Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Where I wouldn't say "some supernatural truth 'out there' somewhere", I would say that I believe there is some kind of Divine and Spiritual truth(s) that we can make 'contact' with. I wouldn't say it's so much "out there", as something we can make contact with through our souls and spirts, consciousness and intuition,.. and minds.

 

This is well said. An older theistic take on God seems to focus on the extrinsic God but less theistic views see God not as 'out there' but immanent in creation or, even more interesting, we have our being in God. There is no 'outsider God.

9 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

So I do believe there is a real "Divine and Everlasting Truth" here and that it's about time that we humans figured this out.

 I agree on this also. Hopefully a more PC or 'post modern' understanding can help but, I suspect, the real 'trick' is to live the truth or to incarnate this Divine Truth, i.e. to incarnate Love in humanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

True but at times, hearing or reading the words of another (or interacting with another) can be a pleasant surprise or unsettling or even be experienced as a judgement (a mirror thrown up in front of

20 hours ago, thormas said:

The good news is that there was one man who stopped the 'stoners' in their tracks and said "consider." So there was once a people or some people who were ready willing and able to pick up the stones but they were shown the error of their way and, hopefully, not just for this moment but, going forward from that moment and in similar moments, they carried that wisdom with them and the 'truth' continued to 'set them free.'

 

Actually - there probably wasn’t such a man (well, not Jesus anyway).  As an aside, this story seems to be one of those myths about Jesus that then became tradition for thousands of years, before later scholars identified it as likely a false attribution to Jesus.   Scholars generally agree this isn’t an original story about Jesus but a later addition.  Most modern bibles don’t even relate the story any more.  Take it as good news by all means (personally I think not stoning people is a good idea too) but it is likely a fable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PaulS said:

Actually - there probably wasn’t such a man (well, not Jesus anyway).  As an aside, this story seems to be one of those myths about Jesus that then became tradition for thousands of years, before later scholars identified it as likely a false attribution to Jesus.   Scholars generally agree this isn’t an original story about Jesus but a later addition.  Most modern bibles don’t even relate the story any more.  Take it as good news by all means (personally I think not stoning people is a good idea too) but it is likely a fable.

I agree that the story is 'questionable' as historical but as Allison and others scholars say, this is the kind of thing that Jesus would say and do. In other words the 'fable' rings true; the myth speaks a truth. And the historical reality is that the disciples and first generation of followers of Jesus did not stone others: they accepted and lived his way (some of his later followers screwed the pooch with inquisitions and burnings though - but his was not all of his followers). 

So the fable or myth works for me, works for Christians, works for PCs - glass is more than half full, it is spilling over it is so full (that too is not a literal truth).

p.s. just as Washington never cut down the cherry tree - the fable speaks to his being a truthful, upright man - so too this fable speaks to Jesus. You won't hear either fable given a modern spin and applied to the trumpster. Simply, people would say, this symbolizes George or the other one symbolizes Jesus - but neither 'reveals a truth' about Donald.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2020 at 7:39 AM, thormas said:

You are right, it was said in fun as I too love his movies, even the corny ones like Donovan's Reef.

I understand tired and burnt out. So if and when you ever want to discuss these points or others, I'll be here.

 

 

 

Found a clip from 'Donavan's Reef'. Don't know if I've seen this one, but it looks familiar. I'm trying to figure out what "limy" means,.. think it might be an American or English slang term for Irish, (limy = green ?). Don't know if it's a term that I've ever heard before, it rings no bells. Don't think I agree with all of the concepts expressed in this clip either 😞 .

Think I might be having one of those weeks,... and am responding to the simple and less complex ideas first . . . 🙂 . . . 

Have you seen 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance', with John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Found a clip from 'Donavan's Reef'. Don't know if I've seen this one, but it looks familiar. I'm trying to figure out what "limy" means,.. think it might be an American or English slang term for Irish, (limy = green ?). Don't know if it's a term that I've ever heard before, it rings no bells. Don't think I agree with all of the concepts expressed in this clip either 😞 .

Think I might be having one of those weeks,... and am responding to the simple and less complex ideas first . . . 🙂 . . . 

Have you seen 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance', with John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart?

