth needing a defense, and you have argued against truth needing a defense by providing one.

-

Your statement, "I do not consider it 'unthinkable' for the Trinity it to be the truth.", translates in the affirmative, saying, "I do consider it "thinkable" for the Trinity to be the Truth." Either way, it does not seem to be verifiable by way of your affirming statement that these doctrines are neither self-evident or Truth and thought disqualifies it anyway.

-

You have answered the main question by saying it (the Trinity) is merely an outdated theological concept that has no meaning for people today because it cannot be held up to your standard of Truth. My point.

-

Again, I appreciate your earlier response on my post to Jen. You did post some questions pertaining to hers that I would be interested in reading her response to.

 

God's Grace to you,

Dk

[JosephM]

Joseph,

With all due respect, if you are claiming truth to be self-evident, that is a defense in itself. You follow up necessarily thinking the Trinity could be true with saying the truth is not subject to thought (another defense).

 

If you see it that way .OK Yet I need not defend it . Truth needs no defense, it simply IS.

-

Truth is always under attack. Gary (thegreatwhitebuffalo) can certainly testify truth needing a defense, and you have argued against truth needing a defense by providing one.

Mens thoughts and ideas are under attack but Truth like God can't be attacked. Obviously you do not understand the word Truth as used by Jesus.

Truth doesn't need me to defend it and I was not aware I was defending it. I was merely sharing.

-

Your statement, "I do not consider it 'unthinkable' for the Trinity it to be the truth.", translates in the affirmative, saying, "I do consider it "thinkable" for the Trinity to be the Truth." Either way, it does not seem to be verifiable by way of your affirming statement that these doctrines are neither self-evident or Truth and thought disqualifies it anyway.

-

 

I said what I said, you just did not understand and read into it. Perhaps you think too much. Of course it is 'thinkable' therefor not unthinkable but that does not say I accept or reject it.

 

You have answered the main question by saying it (the Trinity) is merely an outdated theological concept that has no meaning for people today because it cannot be held up to your standard of Truth. My point.

-

Again, I appreciate your earlier response on my post to Jen. You did post some questions pertaining to hers that I would be interested in reading her response to.

 

God's Grace to you,

Dk

 

Sorry but again it seems to me you draw conclusions where there are none. Of course the Trinity has meaning for people today. I never said otherwise. That neither says it is true or not. For me it serves no purpose. I do not speak for the 'other'.

 

Love Joseph

[minsocal]

davidk,

 

You say that science grew out of "a milleu" ...

 

milieu

 

Main Entry: mi·lieu

 

Function: noun

 

Etymology: French, from Old French, midst, from miles middle (from Latin medius) + lieu place, from Latin locus — more at mid, stall

 

Date: 1854

 

: the physical or social setting in which something occurs or develops :environment

 

synonyms see background

 

minsocal

[Realspiritik]

Jen,

Perhaps you can help straighten out what still appears to be a conflict.

1. The open system allows for revelational truths from God. You believe in "divine guidance". Could you please explain the differences and 2. how by your own analysis do you determine who is being led properly and who are not? Those that are not Jim Jones, please.

-

3. I do not say the progressive position on the Bible never claimed whether or not you found "anything of value" from it, but that the P position does not believe it to be the propositional revelation from God. In other words, the Bible has value but is not "The Word of God".

-

4. As far as science goes, was it your intention to say God's intervention is restrained by the physical world? If you don't mind, one more. 5. How can an 'event' be considered a miracle if it too must only happen in "the context of scientific laws and principles"?

-

To extrapolate or summarize a position I may take on topics not addressed is too broad of an assumption to be reasonably made. However you may continue to criticize my position, the rant @ 10:07 only served to confirm my claim of P ideaolgy being unable to defend any position confirming a truine Godhead. You have not taken this question any further than my post #13 on June 7:

"Dear McKenna,

So by now I hope you have read enough on the Trinity to realize "Progressive" Christianity has no doctrine sustaining it; and for progressives adopting anything orthodox is incomprehensible."

