rivanna Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Hi Janet, For starters, I had to look up a word in the title --Prolegomena--! Ross’ format gets too epistemological for me, in this chapter. But I know there are others here who are into analytical philosophy. Liked this part -- “Our common sense does allow for a God who is somehow in and through the processes of our world, physical and spiritual, in processes that are much more varied and complex and wonderful than we have yet been able to comprehend.” Also liked his point about metaphor, at the end - “Because theology does not adequately feed our imagination, and because our language is inadequate for encompassing the whole of spiritual reality, it is still helpful and perhaps necessary to use imagery as well as concepts to get across our understanding of God…. Jesus himself often chose images in his parables. And perhaps this was the right choice for someone more interested in faith than in doctrine.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Hi Janet, What i read was interesting and logical yet in my present understanding exception would be taken with this premise. Let us begin by repeating our basic common sense of how the world works. We share a sense that we live in a closed causal universe. Events in this world are explained by reference to causes in this world. God does not go "zap:" intervening from "someplace else" into the processes of this world. In my understanding there are no causes in this physical world. Only preconditions. Causes can only be found in that which is unmanifested. It seems to me we live in a 'world of effects' and not causes but I can offer no proof of this. My experience would be more in line with a quote from what is recorded in Hebrews "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which [/url]do appear. Heb 11:3 (KJV) Looking at causes in this 'world of effects' would in my view require knowledge of the totality of all occurrences in this universe throughout all time for all peoples and things since everything that exists is interrelated and I am not certain even that would suffice. Just my understanding for consideration, Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I am ready for chapter 11. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Joseph, interesting point about preconditions vs. causes. The interrelatedness of all things makes cause and effect considerably more complicated. Thanks! Rivanna, those were the passages I liked best, too! I felt like Chapter 11 was just the setup for what we'll read about in 12, but reading it did make me think... Do you think that much religious disagreement has come from the fact that we are limited in the ways we can talk about the eternal and infinite? It seems to me that sometimes the metaphors for speaking about God are out-of-date (I'm thinking about things like "the Lamb", which would have readily evoked emotion in Jews but mean just about nothing to me today). Or, they're too anthropomorphic so they appear to limit God. Or, maybe the religious diagreement is legitimate... For example, I went to a Casting Crowns concert last night where the band kept talking about the Enemy between songs, and I asked my kids in the car on the way home if they thought there was truly an Enemy (like Satan) who was tempting them and seeking them out as the band had indicated. They said they didn't, and I told them that had made me uncomfortable when the band had talked that way, but the rest of my family said I take all that too seriously, and maybe the band had just meant that metaphorically. But if I sat down to dinner with the band and asked them directly, I think they really do believe God and Satan are opposing forces, because of the way they were focusing on that and praying about it. My gut feeling is that the "Satan" idea was conjured by humans who didn't want to take responsibility for their own actions. Since I'm a United Methodist, I realize that people can have opposing theologies and still work toward the Kingdom together, and I still enjoyed the concert, but I do think "God-talk" is important especially when we are trying to convey our ideas about God to children or others who are trying to learn what and why we believe. Is there any "God talk" that traditionally has been espoused by Christians that you do not find personally relevant or in line with what you believe God to be like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Is there any "God talk" that traditionally has been espoused by Christians that you do not find personally relevant or in line with what you believe God to be like? The Fall, Satan (It gets God off the hook.),the World as Evil, washed in the blood, God talk describing the/a transformational experience. Reborn vs the usual nothing from progressives. i.e., What was it like when I changed my religious practice or ??. That is, your values and your faith are confirmed as they fit with your life experiences, as they bring meaning to events and help you find purpose, as they explain and cohere with what you see and feel and learn. They must still be in line with your common sense, but they cannot be confirmed for you unless they ring true for you in your heart. It is more to important to me than most people - so my wife tells me - that I have a simple but systematic theology and can explain it. It then also affects how I talk about my faith and how I read various Bible stories and other sacred texts. This need usually follows a time of turmoil in which I loose connection with the Scriptures and I have to re-examine my theology to re-anchor myself. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 To be specific - When the problem of Good & Evil was important to me, I changed to saying the Devil doesn't exist, the Fall was really a step up. When thinking about the Apocalypse was important to me, I eventually came to see that the possibility of Apocalypse is in every moment about to be. Now is the Apocalyptic moment when heaven may come to earth. Recently I have had a problem with many passages but yesterday influenced by reading The Tao John 6:1-21 could be seen through a new and worthwhile lens. Re-anchoring to the Scriptures is important to me. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivanna Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Janet, >Is there any "God talk" that traditionally has been espoused by Christians that you do not find personally relevant or in line with what you believe God to be like?> You could say the single most influential pattern that has been misleading, is the exclusive use of the male pronoun for God throughout the bible and almost every theologian up until recently. Ross doesn’t seem to mention the patriarchal aspect at all in his discourse on God and linguistics. Chapters 11 and 12 both remind me of the best book I ever read on this issue -- The Alphabet versus the Goddess: the conflict between word and image, by Leonard Shlain (1998). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Chapter 11 Thirty-five years ago two Jehovah Witnesses woke me up pounding on my door. Blury eyed and in my pajamas I listened as they suggested the orderliness of the world proved the existence of God. "Could it have happened by chance?" Yes I said and went back to sleep. Thirty years later I am still nervous about any argument for the existence for God that is based on pattern, details which we couldn't be without, beauty, . . . For me: That the development of the world is a result of evolution/chance does not rule out a Divine entity that I can have a personal relationship with. Arguments based on "Modern (or "Post-Newtonian") Physics, Holistic Medicine, and Parapsychology," are useful, I think, in evangelism, and for encouraging those who might wonder whether or not 21st century people can speak of a reality beyond the senses. That is, your values and your faith are confirmed as they fit with your life experiences, as they bring meaning to events and help you find purpose, as they explain and cohere with what you see and feel and learn. I couldn't agree more. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Chapter 12 "[Kung] argues that God does exist, that this cannot be proved, but that it is a decision we must make whether, in the end, to trust in reality." Footnote 6 Yes, yes, yes, and yes "My own conclusion is that we can, and must, relate to God as personal being to personal being. This is the only appropriate way to do so." My relationship with God has been very personal but I wonder if "personal being to personal being" might be, for some, a place on the journey but not the essential and only way to relate to the Divine, the Holy, the ground of being. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 God Concepts and Images Chapter 12 With no disrespect meant to the author, personally, I found this Chapter trying to at least partially conceptualize or analyse or define God to me to be of little benefit except to say what God is not. It seems to me we can best say what God is not and leave it at that which will leave that which God is but cannot be said remaining. Although God can not be proven in the physical sense alone to someone else, God can be and is subjectively experienced by being the substrate of existence/Life itself. If we experience God as an integral part of us then we can say that we are not separate as some theologies would tell us. The questions of Is there a God? where is God? and what does God look like? become in a sense absurd. If God is not separate and the creator and maintainer of all things then we can say that God is in and through all things without exception and God is both invisible as in formless and visible in that God is seen in the things that are made of creation. In the world of duality a paradox is reached making God both immanent and seen as transcendent. In essence God is without form yet is in all form. God then and creation to me are one and the same. Where does this leave us in our God Concept other than saying God is All in All. It leaves us without a concept. Nor is there an accurate conceptual view that to me is possible of God to be seen with the mind. Why? Because the essence is beyond the reach of that which is created. A thing cannot see beyond its function. Just as the ear takes in sound but cannot comprehend its hearing, it is beyond the reach of the ear, and the eye takes in light on a field of darkness yet is incapable of 'seeing' because it is beyond the capability of the eye. It is the mind that puts these together and presents these things into names and images of forms that can be 'seen' or discerned. Now the mind which is a thing of creation can put these and the other 3 sense organs together to create a world but who is it that sees these things and how? This duality of sight and seen (subject and object) exists only because it is supported by the One. When one searches deeply inward to find who or what it is that is aware of this world as seen by the mind, a barrier is reached, the mind stops, all forms and concepts fall away and one realizes ones true relationship to that world. This One which is beyond concepts cannot be named or conceptualized but is experienced as profound peace and completeness and a sense of home. Just a couple comments on the subject matter to contemplate, Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Chapter 13 Why Jesus of Nazareth? I CAN NOT believe that Ross used "honey-wagon." There is unnecessary slandering of other paths. I agree that one 1. find out what Jesus is about 2. Decide whether or not to follow/be like Jesus 3. Do it Ross' argument for objective morality fails for me. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Dutch, I haven't digested it all yet but That comment "honey-wagon paragraph of his (Ross) also got a slight rise out of me. Joseph PS On second thought, I Probably wrote this post moreso so my post count wouldn't stop on 666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 On the more serious side, I found chapter 13 building a case for the authority of Jesus in a reasonable intellectual fashion yet I found what seems to me, an essential missing. Ross seems to limit himself completely to the subjective principle of common sense. It is evident to me in his following statement and others.... "This is very mundane historical fact. But the fact of the matter is that Jesus’ ability to function as a compass has been tested and confirmed over many generations. It is unlikely that we will find an alternative with this kind of confirmation, in whom we can have the same level of confidence." One could make the same pitch for the fundamental / traditional church system versus progressive Christianity or even religions older than Christianity. When I ask many fundamentals why they believe as they do, it is a very common response that their theology "has withstood the test of time over many generations and that we can for that reason have confidence in its accuracy. " To me that is subjective common sense that has the possibilty of being true yet is blinded by 'belief', the 'herd instinct' and 'reasonableness of the masses' theology. While many do find real value in much of the reported recorded teachings of Jesus including myself, i for one, do not know for a fact exactly what Jesus really said or didn't say. However, having said that, I testify personally that I am aware of enough basic teachings that are recorded as Jesus saying that if put into practice gain us a new birth experience and access to a compass that is not a record in a book but rather a living spirit of Christ that guides us into all truth. When that is found, my question would be.... without any disrespect meant for the man we refer to as Jesus of Nazareth ... What further need is there to follow a historical man whose identity to us is a story of men we cannot witness when we have the spirit to which his teachings have pointed? Perhaps it would be better expressed in this one writing from the book of John.... 1 John 2 :27 (KJV) "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." Through some of the recorded teaching and life attributed to Jesus I Joseph have indeed found an approach to God. (TCPC Point 1) Yet I must confess that the man Jesus is not my compass but rather the indwelling spirit of Christ that was pointed to by his teachings and is now recognized by me in other teachers and traditions so that I can with all honesty say I truly recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as my chosen way (an approach to God through the recorded life and teachings of Jesus) is true for me. (TCPC Point 2) Just my thinking on review of Chapter 13 for what its worth, maybe 3 cents... Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I'm glad you all have moved on to Chapter 13. I didn't find 12 to be very inspiring. I related most to the section on love. However, I was surprised that the author didn't allow for others to experience God in a different way than he does: "My own conclusion is that we can, and must, relate to God as personal being to personal being. This is the only appropriate way to do so. I am convinced that whatever sort of being God is, the nature of God’s being includes consciousness and self-consciousness, and very likely transcends our understanding of these as well. God’s attributes include self-awareness and the ability to relate to us as personal being to personal being." It doesn't sound very open minded to me. If he took out "must" and the statement "This is the only appropriate way to do so." This statement would be a lot more palatable. I don't know why I'm taking offense, since I usually argue on the side of God being an entity.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 The conclusion of Chapter 13 resonated with me. I read the following and it struck me... "Our solid burghers seem responsible: good parents and good citizens, active in civic endeavors, enjoying the peace and the satisfaction of respect and status and social conformity. Too often, though, these solid citizens cannot break through the walls of prejudice and habit, economic security and "what will the neighbors think", to reach the possibilities of love and freedom and justice to which God calls us." Unfortunately, many of us who call ourselves followers of Jesus have trouble breaking through the walls as well... I think the world is waiting for the majority of us to do something different than the "burghers" he talks