I think it is slang for a Brit but not positive. Most of us and certainly most PCs probably don't agree with everything that is in John Wayne movies but they were products of their time and also reflect Wayne's self image of a man's man. Liberty Valance was also a favorite of mine, with the emphasis on Stewart.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, thormas said:

I think it is slang for a Brit but not positive. Most of us and certainly most PCs probably don't agree with everything that is in John Wayne movies but they were products of their time and also reflect Wayne's self image of a man's man. Liberty Valance was also a favorite of mine, with the emphasis on Stewart.

 

I'm thinking that there were a few things in that clip that could be considered "Conduct not becoming an officer or a gentleman". . . . 

Love Jimmy Stewart! 

Do you know if 'Donavan's Reef' was set in the South Pacific or somewhere else? Interesting how divisions in one country can break out somewhere else, on the other side of the world, and even in times of war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2020 at 11:02 PM, PaulS said:

I'm underlining my words so they aren't confused with my quotes from you. Still can't figure out how to divide up a quote box like you all experienced PC forum users do.

100% okay with me.  There are a lot of things I am not certain about! :)

Think it's great when a person can admit it when they are uncertain about things. . . . "The more you know, the more you know what you don't know" Aristotle . . . . This has definitely turned out to be true for me.

It sounds like you still think it is something outside of or away from one’s self, as though it’s not an attribute one already has as a part of their being.  It sounds like you consider it seperate from what and who we are and as though it needs to be ‘found’ or contacted.  So in that regard it still seems to me to be ‘out there’ as in not a part of who we already are.

I've addressed this concept/question some 15 or so years back. I came to believe, to the best of my understanding, that the Higher Spirit/God is both outside and all around one, as well as inside one's own spirit and being. Where you say it's "an attribute one already has as a part of their being. " I really like that idea or concept. I don't know if it's something that I have experienced, or maybe I was disconnected from it myself, but I really like and can appreciate the concept. For myself, it really felt like I had to find or "contact" the Higher Spirit, both inside myself and through my "insides" into the outer world.

Interestingly, indigenous Australians, probably historically the oldest and most isolated human culture, reports no slavery before European’s arrived on the scene.  I wonder if in their isolation from the rest of humankind some 50-90,000 years prior meant the thought of enslaving another human just never crossed their minds?  And yes, it wasn’t until 1833 that the English abolished slavery in their empire, 1848 for the French (they had abolished it long before but it had come back) and eventually the US in 1865.

I think that you're probably right here. I'm also wondering if the indigenous Australians really had anyone to enslave or exploit. Also sometimes slavery has be what was considered the right thing to do with captives of war. That certainly isn't the only reason why it has gone on, but it is a consideration.

i too believe slavery should be eternally held as wrong.  I’m just making the point that historically the majority of humankind throughout history seems to have thought it was right.  So my only point was that ‘truth’ as we determine it often reflects the societal and cultural situations we find ourselves in.

I wouldn't consider that, "truth" Maybe it's the 'reality' that people found themselves in so they thought of it as "truth", but in a Divine, Higher sense of the word, myself, I really don't think of it as "truth.

I agree, but again my point is just that such understandings are reflective of our cultural values.  Today we couldn’t imagine a man marrying a 13yr old girl, but historically nobody batted an eyelid.  So ‘truth’ was understood differently at different times, I would argue. 

I was a 13 year old girl once, and believe you me , this is NOT "truth". NO,... no way, no how, not never. . uh-uh.. . .NO.. . no

Respect and tolerance are two buzz words we use.  I don’t disagree with them, particularly if it is respect and tolerance of what I believe is right! :). But if part of your identity was that you believed God wanted all infidels to be beheaded, then I wouldn’t be as keen to see you exercise your right to ‘be who you are’.  This is where I see understanding self as reflective of our cultural and societal influences.

But then one gets into having to respect the unrespectable and tolerate the intolerable, whether they are "buzz words" or cliché’s or not. What does one do with that/this!?!. . .  I'm not tolerant at all of 'beheading in the name of God' even if it's one's "religious" belief. . . & is that really a person's real, true self? . . . . I've cut my teeth on religious tolerance and freedom, but there are some real serious limits to it too!. . . How about religious cannibalism, or child sacrifice? ! ? ! There are people's who practiced this as part of "religion" just 1 generation ago.   It doesn't matter how big or small a particular "religious" group is, some stuff is just nuts. 

No problem.  Peace and goodwill.

