Jump to content

Can A New Christianity Be Intellectually Conceived?


sonoman

Recommended Posts

Guest billmc

I think that both Borg and Spong say that God as an entity or God as anthropomorphic is the natural language of worship. One analogy that they use is that if horses had gods, those gods would look like horses. We have great difficulty thinking of anything "higher" than we are. So we tend to fashion God into our image when it comes to worship or "doing church". Jesus did the same thing. He considered God to be his heavenly father. Natural language for relationship.

 

But I think problems arise when we make those images of God into idols, when we insist that God has eyes, ears, arms, a heart, etc. If taken far enough, then God is no longer what we would call spirit, he becomes a super-human, much like us, just with super-powers.

 

Then again, to me it calls into question our human notions of worship. Christianity thinks worship is something that happens between 10:30 to 11:30 AM on Sunday mornings in a sanctuary. So it structures things to make this "entity", this theistic God, feel good about himself while we beg for his forgiveness.

 

I see worship as my way of life, not a church service. In fact, I am such a radical that I consider worship, not to be about praying or singing to God or listening to a sermon, but to be how I serve others in everyday life. To me, if I am truly loving people, then I am also worshipping God (because it is in people, not "in church", that I mostly see him). If I am not loving people, then where I park my butt on Sunday morning, the prayers I say, the songs I sing, and all my efforts to stay awake while the preacher reminds me how sinful I am, are of no value to me whatsoever. This kind of "worship" doesn't really require thinking of God as an entity or even theistically. And it certainly doesn't require that I go to church. To me, what I see in the life of Jesus is the shift in thinking that God dwells in buildings (the Temple) to the radical notion that God dwells in people (Jesus and others).

 

To me, entities have boundaries. Spirit does not. So I'm trying to move away from my older theistic notions to seeing God as love, as life, as connection. While we can discuss, intellectually, what love, life, and connection is, nothing beats experiencing love, life, and connection.

 

billmc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps my definition of “entity” would be helpful. “Entity” implies existence in particular. It implies a person or being that is self contained. It is independent. It implies a particularness that can be separated from what it is not. It is a being rather than the “ground of being”. I’m sure that others may be able to provide a better description.

 

Can anyone name a theologian that has been associated with Progressive Christianity that would say that God is an entity?

 

Yeah, I can name one: Jesus B)

 

P.S. David -- I'm more than aware that you and I completely disagree on the question of whether God is an entity and whether the soul named Jesus continues to be an entity. I don't want to argue about it. I'm just stating the reality that you and I have radically different starting positions in our respective understandings of God and/or Jesus. You don't believe they are entities. I think they are. These hermeneutical differences shape our respective theologies. S'okay.

 

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can name one: Jesus B)

 

Jen

It does not concern me so much that we disagree about the nature of God as it does that we disagree about your source for authority on the subject.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Added by JosephM (Caution Please - Post unrelated to thread subject and provokes further unrelated and unecessary personal debate)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The God as an entity is “worshiped” in a different way and it seems to me that is just one example of how the “response” to God would be different. But I have good relationships with people who think of God as an entity. I hope that relationships like that can continue even though we have major theological disagreements.

David

 

Hey, David, I would just like to point out that perhaps your above statement about "God as an entity [being] worshiped in a different way" is a bit broad and maybe doesn't take into account the wide variety of relationship possibilities that arise from the starting point of God as an entity (for those who take this position). One of the great things about Progressive Christianity is the chance we have to drop all the old Neoplatonic, Apocalyptic, and Wisdom ideas about God, ideas that, for centuries, have required us to worship God in a grovelly sort of way. Maybe the problem is not whether or not we conceive of God as an entity. Maybe the problem is whether or not we think we are required as Christians to worship in a grovelly sort of way a God who is an entity.

 

Maybe it's the church doctrine that's the problem, not the reality of God as a being. I agree with you that the depiction of God in the Christian church has been damaging. Over the past two or three millennia, human beings gradually constructed an image of God as paternalistic, judgmental, and transcendent, a God who has a hissy fit if he isn't properly worshipped. Maybe that depiction of God is simply false. Maybe, as so many people on this site have pointed out, God just wants to be in loving relationship with us. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that God is both an entity and the sort of entity you would actually like to invite to your dinner table in mutuality.

