glintofpewter Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 inthedark I think the problem is that logic is a limited way of thinking. If we put God in a logic box we can make God appear and disappear as we want. I don't find that satisfying. If God exists at all, God must be absolutely everything that exists. I don't see how creation or humans can say "God must be .." [any thing]. God and Universe are not things. They are on-going processes, that in relationship are continually redefining and extending the boundaries of all that is coming into being. God becoming is wholly Other to the Universe becoming. The two are in a dance. If any word describes all that exists it would be "dance", or relationship. If one leaves there is no dance. If they are the same there is no dance. It takes two to dance. It is the dancing that is all. In the presence of the ineffable we are making it all up. I just say what makes sense to me. dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inthedark Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Logic is limited in its scope and it does rely on relationship. Nonetheless, it is a tool that has its place. Like you say, whether or not that place is for providing a definition of God is a matter for the individual to decide. I thought it an interesting proposition backed up by logic, which afterall is a hard thing to do in relation to God. The proposition argues that the will of God is effectively the laws of nature, and therefore is an argument against that God which we sometimes pray to requesting this and that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 therefore is an argument against that God which we sometimes pray to requesting this and that. Is that the God you believe in? Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inthedark Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Not presently Dutch no. That was a throw away comment that shouldn't be there really or at least should read "...some people pray to...". I know what I don't believe, my particular world view and life experience tells me that, no problem. What it has failed to tell me to date though is what TO believe, so I am working on that and have been for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I believe that the dancing is all. The dancing includes God becoming and Universe becoming. There is no God without the Universe. There is no Universe without God If they are the same there is no dance. Neither can dance alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inthedark Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 That is interesting Dutch. I won't ask for how the dance presents or what part God plays in it, but it seems to me like you have described a seperate being interacting with the universe, but both the being and the universe are dependant on each other to exist. I'm not sure what I think, which is partly why I have gravitated to a forum where these things can be discussed amongst people with knowledge on the topic. To date I hold the opinion that God is First Cause in the universe. If I accept this fact and nothing further it becomes what deists call the "clockwork universe". The clockwork apsect being the laws of nature. This intepretation seems devoid of spirit, almost atheist infact, and I cannot bring myself to settle for this. There must be a unifying element which unites us all with each other, all matter and the universe - beyond the 92 elements created in dying stars where our matter actually became elements. I see the God of scripture as a reflection of the writers feelings about God within their culture and context bound up with thousands of years worth of spiritual wisdom - human spiritual development over the millenia. I suppose this means I currently do not have much of a concept of God and to me God remains unknowable to my tiny human mind. In light of this, I keep reading and looking and talking and all the while my personal spirituality develops. I'm waffling. Time to stop. ;-) Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Dutch, I like your analogies except to me,a dance does NOT require two but if it appears as two, still the two must be in union or the dance will fail. In reality i would personally say they are One but to speak even that in words contains errors. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Joseph, IYes, Joseph, words always fail . We might return the Eastern Orthodox ideas about the Trinity. If I remember correctly they avoid most western discussions of the Trinity by saying it is a dancing and one can't at any moment pin it down and say three faces of the same God or three persons in or .... In my mind this is not the one dancing of a Sufi but about two in relationship, a relationship in which it makes no sense to say there is one dancing. Saying that there was one who is the source is one way to say that they are one of the same. The One became two so that there could be the dancing, which we see in the big story of evolution. The theologian John Haught said that that which was everything in a sense made room, vacated part of the pre-creation universe (words are failing here) ,so that another could come to be and so the two could be in relationship. In this way of telling it, it takes two to dance because it is the dancing that is all that is becoming. The word "exists" suggests a world of nouns but we are living in a world of verbs. Dancing. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 The metaphor of dancing works with process theology ideas of God luring us forward, not pushing us forward. All that has become is the crest of the next wave, all the potentialities for the next moment. God's lure is in the direction of our highest values, one of which is Love. God's lure is also in the direction of the new or the novel which is what drives evolution forward. This moment, and all the moments of the past are gathered up as potentialities for the next moment. Dancing Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Logic is limited in scope. It has seemed interesting to me to observe how many "problems", "defects", "dysfunctions", in many things, and here, within areas of human cognition, actually involce some very natural, normal, even positive trait or quality that has seemingly gone awry somehow. Such is the emergent prevalence and even alarming increase in the "recognized dysfunction" we call ADHD. The ability of the human mind to make "quantum leaps" in thinking, leaps that bridge gaps between ideas seeming to lack any connection through a logical process, is the very spark of creativity in human thought. Perhaps this quality is both being stimulated to extreme expression by the environment of dramatic and rapid changes, presenting of new challenges, to individuals and society annd global humanity as a whole, AND the adaptation that will ultimately be crucial to the next stage of succesful evolution in human consciousness? These very ideas, very questions, being considered here in this thread, simply cannot be entirely addressed through straight line processes of logic. Quantum leaps are required, to find the connections, the foundation for bridges, between ideas we at least at present have no "material" means of accomplishing. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Similarly, consider...as best understood presently, cancer involves a breakdown of the cells' ability/capacity to "know and excute" becoming the particular specialized kind of cell to perform a particilar specialized kind of function consistent with the overall effective function of the various organs of the body. The cells lose their essential capacity for "specialized differentation." Consider that in relation to social breakdown of old, fairly long established patterns of human society and culture, in which each person's circumstance of birth, time, place, gender, etc, pretty much set them into some established, set and relatively well defiined role within society, that served the overall coherent functioning of that society. Emerging social problems have much to do with people's difficulty finding an effective niche, a viable and succesful role, within society. In being freed of having to become something pre-defined and pre-determined according to the station of society into which they were born, many have difficulty finding any effective niche or role, "becoming anything at all," that is succesfully functional either for themselves or as effective units in a functional society. Now, what is emerging on the physical level, that we might lay in beside cancer, a loss, a faliure of specific differentation? Consider the emerging knowledge of stem cells, cells that have the capacity to become anything at all, that we might need or want them to become. From the micro to the macro, observe patterns of function disintegrating into dysfunction, order disintegrating into disorder, chaos...with, in the 'natural' scheme of things, is 'normal', even inevitable. Something of some uknown state of order, exploded into disorder, chaos, in what we call the "Big Bang." From there, came about a process of order emerging out of the chaos. What is less understandable, even seemingly in defiance of what seems natural and inevitable, is the turn of order arising out of disorder, coherence out of chaos. In my thinking, the closer we come to discovering, understanding, why and how that can be so, order arise out of disorder, coherence out of chaos, function out of dysfunction, the close we will come to understanding what this is we call "God," Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Dutch, I like what you say about relationships. I have no disagreement in the concept you speak of. Every cell in my body is in relationship with each other yet i can speak of it as one body. Likewise each body shares a relationship to the whole of the universe, interdependent and in relationship to the whole whether conscious of that relationship and interdependency or not. And there is a dancing (verb) that can be perceived but in my view, the dancers that appear cannot be separated from the dancing so that one can say there is only One dancer and no other. In that view subject and object disappear and only the verb remains. Anyway, what i am saying is not really that important but it might make an amusing read. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 So does all of this bring us to the point where, as is quoted in what we call "The Lord's Prayer", God's will being done on earth is no longer meaningful or relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I don't think all of this is meant to bring anyone to the point of making anything in "The Lord's Prayer" meaningful or not meaningful that they might hold as such. Perhaps it is just filler that may speak or have some value to some and not others. I think it is good to share and not take each others views too seriously . Heck Bill, to be honest, i don;t even take 'my' own views all that seriously. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 The intellegence of the mind (heaven) might dream the dance, but only as that is manifested in the movements of the body (Earth) is the dance is it realized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 To get more on track i guess i might say in response to the opening post, all that i have shared i see as supporting that God has a will and if one can receive it, the "dancing" i see is at this moment not outside of that will. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Anyway, what i am saying is not really that important but it might make an amusing read. Yes, Joseph, we're dancing. God's will being done on earth The intelligence of the mind (heaven) might dream the dance, but only as that is manifested in the movements of the body (Earth) is the dance is it realized? Bill, Jenell, "God's will done on earth" and "heavenly mind dreaming the dance" suggest a separation of intent and action. I don't think there is a separation. And you may not either. Jenell, your statement suggests the potentiality of the heaven and actuality of earth which reminds me of Jakob Boehme a hero of mine. I think God's will is the dancing, is the relationship. What will this day bring? What will we do together? God becoming and Universe becoming have a complex relationship 13.7 billion years on and have acquired values of beauty and love to name two, that guide us as we are dancing. Leonard Cohen: Dance me to the wedding now, dance me on and on Dance me very tenderly and dance me very long We're both of us beneath our love, we're both of us above Dance Me To The End Of Love... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I don't think all of this is meant to bring anyone to the point of making anything in "The Lord's Prayer" meaningful or not meaningful that they might hold as such. Perhaps it is just filler that may speak or have some value to some and not others. I think it is good to share and not take each others views too seriously . Heck Bill, to be honest, i don;t even take 'my' own views all that seriously. Perhaps, Joseph, it is, as you say, just filler. But I also tend to think that most people often give serious thought to what they write, even if what they write reflects where they are at the moment or reflects their own sense of ambiguity on particular subjects. In other words, I don't think they knowingly write falsehoods or mere trivialities to simply pass the time, especially where more weighty questions are concerned. I was recently reading the thread on Thomas Jefferson and how he came up with the Jefferson Bible. In many ways, I respect what he was trying to do, to distill his religion down to what he thought was most important, most meaningful to him. Of course, in doing so, he removed almost everything miraculous or supernatural from the teachings/life of Jesus. What Jefferson was left with was many good teachings of a good man but he had cut away much of what was the Christianity of his day. In this context, I'm similarly interested in how much of traditional Christianity Progressive Christianity will cut away as it presents as progressive faith to the world. Of course, one of the more popular notions in PC is that God is not a being, not a person (though Jesus seemed to speak of God as a person). Now we seem to be saying that God doesn't have a will (though Jesus or his early followers believe that God did). So while Jefferson seemed to cut away the miraculous and the supernatural from the gospels, I'm simply wondering how much of Jesus' teachings PC is going to cut away? How much of Jesus' worldview (or God-view) can we discard and still call ourselves his followers? If we think he was wrong about the most important things that we as humans struggle with, and we discard what he said about those things, can will still be Christians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 ....can we still be Christian? Perhaps it is not to tear away, discard.....but to transcend, Christian. Jesus, before his crucifixion, did not become irrelevant, as if he never were, or never mattered....he was transcended and transformed in the ressurection. Stages of egg and larvae and pupae are not torn away or discarded....they are transcended in the metamorphisis, transformed one into another until into the butterfly. Perhaps Christian is, in a sense, at least for some of us, one of the stages trancended as we are transformed. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Wayseeker, I think the content of Jefferson's Bible is what most people take away from the stories of Jesus. Perhaps Jefferson hadn't read the "miracle stories" carefully. Although they are stumbling blocks to people one has to look below the surface, below the literal miracle, to see another discourse the writer had in mind. Specifically consider Mark 1:40-45. Cleansing of the leper. The leper asks to be cleaned, not healed. Jesus makes him clean (healed for the literal minded) One reading of this concerns the tension between the Priests' authority to declare some parts of creation, some humans, clean, and declare others not clean and Jesus's contention that he has that power also or in place of the Priests's. If we are to be Jesus's Twin, which is my view, then this is a power to the people bring on democracy in your face and fisted manifesto. We take back the right and responsibility to discern declare and maintain that which is clean. Another reading is that once again Jesus reaches for the marginalized and brings them to the center daring the Priests to declare the leper unclean. By the way, the ministry plans of the fully human and the fully divine Jesus are over-turned by the exuberant testifying of the cleansed and disobedient leper. Jesus now has to modify his campaign. Who was in control? Or were they dancing? On the other hand surf the web to find some readings that will grate - or not - on your spiritual nerves. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inthedark Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 ....can we still be Christian? Perhaps it is not to tear away, discard.....but to transcend, Christian. Jesus, before his crucifixion, did not become irrelevant, as if he never were, or never mattered....he was transcended and transformed in the ressurection. Stages of egg and larvae and pupae are not torn away or discarded....they are transcended in the metamorphisis, transformed one into another until into the butterfly. Perhaps Christian is, in a sense, at least for some of us, one of the stages trancended as we are transformed. Jenell I like this interpretation and think if Jesus can transcend his relgion, we maybe should aspire to do the same. I think it is a natural progression of spiritual development and those who seek to transcend religion are able to get somewhere near there goal on occasion. There have been a number of individuals throughout history, including Jesus, who appear to have reached this level of enlightenment. As it happens, Jesus seems to be the only one associated with divinity - but that aside, we can all aspire to reach that level of understanding. As Wayseeker pointed out though, the journey is different for each of us and we are all at different places along the way. I know I have limited knowledge and intellect, but I still try and discover the new and make my own bimbling way toward the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 So while Jefferson seemed to cut away the miraculous and the supernatural from the gospels, I'm simply wondering how much of Jesus' teachings PC is going to cut away? How much of Jesus' worldview (or God-view) can we discard and still call ourselves his followers? If we think he was wrong about the most important things that we as humans struggle with, and we discard what he said about those things, can will still be Christians? It seems to me that the only demonstrable and consistent benefit of Christianity is in promoting Jesus' teachings. If salvation (in the traditional sense) is dependent on belief in the divinity of a historical figure, it is a crap-shoot at best depending on the circumstances of one's birth; which preacher one happened to encounter; which book one happened to pick up, etc. And, it requires damning to hell most of humanity including some really decent people. Strong belief in the divinity of Jesus does give some people a sense of security, but this is not inherently and predictably stable. And, a sense of security can be achieved by a wide variety of religions and doesn't even necessitate any religion. Following the teachings of Jesus does not preclude belief in the divinity. But, embracing the divinity while overlooking the teachings can have serious and negative consequences. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Wayseeker said, "Now we seem to be saying that God doesn't have a will (though Jesus or his early followers believe that God did). So while Jefferson seemed to cut away the miraculous and the supernatural from the gospels, I'm simply wondering how much of Jesus' teachings PC is going to cut away?" --------------------------------- Well, some may say that God does not have a will but that does not speak specifically for PC nor do i personally believe such. Also i do not personally cut away the supernatural as Jefferson does but that does not make those who do not agree any less PC or Christian. Of course understandings of the will of God vary and some may say it is not as Jesus meant. Interpretation always has its differences. Anyway, i like what Tillich says in the book we are reviewing Chapter 2 ...."New Being" "Christianity is more than a religion." "No particular religion matters, neither ours nor yours. But I want to tell you that something has happened that matters,.... A New creation has occurred, a New Being has appeared and we are all asked to participate in it. We want only to communicate to you an experience we have had that here and there in the world and now and then in ourselves is a New creation, usually hidden, but sometimes manifest, and certainly manifest in Jesus who is called the Christ." ---- ---------- I do not wonder how much seems to be cutting away. Who can really say what is really what Jesus said or meant as a certainty. It seems to me only by finding an approach to God by the teachings that speak to us and the experience of this New Being/Creation, can we go on and discover for ourselves what is true. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Anyway, i like what Tillich says in the book we are reviewing Chapter 2 ...."New Being" "Christianity is more than a religion." "No particular religion matters, neither ours nor yours. But I want to tell you that something has happened that matters,.... A New creation has occurred, a New Being has appeared and we are all asked to participate in it. We want only to communicate to you an experience we have had that here and there in the world and now and then in ourselves is a New creation, usually hidden, but sometimes manifest, and certainly manifest in Jesus who is called the Christ." ---- What is this "New Being?" Is it something definable, describable? What exactly is manifest in Jesus that was apparently not preexistent in this world before him? George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 To Jenell: ....can we still be Christian? Perhaps it is not to tear away, discard.....but to transcend, Christian. Perhaps so, Jenell. I know that Jesus never taught “Christianity”, per se. But he did teach the reality and “relation-ality” of God and it’s a fact in the gospels that the kingdom of God was central to his teachings, a kingdom where God’s will is done on earth. Two of the Eight Points mention an approach to God through Jesus’ teachings and the importance of seeking and/or finding an approach to God’s realm (kingdom). It’s these concepts that first drew me to PC because I felt that the Christianity of my youth had pretty much abandoned the teachings of Jesus and turned the kingdom of God into “heaven someday.” So it’s against this backdrop that I wonder about assertions that there is no God, which also effectively eliminates concepts of God’s kingdom and God’s will. After all, if there is no God, then there is no kingdom of God. And if there is no God, there is no will of God. But, to me, such assertions cannot be reconciled with the views of Jesus and I think they are more in line with, perhaps, progressive Buddhism or, as you may be hinting at, progressive Transcendentalism. That’s why I asked: How much of Jesus’ views and teachings can we remove and still have the name at the top of the forum (Progressive Christianity) mean anything? To Dutch: On the other hand surf the web to find some readings that will grate - or not - on your spiritual nerves. Message received. To George: It seems to me that the only demonstrable and consistent benefit of Christianity is in promoting Jesus' teachings. I agree. But even for these, I think they are a means to an end, that end being to bring about or manifest the kingdom of God on earth. So, for me, Jesus’ teachings are important, not because he is “Lord” and demands obedience, but because he was right about the way our world should be, about, as Borg puts it, God’s dream for the earth. To Joseph: I do not wonder how much seems to be cutting away. Who can really say what is really what Jesus said or meant as a certainty. It seems to me only by finding an approach to God by the teachings that speak to us and the experience of this New Being/Creation, can we go on and discover for ourselves what is true. I guess, as usual, I take a different approach to this. The Jesus Seminar, as you probably know, says that only about 4% of the “red letters” in our gospels actually go back to Jesus himself. That has certainly left the skeptics with much ammunition to fire against Christianity in general and, as you have said, Christianity’s desire for certainty. On the other hand, many of the teachings of Jesus have, also as you have said, proved themselves true over the years, regardless of whether Jesus or the early church actually said them. These teachings have, metaphorically, produced good fruit. So from a certain standpoint, it doesn’t matter if Jesus said them or not. I suspect that this is what Jefferson was trying to get at; what teachings of Jesus are of the most benefit for society? What teachings align with our inner light or common sense or make us better as individuals and as communities? Can we, should we, let go of the best images of God and God’s kingdom (God’s will being done on earth) that Jesus (or his followers) gave us? I’m not convinced that we should. I think we lose too much if we do so, something that can and will produce good fruit if we live it out. Perhaps I am being paranoid, but I doubt that humanity will survive for much longer if we don’t reject the selfishness and materialism that dominates our culture, that stands against the kingdom of God. Call me what you will, but I care too much about this world, my children, my children’s children, and other people’s children to embrace the Buddhist notion that all is exactly as it should be, could be no different, and the only reason we are here is to dance. There is certainly a time to dance, but I don’t think that rejecting God’s kingdom (will for the earth) as a compassionate and just social structure is a wise thing to do, especially by the one branch of Christianity that does claim to take Jesus’ teachings seriously. Am I taking all of this too seriously? Should I just take a chill pill or smoke a joint and join the “I’m okay, you’re okay, the world’s okay” club? Should I just embrace a kind of panendism and believe that everything will all pan out in the end, despite what we do or don’t do? I admit, it is an appealing view…if only I could teach myself not to care. How do I do that? Perhaps I could begin by denying the reality of a God of love, or his kingdom of justice, or his will of compassion… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.