 

Good morning, Davidk. I will try to answer the questions you posed, and for clarity's sake I have added numbers to the questions you posed.

 

1. To be clear, I believe in divine guidance. Also to be clear, I agree with JosephM about the cost to us when we, as human beings, attempt to put black-on-white labels on the complex issues we are discussing here. I do not personally use the label or even the concept of "open system" except in my discussions with you. "Open system" versus "closed system" is a mental construct you have chosen to use, Davidk, to help you refine your discussions. I am not obliged to use or defend your terminology.

 

I stated clearly in Post #58 that I believe we live in a complex quantum universe. This is neither a "closed system" by your definition, nor an "open system" by your definition. The quantum universe that I live in is the same quantum universe that leading scientists are pursuing in their studies. It is the post-Newtonian, post-Einsteinian universe that is informed by the 1982 results of Alaine Aspect et al's experimental support for Bell's Interconnectness Theorem. It is the quantum universe where non-local effects ("spooky action at a distance," as Einstein disdainfully called it) are part of the scientific reality. The universe is as the universe is. To put it another way, God's universe is the Truth that JosephM describes. God's universe is beautiful to me, and the fact that I understand only the barest portion of it at a scientific level means that I have lots more scientific questions to pursue in parallel to (not in opposition to) my questions about love and mystery and miracles.

 

"2. how by your own analysis do you determine who is being led properly and who are not? Those that are not Jim Jones, please."

 

Your desire to exclude the "Jim Jones" of this world from the discussion about who is being "led properly" is naive and inconsistent with the scientific facts about mental illness. There are and always have been many "Jim Jones" figures who have been tragically afflicted with major mental illness -- DSM-IV diagnoses such as schizophrenia, psychotic depression, uncontrolled manic episodes in bipolar disorder, along with Axis II issues of severe narcissism (a.k.a. grandiosity and delusions of power and specialness), and issues of substance abuse that can exacerbate the previously mentioned mental illnesses., not to mention full-blown psychopathy. These illnesses can be accompanied by hallucinations, delusions, atypical religiosity, and paranoia. It has not been uncommon in history for individuals suffering from these painful mental illnesses to claim they have been chosen by God to deliver God's people from suffering, or to herald the End Times. It is irresponsible and disingenuous to pretend that mental illnesses are separate from and unrelated to religious issues. A theologian who presumes to look at the issue of "revelatory messages" while failing to factor in the realities of psychotic delusions is IRRESPONSIBLE.

 

I agree with JosephM when he says, "And if one falls, will not that one be picked up by God who is the author and finisher of that which was started?" God is always there beside the mentally ill individual, since God is beside all God's children. JosephM also says, "If you 'ask the father for bread, God will not give you a stone'." I'm not quite sure what JosephM means here, but I understand this biblical statement to mean, "If you ask the father for bread, God might give you Zyprexa/olanzapine along with the bread to help your brain heal its psychosis."

 

I believe that God watches over every creature on Planet Earth, not just homo sapiens, but all life. I believe that God the Mother and God the Father, along with God's children (the non-corporeal beings I call souls or angels) are always guiding us, always helping us, always answering our questions. Therefore, Davidk, I do not agree with the position implicit in your statement that some people are "being led properly and [some] are not." The way you have worded this position makes it sound (at least to me) as if people can be divided into two camps: those whom Spirit leads properly and those whom Spirit deigns not to lead properly. This makes it sound as if Spirit is selecting a chosen few to be leaders. As you may recall from past discussions between you and me, I do not believe at all in the idea of "chosenness" in our relationship with God. I do not believe that some groups or individuals or races are "chosen." I am certain that many groups and individuals and races believe they are chosen by God, believe they have been singled out to receive special deals and special covenants, but that is an issue related to narcissism, not spirituality.

 

God has no favourites. God loves all their children equally. God leads all their children equally.

 

But not all their children listen equally.

 

Some of God's children here on Earth prefer not to pay any attention to the divine guidance and messages they continually receive from God. There is no absence of guidance. There is no "void" in the relationship when it comes to God's presence and participation in your life. If there is a void, or a sense on the part of a human being that God is not there, the problem isn't God's lack of presence. The problem is the individual human being's refusal to accept the reality and intensity of God's loving hand.

