Fundamental (not -ist) Theology

[FredP]

Christianity has accrued a lot, much of it an embarrassment if I can be blunt, and so we have more to work with and much more to work against. The Pagans are in the midst of a reconstruction unhindered (for the most part) by dogma, literalism, and institutionalism and so they are free to create rituals and traditions and initiations which accord with their own inner authority and aesthetic sense ... The Land as metaphor represents the mysterious, unknown and darkest, deepest aspects of our own psyches and I believe that Jesus is there. I also appreciate the simplicity and therefore creativity of some of the Pagan rituals, and the freedom to find ones own way, with the raw materials of essential religion or religious impulse, to guide you.

I understand what you're saying. I agree with your emphasis on the simplicity and creativity of finding one's own way. It appeals to my Zen sensitivities as well. I guess the things that I would consider an "embarassment" about Christianity are ultimately tangential in my opinion, compared to its essential meaning -- which is not to say they're not there. Even what is perhaps Christianity's largest embarassment of all: its historical uneasiness with mater in all its forms, body, sexuality, nature, womanhood, etc., is not really suggested by any of its core dogmas, but by things it has (as you say) accrued.

 

I think the fundamental meaning of Christianity essentially does come from inner authority -- with the extra added benefit of being submitted to communities of reason, tradition, and experience, to temper the idiosyncrasies of a purely subjective "aesthetic sense." Or maybe, more accurately, to judge which idiosyncrasies have value, and which ones do harm.

 

But we are getting way off topic, aren't we? A question that keeps popping up for me as I am reading these historical quest books, is where is God in all this? How does our understanding of scripture and revelation unfolding in time through the creativity of man affect our understanding of God? Any ideas or thoughts?

I don't know if we've gotten that badly off topic. After all, it isn't a Historical Jesus thread, it's a fundamental theology thread.

 

Where is God in the Quest? In Crossan's sequel to The Historical Jesus, he offers an epilogue entitied "The Character of your God," which asks this very question. If this vision of Jesus and early Christianity is true, then what sort of God are we dealing with? Naturally, the social aspect of the analysis is at the forefront: justice, compassion, a preferential option for the marginalized, the destitute, etc. This is what God is like. If you're looking for a "path of spiritual development towards God-/World-/Self-consciousness" or anything like that, you're just not going to find it. It's not on their radar. They don't define or view God in that way. I think ultimately it's an impoverished view, but it does contribute a dimension of God that is horribly lacking in the average pew these days.

[cunninglily]

I understand what you're saying.  I agree with your emphasis on the simplicity and creativity of finding one's own way.  It appeals to my Zen sensitivities as well.  I guess the things that I would consider an "embarassment" about Christianity are ultimately tangential in my opinion, compared to its essential meaning -- which is not to say they're not there.  Even what is perhaps Christianity's largest embarassment of all: its historical uneasiness with mater in all its forms, body, sexuality, nature, womanhood, etc., is not really suggested by any of its core dogmas, but by things it has (as you say) accrued.

 

I think the fundamental meaning of Christianity essentially does come from inner authority -- with the extra added benefit of being submitted to communities of reason, tradition, and experience, to temper the idiosyncrasies of a purely subjective "aesthetic sense."  Or maybe, more accurately, to judge which idiosyncrasies have value, and which ones do harm.

 

But we are getting way off topic, aren't we? A question that keeps popping up for me as I am reading these historical quest books, is where is God in all this? How does our understanding of scripture and revelation unfolding in time through the creativity of man affect our understanding of God? Any ideas or thoughts?

I don't know if we've gotten that badly off topic. After all, it isn't a Historical Jesus thread, it's a fundamental theology thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was attempting to get away from the "historical Jesus" and back to God. But as our understanding develops away from the scriptures as a revelation of a one-time event and toward an understanding of scripture and tradition as unfolding in time through the creativity of persons, our understanding of God too, it seems, also changes.

 

I no longer think that the behavior of Christians as Christians is tangential to the essential Christian message. I once argued long and hard that one must separate the message from the distortions that inevitably occur from the ignorance or misunderstanding of the people who adhere to it. I'm not so sure about this anymore. The Romanian priest who recently suffocated a young nun who he chained to a cross because she was "possessed of a devil" is a Christian. We Christians like to say that people who do things like this are not "real Christians"; that there is nothing wrong with Christianity per se but the people who distort its essential message. But heinous atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity from its beginning, and are still being committed, and I think that this is far from tangential. Likewise the severance of Spirit from Matter, but when I speak of "embarrassments" I'm speaking of acts, not doctrines.