By 'One Love ~ True Love' I also mean Lifelong as well as Eternal Love . .  . . (though I do think there are some real grounds for divorce and separations, (though in the Christian tradition, one doesn't need "grounds" for a separation, (though both parties can't "do anything" if they are  separated). . . . (& they are supposed to get back together or just remain separated,... forever . . .). . . 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2020 at 7:31 AM, thormas said:

The good news is that there was one man who stopped the 'stoners' in their tracks and said "consider." So there was once a people or some people who were ready willing and able to pick up the stones but they were shown the error of their way and, hopefully, not just for this moment but, going forward from that moment and in similar moments, they carried that wisdom with them and the 'truth' continued to 'set them free.'

 

Is this the same "one man" who wrote in the sand,.. and the stoning offence was one that involved two people, not one, though only one was brought forward? . . . & all the "stoners", all walked away cause that "one man" really made them look at themselves, honestly and in totality?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2020 at 7:53 AM, thormas said:

This is well said. An older theistic take on God seems to focus on the extrinsic God but less theistic views see God not as 'out there' but immanent in creation or, even more interesting, we have our being in God. There is no 'outsider God.

 

I really thought about this question some 15 years back, and decided, for myself, that God is both internal and external, both intrinsic and extrinsic. . . Can one 'kick God out' of oneself entirely? I don't know,... and really, really wouldn't want to try it myself, in order to find out. 

Can one 'kick God out' of another person, in part or in entirety? . . . Sometimes I feel like this has rather, sort of, kind of, really, happened to me. And for a real period of my life too. .  . . . But through reading the writings and books of people like John Shelby Spong and even & including Bart Ehrman, I've found my way out of that real, and real negative, and real, real painful, darkness.

& I'm not going back ! 🙂 ! ! !

& No one can make me ! 🙂 ! ! !

Yup ! ! ! . . . It's not happening ! ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Is this the same "one man" who wrote in the sand,.. and the stoning offence was one that involved two people, not one, though only one was brought forward? . . . & all the "stoners", all walked away cause that "one man" really made them look at themselves, honestly and in totality?

Yes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Elen,

If you highlight a paragraph, sentence or just a word (as if you were going to copy it) a box will appear that has the words Quote Selection inside of it. Just click on that box and the section you highlighted will appear below (for the newest comment in the thread you are on) and you can comment on it. You can do this numerous times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2020 at 7:53 AM, thormas said:

 I agree on this also. Hopefully a more PC or 'post modern' understanding can help but, I suspect, the real 'trick' is to live the truth or to incarnate this Divine Truth, i.e. to incarnate Love in humanity.

How does one do this? 

I can understand that God "incarnates" these things in people/individuals,... but how do we "incarnate" these things in others, or even ourselves.

Perhaps we have different understandings of the word "incarnate".

I've never thought I could "incarnate" anything in anyone, including myself,. . . never mind Love into humanity.

I've also never thought I could be "God incarnate", or anything like that. . .  That maybe happened to one person and one person only. . . God can maybe "incarnate" somethings in me, like good spiritual feelings, or a love for humanity, or certain ideas or insights or something. . . . But I've never thought of myself "incarnating" anything  . . . . I guess maybe I can be open to God "incarnating" these things or certain things in me, and that maybe I even have "free will" or free choice as to whether I allow these "incarnations" or not. But from my understanding of the word, only God "incarnates".

Maybe we have different understandings of the word "incarnate", or I'm not educated enough or something about how the word is actually used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I really thought about this question some 15 years back, and decided, for myself, that God is both internal and external, both intrinsic and extrinsic. . . Can one 'kick God out' of oneself entirely? I don't know,... and really, really wouldn't want to try it myself, in order to find out. 

Can one 'kick God out' of another person, in part or in entirety? . . . Sometimes I feel like this has rather, sort of, kind of, really, happened to me. And for a real period of my life too. .  . . . But through reading the writings and books of people like John Shelby Spong and even & including Bart Ehrman, I've found my way out of that real, and real negative, and real, real painful, darkness.

& I'm not going back ! 🙂 ! ! !

& No one can make me ! 🙂 ! ! !

Yup ! ! ! . . . It's not happening ! ! 

I agree with that, although I have gotten use to using the word transcendent or Other for external/extrinsic and the word immanent for internal/intrinsic. 

Interesting question about kicking God out. I would say 'in a sense' yes. I think one could argue that the Prodigal Son 'kicked' the Father out of his life for a while, symbolized by leaving the Father and living his own life that was at odds with the life of the Father. However, in the story, the Father remains, always available, always waiting, always present. So, was the Father ever really out or simply waiting, for as long as it took, for his child to turn back?