 

God the Mother and God the Father are our divine parents, and they have their own feelings, their own temperament, their own talents. God, for me, isn't simply a vast, non-conscious, transcendent cloud of being. They have minds, they have will, they have conscious awareness of themselves and of us. I'm not saying -- I have to emphasize this -- I'm not saying I have all the answers about their feelings, temperament, and talents. I'm not saying you should listen to me about who God is. I'm saying you should listen to God about who God is. I'm saying that God the Mother and God the Father have their own unique ways of communicating and interacting with each of their children (which would include you). I'm saying that if we, as Christians, want to be in mature relationship with our divine Mother and Father, we need to listen to them a lot more than most of us do. Listen with your own heart. Listen with your own intuition. Listen with your own mind. Listen with your own body. Listen with your whole being.

 

For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, a great many individuals believe this view of God is dualistic. There's a widespread idea that if you say that people are different from God (i.e. if you say that people have their own individual consciousness and existence) that you're somehow taking away from their sense of Oneness of Heart, that you're somehow diminishing their connection with God.

 

For me -- and I realize this isn't a view shared by others -- but for me the sense of Oneness I feel with God the Mother and God the Father comes 100% from the fact that I am not the same as they are, and they love me and respect me anyway. The sense of Oneness comes from my trust in their unflinching and eternal love, their unshakeable forgiveness, their heartrending courage, their phenomenal devotion to us, their children. This Oneness is a sense of awe and gratitude at the intensity of their love. I feel so safe in their Heart!

 

It's the safety of the relationship with God, it's the trust and the respect that creates the Oneness. It's relationship, pure relationship. I just don't see how it's possible to have a relationship with a ground of being or a cloud of unknowing. Knowing God is about building a relationship through day to day interactions and communications and shared experiences (eg. prayer, walking meditation, children's smiles, music, new learning, gardening, synchronicities, laughter).

 

Again, I'm not disputing the concept of Oneness. I'm just saying I find it through relationships, and just as I try to build relationships with human beings and other creatures (eg. pets) whom I view as real people, real entities, I also try to build a relationship with God the Mother and God the Father on the basis that they are real people, real entities.

 

This approach seems to be consistent with the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels and parts of the letter of James. I acknowledge that other parts of the Bible seem to present a different view of Jesus and God. All I'm saying is that some parts of the New Testament (and a few sections of the Hebrew Scriptures) are consistent with an understanding of God as a loving, sort-of-immanent entity.

 

And damn but I love our Mother and Father!

 

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not concern me so much that we disagree about the nature of God as it does that we disagree about your source for authority on the subject.

 

That's a bit understated, isn't it, David? We disagree on a lot more than just my "source for authority," as you put it.

 

I channel Jesus. But I don't think Jesus is God. I don't think Jesus is the only Son of God. I don't think Jesus is an authority on all matters spiritual, because I think he is just one angel (i.e. one divine child) among many angels (i.e. divine children). However, Jesus is an authority on his own life and his own teachings, just as you are the authority on your own life and your own teachings. I channel Jesus because I hear him particularly well (I don't hear all angels equally well for reasons of quantum wave theory and soul wiring). Jesus is extremely articulate, and he seems to be a polymath. But he's still just one angel.

 

I remind you that the apostle Paul made far more extreme claims about his "visions," "divine predestination" as God's prophet, and divine credentials as purveyor of "The One Truth" than I have ever done.

 

I'm one voice on this site. Jesus is one source of authority for me on my spiritual journey. But he is not the only source of authority for me, and it would be most unfair of you to claim otherwise. It is clear from what I've written over the past few years that I look to many other sources for knowledge and inspiration. I have drawn repeatedly on the research of neuroscientists, psychologists, pyschiatrists, educators, ministers, and biblical researchers such as those in the Jesus Seminar. One of my great heroes is Dr. Viktor Frankl. He was a brilliant, humble, compassionate man who was willing to learn from his own mistakes and the mistakes of others. He reminds me more of the Jesus I know than the Jesus I see portrayed in the bewildering and contradictory array of guises presented over the centuries by various Christian theologians. (Jaroslav Pelikan's book "Jesus Through the Centuries" describes some of these varied portraits of Jesus.) And I don't think Dr. Frankl even mentions Jesus! (since Frankl was one of the many Jews who was interned in Auschwitz when millions of Christians dropped the ball).

 

This is a team effort, David. We have to try to work together. I have said so from the beginning.

 

You've given some indications through your writings that you don't believe in eternal entities. I'm not clear on whether this means you don't believe in souls. It is possible you don't use the terms "entity" and "soul" interchangeably. However, I do use them interchangeably. For me to say that I am channelling Jesus means to say that I am talking to his eternal aspect, the "soul man" that is his eternal self.

 

I believe that all people have souls, that all people have an eternal self, and that all people are equally loved by God the Mother and God the Father.

 

I understand that you don't accept my beliefs, David. You have said so many times.