 

lily

[FredP]

I no longer think that the behavior of Christians as Christians is tangential to the essential Christian message. I once argued long and hard that one must separate the message from the distortions that inevitably occur from the ignorance or misunderstanding of the people who adhere to it. I'm not so sure about this anymore.

I can't accept that those who commit atrocities in the name of my religion have the right to define the meaning of that religion. If anyone that comes along and does harm in the name of Christianity gets to define Christianity, then we're all doomed, as are countless Muslims, Hindus, and other practitioners of the world's religions. (Not to mention those of us who are heirs to "Western Civilization" and its atrocities.) If you can manage to find a religious or cultural group with no guilt, it's probably just because it never had a chance to ally itself with any dominant political power. Just give it time. In the meantime, I prefer to let what is highest and best in my outlook be the defining principle.

[cunninglily]

I can't accept that those who commit atrocities in the name of my religion have the right to define the meaning of that religion.  If anyone that comes along and does harm in the name of Christianity gets to define Christianity, then we're all doomed, as are countless Muslims, Hindus, and other practitioners of the world's religions.  (Not to mention those of us who are heirs to "Western Civilization" and its atrocities.)  If you can manage to find a religious or cultural group with no guilt, it's probably just because it never had a chance to ally itself with any dominant political power.  Just give it time.  In the meantime, I prefer to let what is highest and best in my outlook be the defining principle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, it doesn't seem at all fair does it? I think it was Jamake Highwater that said that it is always the best and the worst in society that defines and changes a society. We average joes in the middle don't affect much. Maybe this is what Jesus meant when he said, "I would that you be either hot or cold; the lukewarm I will spit out of my mouth." For those who are outside the Christian tradition it is an unfortunate fact that the very worst that occurs in its name is definitive. I am pained by the depictions of Christians (primarily Roman Catholic) in popular culture and left speechless by charges of "Is this how your God answers prayer?" Nevertheless, there does seem to be something within Christianity that makes it too easy to rationalize and excuse "acts of violence" (which includes taking away rights and freedoms) against those who are outside it. I don't think that we as Christians can get very far in re-envisioning our tradition without fully facing this fact. These are things I'm grappling with...this is not academic for me. If it is true that those who commit heinous acts in the name of Christianity (or any of the monotheisms) are merely sick and warped, then what is it within Christianity itself that attracts such people and gives them conveyance for committing such atrocities?

 

I have said the same thing that you stated above many many times. I have warned my Pagan friends of their too easy complaisance in attitude regarding the evils of religion. I have said many times that the problem is not with the essential religions themselves, but with humanity itself. But what does this mean ultimately? Can we separate the religion from the people who profess it and act in its name? Who or what does religion serve if not man? Does God need religion? Will God suffer if Christianity were to crumple in a heap tomorrow? What does it really mean to say that the religion is good but that man is bad? If a religion does not transmit goodness, mercy, compassion, humility and love to and through man then what good is it?

 

lily

[FredP]

What does it really mean to say that the religion is good but that man is bad? If a religion does not transmit goodness, mercy, compassion, humility and love to and through man then what good is it?

I never said that "the religion is good but man is bad." Religions are largely human products as it is -- evolutionary processes, just as humans are -- and they all invariably fall prey to all the same abuses and excesses, and the same greatness. I said that I choose to let the highest and best in my religion be the defining principle, knowing full well that the very same religion often gives the worst in us something to latch onto as well. I don't excuse the atrocities that have occured in the name of religion. I agree with you wholeheartedly that as Christians we have to face our complicity in these things. Our religion always stands in need of reformation.

[darby]

If a religion does not transmit goodness, mercy, compassion, humility and love to and through man then what good is it?

 

Been off for awhile, but a few things prompted me to respond.

 

Lilly--I get frustrated as I sense you do...where is the change in people, etc. But the religion (Christianity) can be (and I certainly believe is) perfect, and yet it's followers not be. What does it mean? It means that even though we are "new creatures," we have an unredeemed part (the flesh) that still wars against everything good and righteous we should do. We're changed, but still imperfect. And some (Hitler, others) perhaps aren't even "new creatures," rather they're just using Christianity to push an agenda. Heartbreaking, but no way to stop it except expose it. All that to say, it doesn't mean Christianity, as God meant it, is wrong, ineffective, etc. We've still got free will. As Fred said, every movement, belief system, political party, school group, etc. has fakers, abusers, selfish people, etc....cause they're all made up of imperfect people. I do disagree somewhat with Fred that our religion (Christianity) always stands in need of reformation. Rather, I think, we just need to follow it more deeply, more closely, more seriously, more humbly.