 

In other words, I believe that all people are properly led. Our God is so loving and so amazing that it is impossible for our God to not lead us at all times and in all ways.

 

If you want to discuss the details of where we're being led and why, Davidk, then we're back to questions about atonement and salvation. I believe that "God don't make no junk," and that our souls are created in a state of perfection that cannot be erased, even when we behave like the biggest jackasses in history during our time of human incarnation. I think God is so amazing and so courageous and so brilliant that God could not possibly create a soul in a state of "original sin." I think that the problems we create for ourselves on Planet Earth stem from the way in which we choose to wire our biological brains. We intentionally set about to teach children to hate others (as opposed to loving others), to compete with others aggressively and narcissistically (as opposed to sharing our strengths with others), to treat status as the true meaning of "success" (as opposed to humble service and commitment within a loving community). We force our brains to be wired to these settings, and then we wonder why we can't hear the voice of God whispering to us right now!

 

3. 'The P position does not believe it to be the propositional revelation from God. In other words, the Bible has value but is not "The Word of God".'

 

This statement accurately reflects my personal position. I believe the Bible has value, but is not the only source of revelation from God. I look for God in all aspects and dimensions of life. I look for revelation in the beauty of a baby's grin. I look for revelation in the scent and velvety splendour of a bearded iris. I look for revelation in my dreams (most of my dreams are biological housekeeping dreams, but every once in a while I get a dream that has a message for me . . . if I can just figure the darned thing out!). I look for revelation in the hearts of the people I meet in my everyday life.

 

So no . . . when compared to all these marvelous wonders, one book just doesn't cut it.

 

4. "As far as science goes, was it your intention to say God's intervention is restrained by the physical world?"

 

No, this was not my intention. God the Mother and God the Father ARE the physical world. They are intimately entwined in the implicate order (the quantum universe). As Popeye might say, 'Thems that makes the "rules" can breaks the "rules."'

 

5. How can an 'event' be considered a miracle if it too must only happen in "the context of scientific laws and principles"?

 

Well, now, Davidk, I can tell by your question that you have not personally experienced what it feels like when a miracle is taking place around you. (If you have experienced a miracle, then I do not understand the combative nature of your question, in which you try to create a false dichotomy between miracles and science.)

 

A miracle, Davidk, is not an event that appears to contravene conventionally understood scientific laws and principles. By that definition, today's newest scientific finding is always yesterday's miracle.

 

A miracle is an intense emotional experience of God being right there with you. A miracle may or may not be accompanied by an unusual "event," such as a bullet that doesn't kill you when by all rights it should have. A miracle feels like -- are you ready for this? -- redemption. A miracle is a moment of intense emotional humbleness. It's the moment when you finally "get it." It's the moment when you realize you've been behaving like a complete shithead in your life, and God loves you anyway. I mean, God really . . . really . . . REALLY loves you and forgives you. It's the moment when you realize you are one of God's Original Blessings, and you're so overcome by humbleness and gratitude and TRUST in God that you simply must change your human choices. You simply must live up to your own potential to love and forgive others. God has given you a wondrous gift of love and forgiveness, and you just know deep in your heart and soul that you MUST "pay it forward."

 

It feels like grace. It is not the kind of grace that the apostle Paul talks about -- the kind that plops onto your head like an egg dropped there by the Holy Spirit. The miracle of a miracle is the deep bond of love and trust that is unquenchably forged between your heart and God's heart. It's hard to put into words, but you'll know it when you feel it. You cannot acquire a miracle, or pray your way into a miracle. The only way to feel this miraculous state of redemption is to listen to what God is whispering to you about Divine Love and Forgiveness.