 

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well articulated. I think I understand your position and agree with much of it.

Thank you, David. You wrote this while I was writing my response to your earlier comment to me this morning. I apologize if, in light of your more recent statement to me, you feel I came on too strong just now.

 

Hey, aren't you supposed to "getting away from it all" on Vancouver Island about now? Maybe you're waiting to see who wins the Stanley Cup before you leave . . . :)

 

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, David. You wrote this while I was writing my response to your earlier comment to me this morning. I apologize if, in light of your more recent statement to me, you feel I came on too strong just now.

 

Hey, aren't you supposed to "getting away from it all" on Vancouver Island about now? Maybe you're waiting to see who wins the Stanley Cup before you leave . . . :)

 

Jen

You know my only complaint about Canada is that all you can find in the sports page is hockey.

 

Going north late this year because of my wife's job. Will see heaven again in about 5 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you , all, for clarifying to me the differences between Jesus as entity and Jesus as oneness. It is why I visit this site frequently - I learn so much. I would be willing to attend a church where messages about God as the "ground of being" or "cloud of unknowing" or "collective unconscious" or "ultimate meaning" were part of the message, but I admit that it is not the language that currently speaks to me, drawing me closer to the Holy. So, I can see how messages about relationship with an entity would not speak to David, and I no longer am upset that he wouldn't be able to church with me. That said, maybe we are "worshipping" together, just by earnestly pursuing a better understanding of God!

 

Can you guys help me understand something, because I think it might just be a language issue. If we are not separate entities from God, then why do we sometimes act without love? One of my friends started calling me a goddess, and it was difficult for me, because while I try to live to reflect God's glory, I don't feel like I am simply reflecting myself.

 

I'm copying a post from tcpc's facebook blog that has me confused, but I think it relates:

"I think for so many people it really is a matter of changing perspective. Its very hard to think that maybe God- and therefore all the love, compassion, and wisdom- is within when for their whole life they have been told that it is outside themselves. Jesus went inside, Buddha went there, all of our greatest teachers and prophets have spent days, months, years going within. Yet, we were told for too long that not only is it all outside of ourselves- but that we need someone else- someone long dead- to find it. That is a major perspective shift and very frightening. Means someone else is responsible for all the good and all the bad that happens in our lives. What can we do with that? Where is the room for growth?"

 

I don't think someone else is responsible for all the good and all the bad that happens in my life. Sometimes I am responsible. Sometimes stuff just happens for no reason. The room for growth is aspiring to the lofty goals Jesus has set for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you , all, for clarifying to me the differences between Jesus as entity and Jesus as oneness. It is why I visit this site frequently - I learn so much. I would be willing to attend a church where messages about God as the "ground of being" or "cloud of unknowing" or "collective unconscious" or "ultimate meaning" were part of the message, but I admit that it is not the language that currently speaks to me, drawing me closer to the Holy. So, I can see how messages about relationship with an entity would not speak to David, and I no longer am upset that he wouldn't be able to church with me. That said, maybe we are "worshipping" together, just by earnestly pursuing a better understanding of God!

 

Can you guys help me understand something, because I think it might just be a language issue. If we are not separate entities from God, then why do we sometimes act without love? One of my friends started calling me a goddess, and it was difficult for me, because while I try to live to reflect God's glory, I don't feel like I am simply reflecting myself.

 

I'm copying a post from tcpc's facebook blog that has me confused, but I think it relates:

"I think for so many people it really is a matter of changing perspective. Its very hard to think that maybe God- and therefore all the love, compassion, and wisdom- is within when for their whole life they have been told that it is outside themselves. Jesus went inside, Buddha went there, all of our greatest teachers and prophets have spent days, months, years going within. Yet, we were told for too long that not only is it all outside of ourselves- but that we need someone else- someone long dead- to find it. That is a major perspective shift and very frightening. Means someone else is responsible for all the good and all the bad that happens in our lives. What can we do with that? Where is the room for growth?"

 

I don't think someone else is responsible for all the good and all the bad that happens in my life. Sometimes I am responsible. Sometimes stuff just happens for no reason. The room for growth is aspiring to the lofty goals Jesus has set for us.

 

The general trend of my posts on these questions has to do with the nature of human nature. More and more we are discovering that out innate nature is not all as bad as some would make it to be. It is not the case that we are purely 'sinners'. We can, and often do, respond spontaneously in a positive mode. Several years ago I watched a marvelous documentary on the development of empathy and positive moral emotions in children. A group of pre-shoolers were given a number of toys. The only problem was that there were not enough toys to go around. Several children ended up without a toy and became distressed. A significant number of the children attempted to deal with the distressed children by offering to share their toy or even give up their toy to aid the distressed children. To see the expressions on the faces of the children proves the acts were out of genuine concern.