 

As a side note... while I agree that we need to expose the faults of individual Christians (hypocrisy, lying, etc.) and the church (sexual abuse, justifying slavery, etc.) we also can feel good about the many, many great works done in the name of Christ. How many hospitals in each of our cities were originally built by Christians? How many universities? What other religion compels people to give up lives of ease to serve in Africa/Indonesia/China and the outmost parts of the world? I just heard of a young couple with 3 kids moving to China to minister. And our church just helped send a successful doctor and his family off to Chad (one of the harshest environments in the world) to help set up a hosptial. Who is often first on the scene during earthquakes/tsunamis/hurricaines/Sudan? Samaritan's Purse, SBA (I know, bad word around here), many other Christian organizations. Look what "Food for the Hungry" and "Compassion Intl." among others do to feed children around the world. And there are thousands of smaller, lesser known, sometimes "mom and pop" organizations around that do the same. Where people have given up everything to follow Jesus and serve others in His name.

 

IMO, the key is not to brag, or stop exposing Christianity gone awry, but to feel confident that there are MANY examples of lives transformed, outlooks changed, hope given, people fed/clothed, prisoners freed, alcoholics and prostitutes set free, hospitals opened, etc., in the name of Christ....by Christians. It DOES work!

[FredP]

Well we can at least agree that the church is always in need of reformation!

[cunninglily]

Well we can at least agree that the church is always in need of reformation!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. We can agree on that.

 

(and darby, its good to see you...wb

[AletheiaRivers]

Bump

[AletheiaRivers]

Fred wrote:I don't think there's any "has done"; I think for God the cosmos just IS -- the passage of time is a property pertaining to events inside it, not of God. What that means as far as the universe "playing out" with respect to God is utterly beyond me.

 

and

 

I don't THINK the cosmos is what is because of logical necessity... Perhaps some sort of grand unifying thing that transcends the apparent duality between free will and necessity in God.  There are obviously senses of "freedom" and "necessity" that apply to God, that are on a completely different order of reality than the freedom and necessity that apply to us. I think here we're in a place where our words have become just about meaningless!

 

I think to try to have a conversation without using human language is going to be rather difficult. Humans use the language of time and I don't know how else to write. I suppose I could figure it out, but I just don't have the time.

 

What I'm getting from your comment is that God has "always" been emptied out (since there wasn't a "before" (in state "x") and "after" (now in state "y"). That's process theology. "Panta, where are you?"

[AletheiaRivers]

Jerry wroteHi Aletheia,

 

I like the mini-Christs analogy...and it brings to mind a "startling" verse of scripture that I'm still trying to decode ...maybe you can help. Here's the verse in question: Jesus said,"My prayer for all of them is that they will be one..JUST AS you and I are one Father...that JUST AS you are in me and I in you,SO they will be in us...and then the world will believe". Kind of boggles the mind...and least my feeble one.

 

Blessings

 

Jerryb

Hi Jerry! I decided to quote a few passages from the webpage that I linked to in the other thread. I think you'll appreciate them.

Theosis, (also called divinization, deification, or transforming union) was one of the most important of early Christian doctrines, but it has become such a well-kept secret, that is nearly unknown to most contemporary laymen. It means participating in, and partaking of, God's Divinity. It is likely to sound so alien to our ears that we might quickly dismiss it as some heresy, rather than realize this is the heart of the Christian calling.

Becoming God doesn't mean we become all-knowing, all-powerful, or that we remember saying "let there be light." It really means becoming Christ, or becoming divine—that God's God-ness is experienced and known not as something outside and separate, but as a part of our own being. It means knowing God as Jesus knew the Father, so like Jesus, we are with him, fully human, and fully divine.

The website owner (a Buddhist Catholic ) goes on to say that the various metaphors of Christ's relation to mankind are symbolic of Theosis. Such metaphors include: Children of God, Bride of Christ, Body of Christ, Light of the World, and Living Water. There are others as well.

I have come to believe that God has also entrusted us with far more of the responsibility of saving the world than we might commonly suppose. He is the vine, we are the branches. He is the Light of the world, and we are the bulbs through whom it shines through.  Christ is creating little Christs, flooding the world with mini-Christs, and our responsibility is transform ourselves and our world through the love of Christ, and the light of Christ, the Good News of Christ, into ever more and more Christedness.  Theosis is one more reason why I believe the "emergency airlift" idea of "the Rapture" is completely mistaken.