 

I am sorry if you have not felt this kind of bond in your relationship with God, Davidk. You attack others on this site because we are suggesting an integrated, balanced, holistic way of understanding what God is saying to us. You continue to compartmentalize the spiritual experience, to try to break it down into small little categories and labels. You are projecting onto us the fears you have about your own relationship with God. Part of you -- your true inner self, your soul, your heart, your best self -- knows there is a void in your relationship with God. You claim to feel the divine love, but your words and your actions speak to the fear you feel -- the fear that has been instilled in your mind by the conservative teachings you so vigorously attempt to uphold, the fear that you are not worthy of God's love.

 

You know, you may be surprised to hear this, Davidk, but I once held conservative views, both politically and religiously. I used to believe that crap in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer that goes, "We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table."

 

If you're waiting for us to persuade you that you really are loved by God, then go ahead -- make God's day. Accept their love. Accept their forgiveness. Allow yourself to accept that Jesus was correct about the divine message of loving your God and loving your neighbour. It'll hurt when you open your heart (I won't deny it hurts when you start to feel the love), but God will help you through the pain if you really want the help.

 

I know because I've been there.

 

Love Jen

[davidk]

Good morning, Davidk. I will try to answer the questions you posed, and for clarity's sake I have added numbers to the questions you posed.

1. To be clear, I believe in divine guidance. Also to be clear, I agree with JosephM about the cost to us when we, as human beings, attempt to put black-on-white labels on the complex issues we are discussing here. I do not personally use the label or even the concept of "open system" except in my discussions with you. "Open system" versus "closed system" is a mental construct you have chosen to use, Davidk, to help you refine your discussions. I am not obliged to use or defend your terminology.

I stated clearly in Post #58 that I believe we live in a complex quantum universe. This is neither a "closed system" by your definition, nor an "open system" by your definition. The quantum universe that I live in is the same quantum universe that leading scientists are pursuing in their studies. It is the post-Newtonian, post-Einsteinian universe that is informed by the 1982 results of Alaine Aspect et al's experimental support for Bell's Interconnectness Theorem. It is the quantum universe where non-local effects ("spooky action at a distance," as Einstein disdainfully called it) are part of the scientific reality. The universe is as the universe is. To put it another way, God's universe is the Truth that JosephM describes. God's universe is beautiful to me, and the fact that I understand only the barest portion of it at a scientific level means that I have lots more scientific questions to pursue in parallel to (not in opposition to) my questions about love and mystery and miracles.

Einsteins' humor was part of his brilliance.

To again try to put this open/closed discussion back into the context I had it, I must revise slightly and extend my remarks as follows: Is it possible to have intellectual integrity while holding to the position of verbalized, propositional revelation? I would say, not if you hold the presupposition of the uniformity of natural causes(the Universe) in a closed(non-revelatory) system. Because if you do, any idea of real propositional revelation becomes nonsense. Now if your presupposition is in the uniformity of natural causes in an open system, then you can reasonably consider verbalized, propositional revelation, because the idea would not become nonsense.

 

"2. how by your own analysis do you determine who is being led properly and who are not? Those that are not Jim Jones, please."

Your desire to exclude the "Jim Jones" of this world from the discussion about who is being "led properly" is naive and inconsistent with the scientific facts about mental illness. There are and always have been many "Jim Jones" figures who have been tragically afflicted with major mental illness -- DSM-IV diagnoses such as schizophrenia, psychotic depression, uncontrolled manic episodes in bipolar disorder, along with Axis II issues of severe narcissism (a.k.a. grandiosity and delusions of power and specialness), and issues of substance abuse that can exacerbate the previously mentioned mental illnesses., not to mention full-blown psychopathy. These illnesses can be accompanied by hallucinations, delusions, atypical religiosity, and paranoia. It has not been uncommon in history for individuals suffering from these painful mental illnesses to claim they have been chosen by God to deliver God's people from suffering, or to herald the End Times. It is irresponsible and disingenuous to pretend that mental illnesses are separate from and unrelated to religious issues. A theologian who presumes to look at the issue of "revelatory messages" while failing to factor in the realities of psychotic delusions is IRRESPONSIBLE.