So too, if God is Love then one can 'kick' God out by not loving. However, Love (or the choice to love) is always there for one to take up once again. On another note if God is the ground of being, the very possibility of everything and anything existing, then one cannot kick God out or separate themselves from being. But it seems that, in Christianity, we are called to embody God/Love, so we are brought back to the idea of not loving, not being love and thus rejecting (kicking out) God. 

However I do get, at least I think I do, that you or anyone can kick God out of their life for a time. And if one formerly believed, I get that it could, for some, be lonely, sad or even terrifying. And that it takes a degree of courage and determination to 'rediscover' God anew.

Edited by thormas
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, thormas said:

If you highlight a paragraph, sentence or just a word (as if you were going to copy it) a box will appear that has the words Quote Selection inside of it.

Ok, I can do that once 

13 minutes ago, thormas said:

that

But trying to do it with 2 different sentences is proving to be difficult.

 

14 minutes ago, thormas said:

Just click on that box and the section you highlighted will appear below (for the newest comment in the thread you are on) and you can comment on it. You can do this numerous times.

Ok,.. I got your second sentence from your last post to me,.. but I can't remember how I did it, or don't know what I actually did.

16 minutes ago, thormas said:

Just click on that box and the section you highlighted will appear below (for the newest comment in the thread you are on) and you can comment on it. You can do this numerous times.

Ok,... I did it again by highlighting the selection and then right clicking it and then left clicking the page and then the option to "Quote Selection" pops up again.

I don't know if this is the best way of doing things,.. but at least it looks like it's working.

Hope that you or people don't mind me using your last post to me right in the middle of this comment thread to try to figure this out. Sorries if this is disruptive or something.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

How does one do this? 

I can understand that God "incarnates" these things in people/individuals,... but how do we "incarnate" these things in others, or even ourselves.

Perhaps we have different understandings of the word "incarnate".

I've never thought I could "incarnate" anything in anyone, including myself,. . . never mind Love into humanity.

I've also never thought I could be "God incarnate", or anything like that. . .  That maybe happened to one person and one person only. . . God can maybe "incarnate" somethings in me, like good spiritual feelings, or a love for humanity, or certain ideas or insights or something. . . . But I've never thought of myself "incarnating" anything  . . . . I guess maybe I can be open to God "incarnating" these things or certain things in me, and that maybe I even have "free will" or free choice as to whether I allow these "incarnations" or not. But from my understanding of the word, only God "incarnates".

Maybe we have different understandings of the word "incarnate", or I'm not educated enough or something about how the word is actually used.

I think we all do it naturally. If John, in his gospel is right, if God is Love, then when we love, we are 'embodying' God: we give God/Love flesh. People differentiate among different 'types' of love: eros, philia, agape with the last one pertaining to God, but I believe in all (true) acts of love, there is a going out of self on behalf of the other, there is a 'being for another.' There is or can be agape in eros and philia.

Incarnate simply means to embody, to let something live or be expressed in one's self. If you love (agape, compassionate concern), then you have opened yourself and allow Love to dwell in you and 'touch' the world. And it seems evident that such Love is the be all and end all of all - and it gives Life. We are drawn to it like a flower to the sun and like that flower, we bask in it and grow to fulfillment (without the sun, the flowers withers, dies and never becomes itself). In my understanding, whenever one so ioves, they are the incarnation of God/Love in that small moment. The 'trick' is to do in in all their moments. 

To talk about being God incarnate would, I think, be a bit much for anyone. However to talk about incarnating Love, letting Love live and reside in you is something that we recognize in others and that is also our possibility. For me, such incarnation - being Love - is the only way to be Christ: to be the son/daughter of God, the son/daughter of Love, the son/daughter of Life - in the world.

Traditional understandings of incarnation are clumsy. By that I mean we seem to think of God as a (Supreme) Being and imagine him coming into another being, a man in the 1st C. However if we think of God as Spirit, as Love. it, I believe, gets a whole lot easier to envision.  We can understand a person who seems to be the embodiment of Love, we get a person who is known for their amazing love. Why? Because many of us, many times, have experience them. 