The Christian understanding of theosis is not trivial or pat. It's not a casual, New-Agey "Sure, I'm a god" idea that avoids the realities of profound humility and commitment. This transformation comes by choosing to be so empty that God can fill us totally. The ego gets lost, just as a wax form is lost when a jeweler pours molten gold to make a ring. It is a process which demands self-emptying, which most of us resist, and resistance makes the emptying too painful.

It's philosophical and theological ideas like kenosis and theosis that made me realize just how mystical traditional, orthodox Christianity truly is. I get frustrated when the words "orthodox" and "traditional" get interchanged with "fundamentalist" because the groups that use those labels don't look at scripture remotely the same way. I think the accepted canon of scripture is very "esoteric", but we have become conditioned to think that accepted canon is literal while the apocryphal writings are metaphorical.

 

That's not to say that I don't think that the NT is historical. I do. I just think that, as Christ said, he spoke in parables (parables which we have come to view as literal history).

Edited November 17, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[jerryb]

Jerry wroteHi Aletheia,

 

I like the mini-Christs analogy...and it brings to mind a "startling" verse of scripture that I'm still trying to decode ...maybe you can help. Here's the verse in question: Jesus said,"My prayer for all of them is that they will be one..JUST AS you and I are one Father...that JUST AS you are in me and I in you,SO they will be in us...and then the world will believe". Kind of boggles the mind...and least my feeble one.

 

Blessings

 

Jerryb

Hi Jerry! I decided to quote a few passages from the webpage that I linked to in the other thread. I think you'll appreciate them.

Theosis, (also called divinization, deification, or transforming union) was one of the most important of early Christian doctrines, but it has become such a well-kept secret, that is nearly unknown to most contemporary laymen. It means participating in, and partaking of, God's Divinity. It is likely to sound so alien to our ears that we might quickly dismiss it as some heresy, rather than realize this is the heart of the Christian calling.

Becoming God doesn't mean we become all-knowing, all-powerful, or that we remember saying "let there be light." It really means becoming Christ, or becoming divine—that God's God-ness is experienced and known not as something outside and separate, but as a part of our own being. It means knowing God as Jesus knew the Father, so like Jesus, we are with him, fully human, and fully divine.

The website owner (a Buddhist Catholic ) goes on to say that the various metaphors of Christ's relation to mankind are symbolic of Theosis. Such metaphors include: Children of God, Bride of Christ, Body of Christ, Light of the World, and Living Water. There are others as well.

I have come to believe that God has also entrusted us with far more of the responsibility of saving the world than we might commonly suppose. He is the vine, we are the branches. He is the Light of the world, and we are the bulbs through whom it shines through.  Christ is creating little Christs, flooding the world with mini-Christs, and our responsibility is transform ourselves and our world through the love of Christ, and the light of Christ, the Good News of Christ, into ever more and more Christedness.  Theosis is one more reason why I believe the "emergency airlift" idea of "the Rapture" is completely mistaken.

The Christian understanding of theosis is not trivial or pat. It's not a casual, New-Agey "Sure, I'm a god" idea that avoids the realities of profound humility and commitment. This transformation comes by choosing to be so empty that God can fill us totally. The ego gets lost, just as a wax form is lost when a jeweler pours molten gold to make a ring. It is a process which demands self-emptying, which most of us resist, and resistance makes the emptying too painful.

It's philosophical and theological ideas like kenosis and theosis that made me realize just how mystical traditional, orthodox Christianity truly is. I get frustrated when the words "orthodox" and "traditional" get interchanged with "fundamentalist" because the groups that use those labels don't look at scripture remotely the same way. I think the accepted canon of scripture is very "esoteric", but we have become conditioned to think that accepted canon is literal while the apocryphal writigs are metaphorical.

 

That's not to say that I don't think that the NT is historical. I do. I just think that, as Christ said, he spoke in parables (parables which we have come to view as literal history).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi Aletheia,

 

 

Thanks for responding to this post. I love the quote from the Buddist Catholic..especially the part about the ego getting lost just as the wax mold gets lost as the jeweler pours liquid gold to make a ring. The story I heard this morning goes to the heart of our subject: "A man came forward one morning to join the church. In his hand he held a long list of things he was going to do for God. When he finished reading the list,God said, in a booming voice,'is that all?'