I agree with JosephM when he says, "And if one falls, will not that one be picked up by God who is the author and finisher of that which was started?" God is always there beside the mentally ill individual, since God is beside all God's children. JosephM also says, "If you 'ask the father for bread, God will not give you a stone'." I'm not quite sure what JosephM means here, but I understand this biblical statement to mean, "If you ask the father for bread, God might give you Zyprexa/olanzapine along with the bread to help your brain heal its psychosis."

I believe that God watches over every creature on Planet Earth, not just homo sapiens, but all life. I believe that God the Mother and God the Father, along with God's children (the non-corporeal beings I call souls or angels) are always guiding us, always helping us, always answering our questions. Therefore, Davidk, I do not agree with the position implicit in your statement that some people are "being led properly and [some] are not." The way you have worded this position makes it sound (at least to me) as if people can be divided into two camps: those whom Spirit leads properly and those whom Spirit deigns not to lead properly. This makes it sound as if Spirit is selecting a chosen few to be leaders. As you may recall from past discussions between you and me, I do not believe at all in the idea of "chosenness" in our relationship with God. I do not believe that some groups or individuals or races are "chosen." I am certain that many groups and individuals and races believe they are chosen by God, believe they have been singled out to receive special deals and special covenants, but that is an issue related to narcissism, not spirituality.

God has no favourites. God loves all their children equally. God leads all their children equally.

But not all their children listen equally.

Some of God's children here on Earth prefer not to pay any attention to the divine guidance and messages they continually receive from God. There is no absence of guidance. There is no "void" in the relationship when it comes to God's presence and participation in your life. If there is a void, or a sense on the part of a human being that God is not there, the problem isn't God's lack of presence. The problem is the individual human being's refusal to accept the reality and intensity of God's loving hand.

In other words, I believe that all people are properly led. Our God is so loving and so amazing that it is impossible for our God to not lead us at all times and in all ways.

If you want to discuss the details of where we're being led and why, Davidk, then we're back to questions about atonement and salvation. I believe that "God don't make no junk," and that our souls are created in a state of perfection that cannot be erased, even when we behave like the biggest jackasses in history during our time of human incarnation. I think God is so amazing and so courageous and so brilliant that God could not possibly create a soul in a state of "original sin." I think that the problems we create for ourselves on Planet Earth stem from the way in which we choose to wire our biological brains. We intentionally set about to teach children to hate others (as opposed to loving others), to compete with others aggressively and narcissistically (as opposed to sharing our strengths with others), to treat status as the true meaning of "success" (as opposed to humble service and commitment within a loving community). We force our brains to be wired to these settings, and then we wonder why we can't hear the voice of God whispering to us right now!

Jim Jones would have been too obvious an example and I was fishing for less conspicuous examples to make the answer a bit more meaningful. But that's OK.

The question was simply to ask about what appeared to be some criticism of some people who may have acted improperly when collecting the Canon or making the later interpretations for the church, and how would you be able to know which ones were properly led .

It took until the very end of your above post to get around to it. So, thank you.

In other words, I believe that all people are properly led. Our God is so loving and so amazing that it is impossible for our God to not lead us at all times and in all ways.- canajan, eh?

 

3. 'The P position does not believe it to be the propositional revelation from God. In other words, the Bible has value but is not "The Word of God".'

This statement accurately reflects my personal position. I believe the Bible has value, but is not the only source of revelation from God. I look for God in all aspects and dimensions of life. I look for revelation in the beauty of a baby's grin. I look for revelation in the scent and velvety splendour of a bearded iris. I look for revelation in my dreams (most of my dreams are biological housekeeping dreams, but every once in a while I get a dream that has a message for me . . . if I can just figure the darned thing out!). I look for revelation in the hearts of the people I meet in my everyday life.

So no . . . when compared to all these marvelous wonders, one book just doesn't cut it.

I too believe God's revelation comes to us through His creation, we are left with no excuse of His existence. That is one of my points that JosephM has a lot of difficulty with. I don't recall ever claiming the Bible as the only revelatory source. But I do submit to you that it is the only propositional revelation of God. This is consistent with your concept of an infinite God that can reveal His truth to us in all manner of communication.I believe in a system where God imparts knowledge to human beings.- canajan, eh?