about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivanna Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Janet, I think Ross is very good at presenting objective reasons to support or explain one’s choice of Christianity, which he admits is ultimately a subjective response. The one part that I thought he could have handled better was comparing Jesus to other spiritual guides, such as the Dalai Lama or Mahatma Gandhi. Ross does not seem open to the idea of other paths being equally valid for them: “the brainwashed disciples of a guru may have inner peace, but they have attained this through the loss of their freedom and their ability to think, and their goal seems to be not to help others but to entrap more disciples.” As you said, the best part was at the end: “The choice itself must be made with our hearts. In the final analysis, the question ‘Why Jesus of Nazareth?’ must be answered by each of us individually, and the only adequate answer is a strong conviction in our deepest being that Jesus’ message is indeed the wonderful and powerful Truth. Because the message that he preached and lived grabs us, permeates our values and gives our lives meaning.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I agree that Ross doesn't seem to allow for multiple, valid paths to coming to God. I'm sorry he is a Methodist pastor, because that is the denomination I choose to attend church with. Not everyone at my church agrees there are multiple valid paths, which is why I think we have had difficulty as a body affiliating with progressive Christianity. We have no doctrine that must be abscribed to, so there are a variety of viewpoints, which makes the discussions at my church very interesting! In my own life I think there was a point where I would have said only one of the paths could be "right," so I am patient with others who are in that place. I've been there! I think Ross is pretty good about saying Jesus is the right path for HIM. I think the "honey wagon load" was meant to refer to the Jim Joneses and Sun Myung Moons of the world (cult leaders). It will be good for this discussion when my kids go back to school, because I will be able to be more present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivanna Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Janet, When you have time, let us know what you think of chapter 14. Ross was a pastor at first, for Methodist and also UCC and Presbyterian churches, but (according to the bio I read) after writing this book he went to law school and became an attorney in Philadelphia. He does take part in an adult discussion group at a United Methodist church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I feel like a LOT has been covered in this chapter: Regarding right and wrong, good and bad: “Even in complex situations there are generally some actions which clearly grow out of fear and hatred, and which lead to a continuation of the sad and vicious cycle of human unkindness. These are wrong. Likewise there are generally some actions which demonstrate a true concern for all involved, for love and justice, and which may lead to reconciliation and improvement. These are right.” I like Ross’ way of putting this. It allows for complexity and flexibility. However, sometimes actions taken out of love do not lead to reconciliation and improvement, so it is not a perfect delineation…. Comments? Regarding calling a sin a sin: “We do not need to make this point in those cases where a wrong has been acknowledged and repented of. Rather, it is when sins are socially acceptable, unrecognized, or a part of our cultural fabric that we need most to pronounce them as such.” I feel uncomfortable that we need to be pronouncing others’ behavior as sin. Where did Jesus’ teaching that we should remove the log from our own eye rather than removing the speck from our brothers’ eye. Hopefully, if we strive to follow Jesus and live rightly, our lives will be an example and we won’t have to pronounce judgment on the world. Do you all disagree with me? Regarding Original Sin: “The first of these is a well-developed appreciation for the finitude of each human being, for our imperfection and our separation from the eternal and the perfect. The second is the realization that humans are as a matter of fact capable of immense evil, not to mention an incredible number of entirely unnecessary petty cruelties… Furthermore, while we need to recognize the gravity of our human propensity to sin, we need to balance this with the recognition (demonstrated so vividly by Jesus of Nazareth) that each and every human being has the ability to turn to God and to do good, that each and every human being is intrinsically worthy of love.” This is a good re-definition, in my view. Do you think so? “We do not have to be enslaved by our fear and hatred and selfishness, that we are in fact free to love, free to be kind and generous and even great of soul. We can best communicate this message not by emphasizing our need to be rescued from negative possibilities, but rather by emphasizing our potential for living in a loving and faithful way. So instead of speaking of "salvation" we ought rather to speak of living in right relationship, of faithfulness and commitment and love. It’s not so much that we need to be saved from sin as it is that we need to commit ourselves to a life of faith.” Interestingly, a man who is learning about Christianity asked me Sunday why our church doesn’t focus much on “salvation.” He wondered if our church was endless Bible study, and I told him that it was