He went back to his seat and added several things to his list. after he read the expanded list, God asked again,'is that all?'. After several more trips to his seat,and several more pages of what he was going to do for God, God finally said,

"listen...just sign it at the bottom, and let me fill it in."

Maybe this is what self-emptying is all about....just signing our name on God's 'bottom line'.

 

Blessings to you my friend'

 

Jerry

[FredP]

I think to try to have a conversation without using human language is going to be rather difficult.  Humans use the language of time and I don't know how else to write. I suppose I could figure it out, but I just don't have the time. 

Yes, we do use the language of time, hence any -- err -- time we try to talk about God's relationship to the universe, we have to realize our words are ultimately inadequate to the task. At the same time, we hope they help a little.

 

What I'm getting from your comment is that God has "always" been emptied out (since there wasn't a "before" (in state "x") and "after" (now in state "y"). That's process theology. "Panta, where are you?" 

You know, five minutes after I posted that, I bet myself a hundred bucks that you were going to call me on it.

 

Anyway, no, I don't mean this in a process sense at all. For process theology, there is no transcendent, infinite God at all -- God only exists within the flux of time, because there isn't any other place for anything to exist. What I'm trying to express is, there is no "before" and "after" the creation of the cosmos in a chronological sense; but the cosmos does stand -- eternally -- in a relationship of ontological dependence ("createdness") on God. If God really is transcendent, undivided, nondual reality, then -- in a sense which I wholeheartedly admit is paradoxical to the extreme -- God's creative activity must somehow transcend the flux of time and change. Lest the criticism be raised that this makes God static -- I guess I'd answer that God transcends even the polarity between static and dynamic. What could that possibly mean? I have no idea. But at the very least, I suppose it means that however far God may be beyond our conventional notions of change, he's just as far beyond our conventional notions of sameness.

 

Welcome to the via negativa! Here's your eraser...

[FredP]

Science alert.

 

As far as the flux of time, space, change, etc., is concerned, I find it almost impossible to avoid conceptual confusion without at least a cursory introduction to the theory of relativity. If anyone has already had an informal (or formal) introduction, don't take this as an insult to your intelligence.

 

 

Most people know of the theory of relativity as a sort of brain-teaser, where you can go away on a really fast spaceship for a year, and return to Earth only to find that your twin brother has been dead for a century. While this happens to be one implication of the special theory (it's called time-dilation), the REAL mental messer-upper about relativity is that the passage and perception of time is part of the fabric of the universe itself; there is no independently running clock. Without universes, time doesn't exist. And each universe (in theory) is its own completely self-contained space-time system; there is no such thing as a "moment" that an event in universe A and another event in universe B occured "simultaneously." "Before" and "after" literally have no meaning "outside" or "across" universes.

 

I take all this under heavy advisory when I set out to comprehend, in my own ridiculously small way, the relationship of God to the flux of time, space, dimensionality, etc. Eternity isn't "an infinitely long time" -- some sort of meta-timeline in which all the comings and goings, emptyings and returnings, in all the universes God sees fit to create, happen to play themselves out. There is no such thing as an infinitely long time, or a meta-timeline. As I understand it, God transcendentally comprehends the cosmos from beyond-time, as a singularity -- a single, undivided act of creation, perception, coming, going, emptying, returning, etc. Transcendentally, God does not experience the cosmos as a passage of time. There is no "moment" at which God plunges into the emptiness to create it, and after which God has "changed" with respect to it. The relationship of God to the cosmos as a self-emptying, somehow, just eternally IS.

 

And with that, I can only take a silent bow.

 

Take that for whatever you think it's worth....

[AletheiaRivers]

Thanks Fred. I appreciate your view.

 

Sometimes I think humans either make God TOO transcendent, TOO beyond (which is my "beef" with much of classical philosophy) or they make God TOO immanent (which is what I get hung up on with process philosophy).

 

I guess my view is somewhere in between. God is transcendentally aware of the cosmos from afar, AS WELL AS immersed in it with us. I think reality IS part of the spiritual plane, but also that there is MORE. I think the archetype of the cross (vertical and horizontal as it is) represents this well. People talk about going to heaven. I think this reality has "one foot in" heaven right now.

 

I appreciate Einsteinian physics, but I would never bind God to it's limitations (not that I'm saying you're doing that). I also think the steps that are being made into understanding quantum and string theory are going to force us to modify some of Einstein's theories a bit down the line.