 

Yes, we can aspire to lofty goals. By turning inside to our own capacities we can achieve more than we might expect. Joseph Campbell said "follow you bliss" and "bliss" is "the experience of life as a self-responsible individual".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psalm 46:10 (New King James Version)

Be still, and know that I am God;

I will be exalted among the nations,

I will be exalted in the earth!

 

Isaiah 45:5-12 (King James Version)

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

 

In silent submission we worship God. We believe and experience that God has been, is, and will be with us; and is our Refuge. I feel this refuge is in our consciousness, Christ consciousness and God's pure consciousness, but at times the abstract is not what we need. It is hard to exercise the emotion of love for something abstract so the entity of Jesus is a good example and target for love that leads us to the abstract love in consciousness.

 

The awareness of being as God is stated many times in the New Testament. To name but a few: "I AM the shepherd, I AM the door; I AM the resurrection and the life; I AM the way; I AM the Alpha and Omega; I AM the beginning and the end". What is meant by "I AM?" It does not state, "I, Jesus, am the door. I, Jesus am the way," It is clearly stated, "I AM the way." The awareness of our being in consciousness is the door through which the manifestations of form pass into the world of God's pure consciousness. Therefore, I feel entity and consciousness both serve a spiritual purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general trend of my posts on these questions has to do with the nature of human nature. More and more we are discovering that out innate nature is not all as bad as some would make it to be. It is not the case that we are purely 'sinners'. We can, and often do, respond spontaneously in a positive mode. Several years ago I watched a marvelous documentary on the development of empathy and positive moral emotions in children. A group of pre-shoolers were given a number of toys. The only problem was that there were not enough toys to go around. Several children ended up without a toy and became distressed. A significant number of the children attempted to deal with the distressed children by offering to share their toy or even give up their toy to aid the distressed children. To see the expressions on the faces of the children proves the acts were out of genuine concern.

 

Yes, we can aspire to lofty goals. By turning inside to our own capacities we can achieve more than we might expect. Joseph Campbell said "follow you bliss" and "bliss" is "the experience of life as a self-responsible individual".

 

Thanks! I agree about people not being born with a purely "sinful" nature!

 

In the documentary, were the children more likely to share their toy with someone who they shared similar characteristics with? In Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" he reported a study of Rhesus monkeys who would try to help another monkey so that they would not receive an electric shock. Sagan's point was that we need to go beyond only helping those within our own "pack."

 

It reminded me so much of Jesus' "If you love only those who love you, what credit is it to you?" when he was asking us to love our enemies. That is a radical message not usually self-discovered. And it hardly ever seems like bliss to me... However, it does bring "abundant life." Can you think of other teachings of Jesus that are hard to discover using our own capacities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! I agree about people not being born with a purely "sinful" nature!

 

In the documentary, were the children more likely to share their toy with someone who they shared similar characteristics with? In Carl Sagan's "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" he reported a study of Rhesus monkeys who would try to help another monkey so that they would not receive an electric shock. Sagan's point was that we need to go beyond only helping those within our own "pack."

 

It reminded me so much of Jesus' "If you love only those who love you, what credit is it to you?" when he was asking us to love our enemies. That is a radical message not usually self-discovered. And it hardly ever seems like bliss to me... However, it does bring "abundant life." Can you think of other teachings of Jesus that are hard to discover using our own capacities?

 

Great questions. The researchers selected the children randomly and many different ethnic groups were included. These pre-schoolers showed NO preferences whatsoever. In short, they were "difference blind".

 

Researcher Johnathan Haidt has found that some humans naturally look beyond their "in group" to the category of "all humans". In-group loyalty takes a lower tier in the hierarchy of values and "care-harm" is at the top. Again, we are equipped with more than one approach to adaptation, and this is seen by some as the Wisdom of God.

 

The realization of "bliss" is never a lasting thing. It is transient, but if one gets there for only a moment, it is transforming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to hear the kids were difference blind!! I wonder if they would have been as sympathetic to someone perceived as an enemy (someone who had been mean to them).

 

Human development is complex and varied. Many pre-schoolers are very resilient. The concept of 'enemy" does not emerge untill much later in life.

 

I am hoping to make a fairly simple point. If, in fact, we were 'evil' creatures, we would not be here. Evolution would have failed us long ago and T Rex would dominate the earth. But, T Rex is dead and long gone. We are here. And that is it ... we are here. We are here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service