instead a focus on following Jesus’ teachings and living in a loving way in order to glorify God that we love. This is the way to abundant life. Your thoughts? “But if faith consists of the orienting of our lives towards God in this life, then it would seem natural for our selves to continue in this direction once they are released into the next life.” This reminds me of M. Scott Peck’s In Heaven as on Earth. I hope for even closer “oneness” with God after death, but I actually hope for that for all people. I wish Ross didn’t write with such certitude about everything. Maybe I’m just wishy washy, but I don’t think anyone really knows. Much of the heaven/hell thing seems to me to be a human construct in order to control behavior through fear. Now that you’ve read my tome, I’d love to hear what you thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted August 13, 2009 Share Posted August 13, 2009 I feel like a LOT has been covered in this chapter: Regarding right and wrong, good and bad: "Even in complex situations there are generally some actions which clearly grow out of fear and hatred, and which lead to a continuation of the sad and vicious cycle of human unkindness. These are wrong. Likewise there are generally some actions which demonstrate a true concern for all involved, for love and justice, and which may lead to reconciliation and improvement. These are right." I like Ross' way of putting this. It allows for complexity and flexibility. However, sometimes actions taken out of love do not lead to reconciliation and improvement, so it is not a perfect delineation…. Comments? Regarding calling a sin a sin: "We do not need to make this point in those cases where a wrong has been acknowledged and repented of. Rather, it is when sins are socially acceptable, unrecognized, or a part of our cultural fabric that we need most to pronounce them as such." I feel uncomfortable that we need to be pronouncing others' behavior as sin. Where did Jesus' teaching that we should remove the log from our own eye rather than removing the speck from our brothers' eye. Hopefully, if we strive to follow Jesus and live rightly, our lives will be an example and we won't have to pronounce judgment on the world. Do you all disagree with me? (snip) Hi Janet, For me this calling sin a sin and the 'right' and 'wrong' definitions as used above are part of the problem and the false premise of the organized church system. Things to me are not that simple and require a deeper understanding. In my view, perhaps they are effective on us when we were children but it seems to me when one grows in wisdom and awareness, it is necessary to leave these things, which only propagate guilt and suffering, behind. And replace it or approach these things with discernment and more non-judgemental labels. Some things we do are wise and some things not so wise. Some times that which we think are wise turn out to be not so wise and visa versa. Some thing move us in one direction and some things in another but in my view nothing is wrong or sin of itself but to him who esteems it so, it is so. Yes people want black and white, they want to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil which brings on suffering and spiritual death. But the tree of life which has no such laws, brings forth Life. You see, in the flesh, we cannot see what the purpose or role may be of a perceived senseless event and its event on the totality of everything. We are all interconnected in Spirit. Every event is part of this connectedness which includes everything that happens, even down to a speck of dusk being in a certain place or the hairs on your head being numbered. Perhaps with this understanding, there comes an inner acceptance and realignment with life. A place of understanding that all is as it is and for the moment could not be otherwise. This puts a different perspective on such subjective terms as 'right' and 'wrong' and sin. It puts us in a space of understanding and non-judgement and non-measuring where we can truly say to God "Not my will but yours" and "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do". In my view, we continue to go through self judgement and self measurement (remember whatever we do to another we are doing to ourselves) and heap upon ourselves guilt and suffering until we see it (false) for the lie and prison that it is. I wrote a chapter on Sin is Sin back in 2002 as a false premise taught by the church system using nothing but King James Biblical writings that might trigger an expansion of ones understanding. For any interested, it can be read free here. Love in Christ, Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Joseph, I enjoyed your post, yet I haven't had time to read your link yet. It was interesting to me that part of Ross' agenda in Chap 14 was to get Christians to condemn society when it sins. I understand life is complex, and "good" and "bad" are a matter of perspective, complicated by the interconnectedness of our lives. It was just food for thought for me -- I don't speak out very often from a "Christian" perspective about the selfishness or evil in the world. Maybe I should, if I could figure out how to do in in love, instead of judgment. Janet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivanna Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Hopefully I’ll be able to catch up next week – whichever chapter you’re on. Karen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Joseph, I enjoyed your post, yet I haven't had time