 

Anyway, I agree (but perhaps not in the way you mean it) that eternity isn't a "very long time." I agree that God just IS, but (and it's a big but) I'm of the mind that change is what God IS.

 

If God really is transcendent, undivided, nondual reality, then -- in a sense which I wholeheartedly admit is paradoxical to the extreme -- God's creative activity must somehow transcend the flux of time and change.

 

It is a paradox isn't it and yet it seems to be right on the tip of my brain. I think so much of it goes back to mankind's believing that for a being to be perfect, for a being to be God, that is must not change. For if it changed, then how could it have been perfect before? I owe a debt to process philosophy and most especially to Taoism for helping me to appreciate that CHANGE is perfection and that our definition of perfection needs to change.

Edited November 17, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[FredP]

Thanks Fred. I appreciate your view.

I very much appreciate your view, and your willingness to put my ideas to the test. These explorations always help me to clarify my concepts and words, and to come to a better understanding of what I mean. And hey, occasionally I even change my mind.

 

 

Sometimes I think humans either make God TOO transcendent, TOO beyond (which is my "beef" with much of classical philosophy) or they make God TOO immanent (which is what I get hung up on with process philosophy).

 

I guess my view is somewhere in between. [...]

I know what you mean. OTOH, my intuition tells me that it's impossible to make God too transcendent or too immanent -- so lately my approach has been to make God as transcendent and as immanent as I can possibly hold together in my mind at the same time! So my view probably sounds pretty "classical" -- Platonic, to be exact -- when I'm talking transcendence, and pretty "process" when I'm talking immanence. That's ok. An infinitely transcendent God ought to be able to empty himself as much as he likes.

 

I appreciate Einsteinian physics, but I would never bind God to it's limitations (not that I'm saying you're doing that). I also think the steps that are being made into understanding quantum and string theory are going to force us to modify some of Einstein's theories a bit down the line.

There are definitely limitations to relativity that require some correction. I was only introducing the idea of the relativity of space-time to the cosmos, which seems to be a pretty uncontroversial claim.

 

It is a paradox isn't it and yet it seems to be right on the tip of my brain.  I think so much of it goes back to mankind's believing that for a being to be perfect, for a being to be God, that is must not change. For if it changed, then how could it have been perfect before? I owe a debt to process philosophy and most especially to Taoism for helping me to appreciate that CHANGE is perfection and that our definition of perfection needs to change.   

This is one area where you're really helping me to get a better handle on my terminology, and even my comprehension of the issue -- even if we ultimately turn out to disagree. It's true -- I have leaned toward the classical conception of changelessness in my description of transcendence; but the more I try to explain it, the more I realize that the problem is more complicated than that. Classically speaking, change is described as a feature of flux and manyness, while changelessness is a feature of eternity and oneness. But I'm thinking, what are "change" and "changelessness" but ways of describing the difference between scenarios in flux between two moments in time? So the notions of sameness and differentness are equally based on flux! It is just as incorrect to say "God is changeless" as it is to say "God changes"!

 

 

Obviously I disagree with you that change is perfection, but I now agree with you that changelessness is not. Being "beyond change" -- and "beyond changelessness," as I'm coming to see -- isn't what makes God perfect, but it's part of what makes God transcendent. I've used the phrase "eternal dynamism" of God before as a really, really fuzzy and paradoxical way of describing this; but this was definitely something I needed to work through further. Thanks!

 

Edited November 17, 2005 by FredP

[flowperson]

I've really enjoyed this conversation regarding the nature of God and the nature of this universe that we believe that he/she created.

 

God creates, and does not micromanage events, even though much of religious ritual and dogma address the eternal task of the created to try and make human contact with the Creator for whatever the reason. This is also our oldest collective memory and species-wide goal. This defines our eternal longing to become a part of the transcendant eternal realm where He/She dwells. Probably physically impossible to ever do, but spiritually reasonable.

 

I believe that the Jodie Foster movie, Contact, did about as good a job as anything to metaphorically represent what you have discussed since it took into account her conversation with her father in a relativistic nowhere that could well have been defined as a place that transcends our space-time. To get there she magically conceived of and travelled in a space-time contraption that I thought was really well-conceived and thought-out considering the realities of the space-time that we are confined to.