And you are right about free will. I think again of the Prodigal Son story: the Father is there, always there and simply waits for the son to accept and by accepting become a 'new man.' This is the son's choice. So too, God/Love is present and we receive it, if we're lucky, from the first moment we draw a breath. It floods into us, it surrounds us, it is ever-present in and through the human community that touches us. We love because the have been loved, because we have been given (gift/grace) love and it is up to us to choose it. In our repeated choice to love, we are the incarnation of love, we body it forth in the world. Of course this is the ideal and sadly not all have such an experience. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Ok,... I did it again by highlighting the selection and then right clicking it and then left clicking the page and then the option to "Quote Selection" pops up again.

I don't know if this is the best way of doing things,.. but at least it looks like it's working.

Hope that you or people don't mind me using your last post to me right in the middle of this comment thread to try to figure this out. Sorries if this is disruptive or something.

Not sure about the right/left clicking and there might be other ways, perhaps Joesph can help.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, thormas said:

I agree with that, although I have gotten use to using the word transcendent or Other for external/extrinsic and the word immanent for internal/intrinsic. 

I'm thinking that it would take me a while to get used to, or to even remember this kind of word usage. Do you yourself communicate in circles where this kind of word usage is common, and/or are there circles where this kind of word usage is common?

It's interesting, but I've got to say that it is totally and completely new to me.

19 minutes ago, thormas said:

Interesting question about kicking God out. I would say 'in a sense' yes. I think one could argue that the Prodigal Son 'kicked' the Father out of his life for a while, symbolized by leaving the Father and living his own life that was at odds with the life of the Father. However, in the story, the Father remains, always available, always waiting, always present. So, was the Father ever really out or simply waiting, for as long as it took, for his child to turn back?

Did the Prodigal Son kick the Father out of his life or his Father out of his life? . . . Though I do understand that there is a parallel here and that the story of the P Son was told as a parable. . . . I'm thinking that it was a parable for the "Kingdom of God", but I don't have chapter and verse memorized, so I could be wrong here.

19 minutes ago, thormas said:

So too, if God is Love then one can 'kick' God out by not loving. However, Love (or the choice to love) is always there for one to take up once again. On another note if God is the ground of being, the very possibility of everything and anything existing, then one cannot kick God out or separate themselves from being. But it seems that, in Christianity, we are called to embody God/Love, so we are brought back to the idea of not loving, not being love and thus rejecting (kicking out) God. 

I don't know if I myself think of God as the "ground of all being", even though this phrase is used by a number of eminent scholars and some authors that I myself really think highly of. I guess I could say that God is 'the ground of all energy' or 'the Source of all energy'. 

I've read, and I'm pretty sure more than once, that J. S. Spong translates the word 'Father' as it's used as pertaining to God in the bible, as 'Source' instead of 'Father'. He, I believe, says that it's a better and more accurate translation into our English and also that is how it is translated back into ancient Americ or Syriac Americ.

Where Jesus is quoted as saying in the New Testament,  "Call no one your 'father' for you have but one 'father' who is in heaven". . . I, myself find this to be a more clear translation also, saying, "Call no one your 'source' for you have but one 'source' who is in heaven" . . . . cause there are a lot of people who do call a lot of other people "father". . & even in the Christian tradition(s), even though it says not to...

19 minutes ago, thormas said:

However I do get, at least I think I do, that you or anyone can kick God out of their life for a time. And if one formerly believed, I get that it could, for some, be lonely, sad or even terrifying. And that it takes a degree of courage and determination to 'rediscover' God anew.

Do you think that one person, or group of people can "kick God" out of another person's or group of people's lives?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm thinking that it would take me a while to get used to, or to even remember this kind of word usage. Do you yourself communicate in circles where this kind of word usage is common, and/or are there circles where this kind of word usage is common?

It's interesting, but I've got to say that it is totally and completely new to me.

Did the Prodigal Son kick the Father out of his life or his Father out of his life? . . . Though I do understand that there is a parallel here and that the story of the P Son was told as a parable. . . . I'm thinking that it was a parable for the "Kingdom of God", but I don't have chapter and verse memorized, so I could be wrong here.

I don't know if I myself think of God as the "ground of all being", even though this phrase is used by a number of eminent scholars and some authors that I myself really think highly of. I guess I could say that God is 'the ground of all energy' or 'the Source of all energy'. 

I've read, and I'm pretty sure more than once, that J. S. Spong translates the word 'Father' as it's used as pertaining to God in the bible, as 'Source' instead of 'Father'. He, I believe, says that it's a better and more accurate translation into our English and also that is how it is translated back into ancient Americ or Syriac Americ.