to read your link yet. It was interesting to me that part of Ross' agenda in Chap 14 was to get Christians to condemn society when it sins. I understand life is complex, and "good" and "bad" are a matter of perspective, complicated by the interconnectedness of our lives. It was just food for thought for me -- I don't speak out very often from a "Christian" perspective about the selfishness or evil in the world. Maybe I should, if I could figure out how to do in in love, instead of judgment. Janet Janet, Thanks for the comment on the post. It seems to me wise on your part that you "don't speak out very often from a "Christian" perspective about the selfishness or evil in the world". There are plenty of others who do and its effect seems only to separate us as Christians rather than draw in except it be by fear, which is not love based and will fail. I also have not " figured out how to do it in love, instead of judgment" as you have said. Possibly this is because in love there is only peace, forgiveness and mercy. Judgement seems to me to be a projection of mind that is ego based that re-enforces our old reactive creature and if we look hard enough we will find that we all have the same potential for those things in us. Of course, to let go of judgement doesn't mean we become blind or don't see what people do. It is more that we recognize that their behavior is a form of conditioning that includes genetics and unique past conditioning experiences. In essence, if our genetics were their genetics and our experiences their experiences and our level of consciousness their level of consciousness, we would think and act exactly as they. To me, this understanding brings with it compassion, forgiveness and peace that is not only transformative for us but those around us. Just some comments on the subject, Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Janet, others Reading this chapter through my liberal bias was difficult. Thanks for highlighting and focusing on a few themes. I am frustrated that we so often need the shorthand dichotomies such as right and wrong, good and bad. Ross does use them but in the passage you quoted he does talk about fear and selfish driven actions and the hatred that follows and about love as a true concern for all. Today it was important for me to tease them out more. I share the following which I had not read as closely as I did today: Human cruelty has its origins in earliest human experience when the infant can’t make the transition from a world in which self matters most to a world that fully includes others.... Mankind is not inherently evil or fundamentally evil or originally evil. But all men have the potential for evil at the point at which they realize the world is not designed to meet their needs and wants. ... If evil is understood as the failure of narcissism to sustain the self, then goodness may be found in the transformations of narcissism: empathy, humor, creativity, art, and wisdom, especially in the appreciation of the finiteness of life. Goodness is more difficult. Goodness does not come naturally to man, this creature who kills for sport, kills its own kind, and kills for vengeance. Goodness requires something more. Goodness is an achievement of the conscious mind. It requires maturity. It requires an empathic appreciation of the situation of the Other. It requires that self put aside its own interest in favor of the interest of others. Evil is about probability. Goodness is about human possibility. Good is something we strive toward, the perennial themes of truth, beauty, and justice. The Knowledge of Good and Evil by Alan Dyer It is a speech from 2003. There is also a short discussion under Debate and Dialog. If the above is a correct expansion of Ross' view, there is no dichotomy of right vs wrong to be collapsed. But more importantly I am more willing to talk about "original sin" but maybe with other words. However, sometimes actions taken out of love do not lead to reconciliation and improvement, so it is not a perfect delineation Perhaps the key is which demonstrate a true concern for all involved, for love and justice, which suggests that the important part is the action and intent. Do we then (to use traditional language) "save ourselves"? Do we achieve heaven through our own good works? Certainly this would be contrary to the basic Christian understanding that it is God who gets us into heaven, not we ourselves. If potentially heaven comes to earth in each moment, if we are made complete in God and God is made complete in us, I wouldn't say that "God alone gets us into heaven." Some agency is required from both God and us. To set our selves on this course will naturally result in continuing on this path to God in the afterlife. I don't have a problem with this because I assume it applies to all people. What I like about it is that as I move to looking forward rather than backward I hadn't thought about looking forward at the moment of death and what this might mean. An expectation with no expectation. Hope with nothing to hope. Only openness to the next moment. I like the way Ross puts this. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllInTheNameOfProgress Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Karen - This was conversation about Chap 14. I hope you're able to join in. Joseph - these are wise words. Dutch - I liked what I read in "The Shack" about the word "expectancy" vs "expectation". Have you read that book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.