 

In her brain the trip and the ensuing flow of events took a certain passage of time that only she and the little ball that she travelled in experienced. And yet, those who were left behind here on earth only observed the ball dropping down through the complex apparatus and landing in the water. To them she went nowhere fast, to her she became one with the universality of space-time and had special experiences unique to her quest. It should also be recalled that Spielberg taught us that the magically beautiful vehicles that the little people travelled in to Devil's Tower Wyo. were really space-time machines which communicated through the employment of musical tones. Watch these movies again, you'll love 'em even more now!

 

There is a physicist at Harvard named Lisa Randall who is doing ground-breaking research on the nature of universal realities. It just may upend the current rage for string theory when all is said and done. She posits that our universe and we exist on a two dimensional brane (membrane) kind of like the surface of a soap bubble. And, further posits the we are probably presented with an "illusion of three dimensions" in space-time through the use of holographic trickery. She doesn't though have any answer as yet for where time comes into all this.

 

The head of the physics department at Case-Western is also writing material along this line. Such physics researchers can mathematically configure a universal structure that satisfies the unification of the first three main forces, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force, but they are, like Einstein did, having trouble getting the fourth force, gravity, fit into the scenarios that they have so far mathematically devised. Although, Randall has proposed a model, called "the oreo cookie", that may be successful in doing this. The researchers all agree that the Large Hadron Collider being built under the Alps at CERN in Europe may give us some answers regarding gravity when it begins to run experiments next year.

 

To top it all off Lisa Randall looks enough like Jodie foster to be her sister. The twilight zone again!!

 

For more informattion on all this just search on Randall's name, and also on a guy named Krauss who is the Case-Western prof. There was also a book writtten in the 80's called, The Holographic Universe, by a man named Talbot (Michael?) that goes into the holography idea in great detail.

 

Happy visualization adventures!

 

flow....

Edited November 18, 2005 by flowperson

[FredP]

To top it all off Lisa Randall looks enough like Jodie foster to be her sister. The twilight zone again!!

That in itself is a good enough reason to look her up! Jodie is just awesome.

[Cynthia]

["It is a paradox isn't it and yet it seems to be right on the tip of my brain. I think so much of it goes back to mankind's believing that for a being to be perfect, for a being to be God, that is must not change. For if it changed, then how could it have been perfect before? I owe a debt to process philosophy and most especially to Taoism for helping me to appreciate that CHANGE is perfection and that our definition of perfection needs to change. "

 

Ok, maybe I'm too simple-minded for this discussion... but it seems clear to me that one of the things we as humans tend to see as intelligence/consciousness is the ability to change/adapt. It seems that God would be so very limited if He couldn't change... and, like a hard-line determinism, I'm stuck with the thought, "then what's the point"???!!! AND, if the purpose of this spiritual quest stuff is to effect our own change, then, are we superior to a God who cannot change?????

/off to find advil

[FredP]

Ok, maybe I'm too simple-minded for this discussion... but it seems clear to me that one of the things we as humans tend to see as intelligence/consciousness is the ability to change/adapt.  It seems that God would be so very limited if He couldn't change...

Well, our intelligence involves the ability to change and adapt, because the universe contains other beings, things, and experiences than us. We change precisely because we are limited.

 

Anyway, I've been trying to explain a VERY transcendental, very platonic, view of God, which is very different than just about anything out there now.

 

[AletheiaRivers]

And hey, occasionally I even change my mind.

Me too.

I know what you mean. OTOH, my intuition tells me that it's impossible to make God too transcendent or too immanent-- so lately my approach has been to make God as transcendent and as immanent as I can possibly hold together in my mind at the same time!

I agree that God can't be too transcendent or too immanent IF the opposite is also true. For you and me it is. We see it similarly I think. For other groups though, not so much. God is totally "other" or totally here, but not totally both.

I was only introducing the idea of the relativity of space-time to the cosmos, which seems to be a pretty uncontroversial claim.

Hehehehehe. You should talk to my husband about what I say when I tell him I'm not so sure Einstein had it completely correct.

Classically speaking, change is described as a feature of flux and manyness, while changelessness is a feature of eternity and oneness. But I'm thinking, what are "change" and "changelessness" but ways of describing the difference between scenarios in flux between two moments in time? So the notions of sameness and differentness are equally based on flux! It is just as incorrect to say "God is changeless" as it is to say "God changes"!

Flux and manyness and eternity and oneness. Dang if that doesn't sound like "duality in unity". Same/differentness. Change/Changeless. Yup, there it is again. God is anything we can imagine AND also the opposite of anything we can imagine.

Being "beyond change" -- and "beyond changelessness," as I'm coming to see -- isn't what makes God perfect, but it's part of what makes God transcendent.