 

4. "As far as science goes, was it your intention to say God's intervention is restrained by the physical world?"

No, this was not my intention. God the Mother and God the Father ARE the physical world. They are intimately entwined in the implicate order (the quantum universe). As Popeye might say, 'Thems that makes the "rules" can breaks the "rules."'

Well, I'm glad that was not your intention.

5. How can an 'event' be considered a miracle if it too must only happen in "the context of scientific laws and principles"?

Well, now, Davidk, I can tell by your question that you have not personally experienced what it feels like when a miracle is taking place around you. (If you have experienced a miracle, then I do not understand the combative nature of your question, in which you try to create a false dichotomy between miracles and science.)

A miracle, Davidk, is not an event that appears to contravene conventionally understood scientific laws and principles. By that definition, today's newest scientific finding is always yesterday's miracle.

A miracle is an intense emotional experience of God being right there with you. A miracle may or may not be accompanied by an unusual "event," such as a bullet that doesn't kill you when by all rights it should have. A miracle feels like -- are you ready for this? -- redemption. A miracle is a moment of intense emotional humbleness. It's the moment when you finally "get it." It's the moment when you realize you've been behaving like a complete shithead in your life, and God loves you anyway. I mean, God really . . . really . . . REALLY loves you and forgives you. It's the moment when you realize you are one of God's Original Blessings, and you're so overcome by humbleness and gratitude and TRUST in God that you simply must change your human choices. You simply must live up to your own potential to love and forgive others. God has given you a wondrous gift of love and forgiveness, and you just know deep in your heart and soul that you MUST "pay it forward."

It feels like grace. It is not the kind of grace that the apostle Paul talks about -- the kind that plops onto your head like an egg dropped there by the Holy Spirit. The miracle of a miracle is the deep bond of love and trust that is unquenchably forged between your heart and God's heart. It's hard to put into words, but you'll know it when you feel it. You cannot acquire a miracle, or pray your way into a miracle. The only way to feel this miraculous state of redemption is to listen to what God is whispering to you about Divine Love and Forgiveness.

I am sorry if you have not felt this kind of bond in your relationship with God, Davidk. You attack others on this site because we are suggesting an integrated, balanced, holistic way of understanding what God is saying to us. You continue to compartmentalize the spiritual experience, to try to break it down into small little categories and labels. You are projecting onto us the fears you have about your own relationship with God. Part of you -- your true inner self, your soul, your heart, your best self -- knows there is a void in your relationship with God. You claim to feel the divine love, but your words and your actions speak to the fear you feel -- the fear that has been instilled in your mind by the conservative teachings you so vigorously attempt to uphold, the fear that you are not worthy of God's love.

You know, you may be surprised to hear this, Davidk, but I once held conservative views, both politically and religiously. I used to believe that crap in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer that goes, "We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table."

If you're waiting for us to persuade you that you really are loved by God, then go ahead -- make God's day. Accept their love. Accept their forgiveness. Allow yourself to accept that Jesus was correct about the divine message of loving your God and loving your neighbour. It'll hurt when you open your heart (I won't deny it hurts when you start to feel the love), but God will help you through the pain if you really want the help.

I know because I've been there.

Love Jen

The question was not in the least combative. I have no idea how you may have taken it that way.

 

And as far as the arguement of my creating a false dichotomy is concerned, I would merely defend that by saying I did not create a false dichotomy.

I had used an earlier comment by you to ask, how can you call them miracles, if "miracles do take place, but all within the context of scientific laws and principles"?

Excuse me if still don't understand. I'll try to ask it in a less"combative" way;

What the hell are you talking about?

Just kidding.

Truthfully though, are we tied up over the word event or what is a miracle? If its 'miracles', are they only within the context of scientific laws and principles or do they defy the laws? If it's over the word 'event', I had used that word for lack of a better one for having an episode or experience or whatever word you may use to say something had occured.

Does that make sense?

 

My experience of a miracle has always been an extraordinary event in our physical world. It deviates from the laws and principles of nature and science, and it's a manifestation of the supernatural power of an infinite God.