I think it is both. I think being both changeless and changing is what makes God perfect and what makes God transcendant. Like you said, change and changelessness are but ways of describing the difference between scenarios in flux between two moments. You can't have change unless you were first changeless. Movement isn't movement unless you were first still. Even when the change from changelessness isn't visible to the naked eye, it exists in the vibrations of atoms.

I've used the phrase "eternal dynamism" of God before as a really, really fuzzy and paradoxical way of describing this;

I've used duality in unity, yin/yang and "the dance". I think we might be closer in our views than this last conversation may have implied.

[AletheiaRivers]

Ok, maybe I'm too simple-minded for this discussion... but it seems clear to me that one of the things we as humans tend to see as intelligence/consciousness is the ability to change/adapt.  It seems that God would be so very limited if He couldn't change... and, like a hard-line determinism, I'm stuck with the thought, "then what's the point"???!!!     AND, if the purpose of this spiritual quest stuff is to effect our own change, then, are we superior to a God who cannot change????? 

/off to find advil  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One the one hand, I understand why classical philosophy taught that God had to be changeless to be perfect. Logically it makes sense (on the surface). How can something perfect ever be anything different than what it is at THIS EXACT moment? If it became different in any way, it wouldn't have been perfect in the first place.

 

On the other hand, I think that thinking of God ONLY in this way, "limits" God and limits us in our ability to relate to him. Stretching our brains in both directions is a good thing (even though it might require the occasional advil ).

 

I think God is a neverending "dance" of any possibility, as well as the opposite of any possibility. I don't think God WILL change. I think God IS change. (I really do have a hard time trying to explain what is right on the edge of my brain with this. ) Picturing God as a swirling dance of yin and yang, polar dualities that make up ONE BEING is the best metaphor I can think of. God is duality, but God is unity. God is changeless, but God changes.

 

And it's the fact that I think we are the exact same way, both materially and psychologically that has me so in awe of Christ and theosis lately.

 

PS - I have advil if you need some. I took a couple earlier myself. Thanks Fred!

Edited November 18, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[Cynthia]

"I agree that God can't be too transcendent or too immanent IF the opposite is also true. For you and me it is. We see it similarly I think. For other groups though, not so much. God is totally "other" or totally here, but not totally both."

 

 

Thanks for the replies - it clarifies for me and I actually totally agree!

 

Wow, I don't find myself getting to say that very often

 

It is my understanding (sorry - not sure of my sources) that the word translated as "Holy" as in "God is Holy" is often a word that, at the time, really meant "Other". That makes it all clear to me. God is Other. That means that God can be just like me, as close as my breath, and completely transcendent.... AND, my concepts of Him don't have to fit in my brain. I find that to be a strangely satisfying answer.

 

Thanks Flow for the reminder about Contact. One of my favorite books - and one of the only ones that was even better as a movie!!! I spent one summer engrossed in Carl Sagan - very worthwhile - fiction and non - especially in this season of science OR religion.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Cynthia

[FredP]

Being "beyond change" -- and "beyond changelessness," as I'm coming to see -- isn't what makes God perfect, but it's part of what makes God transcendent.

I think it is both. I think being both changeless and changing is what makes God perfect and what makes God transcendant.

Both, in an immanent sense, and neither, in a transcendent sense.

 

In an immanent sense, the tiniest grain of sand or puff of breath expresses the fullness of God, without lacking anything. In a transcendent sense, the entire cosmos is a barely perceptible glimmer in the mind of God. (I think Cynthia beat me to this in her last post though!)

 

And then, the kicker: the immanent and the transcendent are the same God!

 

Can you pass me that Advil now?

 

Yes, I think we're definitely approaching this in the same kind of way, and with a large helping of paradox. But it's all fun. I don't get the opportunity to do mental sit-ups much these days.

[AletheiaRivers]

Both, in an immanent sense, and neither, in a transcendent sense.

And neither in an immanent sense and both in a transcendent sense. That is what makes everything one unified whole. "Both/And" above, Both/And below. "Neither/Nor" above, Neither/Nor below. In every possible way, there is balance.

And then, the kicker: the immanent and the transcendent are the same God!

Yes, totally. That is what I meant by my earlier comment that this reality (physical) has one foot in heaven. If we are going to balance change and changeless, immanence and transcendence, then we must also have spirit and physicality (not as dualism, but as one unified whole).

Edited November 18, 2005 by AletheiaRivers