Where Jesus is quoted as saying in the New Testament,  "Call no one your 'father' for you have but one 'father' who is in heaven". . . I, myself find this to be a more clear translation also, saying, "Call no one your 'source' for you have but one 'source' who is in heaven" . . . . cause there are a lot of people who do call a lot of other people "father". . & even in the Christian tradition(s), even though it says not to...

Do you think that one person, or group of people can "kick God" out of another person's or group of people's lives?

All parables are related to the Kingdom of God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm thinking that it would take me a while to get used to, or to even remember this kind of word usage. Do you yourself communicate in circles where this kind of word usage is common, and/or are there circles where this kind of word usage is common?

It's interesting, but I've got to say that it is totally and completely new to me.

I might on occasion but for the most part I have picked it up from reading the works of different theologians and thinker who are tying to understand and better explain this 'stuff.' In many cases this kind of talk is commonplace in such books.

4 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm thinking that it would take me a while to get used to, or to even remember this kind of word usage. Do you yourself communicate in circles where this kind of word usage is common, and/or are there circles where this kind of word usage is common?

It's interesting, but I've got to say that it is totally and completely new to me.

His father but the audience knows his father is (or could be) the Father.

7 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I don't know if I myself think of God as the "ground of all being", even though this phrase is used by a number of eminent scholars and some authors that I myself really think highly of. I guess I could say that God is 'the ground of all energy' or 'the Source of all energy'. 

I've read, and I'm pretty sure more than once, that J. S. Spong translates the word 'Father' as it's used as pertaining to God in the bible, as 'Source' instead of 'Father'. He, I believe, says that it's a better and more accurate translation into our English and also that is how it is translated back into ancient Americ or Syriac Americ.

Where Jesus is quoted as saying in the New Testament,  "Call no one your 'father' for you have but one 'father' who is in heaven". . . I, myself find this to be a more clear translation also, saying, "Call no one your 'source' for you have but one 'source' who is in heaven" . . . . cause there are a lot of people who do call a lot of other people "father". . & even in the Christian tradition(s), even though it says not to...

I get that. I just like 'being' especially as it plays well with 'to be' and the burning bush when God gives his name as "I AM" - Being. Of course, 'Source' is also good and makes the point.

I've always gotten the idea of 'ground' of Being but that doesn't totally do it for me. Being or Holy Being works for me.  One of my professors cuts right to it; for him God is 'IS' or 'AM.' Which, in a sense, says it all.

I like Spong but I go with Jesus who simply called the Source and Creator, ABBA. The name a child would call her Father with the translation being something like Daddy or Dada. This cuts right to the intimacy of God for man and man in God.

I like what you wrote about Jesus and the use of the word Father but for me it is (along with Mommy) one of the dearest names in the world and to hear it on the lips of your child or to remember speaking it to my own Father is an incredible gift; it surpasses all other names and for Jesus to use it to address the Creator/Source of All is revelatory.

26 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Do you think that one person, or group of people can "kick God" out of another person's or group of people's lives?

Yes: if a child is abused, is never given love, never feels its warmth - then I believe this is or can be incredibly damaging (and is among the greatest sins). And it takes another person or persons to come into their life to give them love and life. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, thormas said:

I agree that the story is 'questionable' as historical but as Allison and others scholars say, this is the kind of thing that Jesus would say and do. In other words the 'fable' rings true; the myth speaks a truth. And the historical reality is that the disciples and first generation of followers of Jesus did not stone others: they accepted and lived his way (some of his later followers screwed the pooch with inquisitions and burnings though - but his was not all of his followers). 

Maybe.

15 hours ago, thormas said:

So the fable or myth works for me, works for Christians, works for PCs - glass is more than half full, it is spilling over it is so full (that too is not a literal truth).

Each to their own.  If it works for you and makes you a better person for our community - great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Elen1107 said:
  On 3/3/2020 at 12:02 PM, PaulS said:

I'm underlining my words so they aren't confused with my quotes from you. Still can't figure out how to divide up a quote box like you all experienced PC forum users do.

100% okay with me.  There are a lot of things I am not certain about! :)

Think it's great when a person can admit it when they are uncertain about things. . . . "The more you know, the more you know what you don't know" Aristotle . . . . This has definitely turned out to be true for me.

It sounds like you still think it is something outside of or away from one’s self, as though it’s not an attribute one already has as a part of their being.  It sounds like you consider it seperate from what and who we are and as though it needs to be ‘found’ or contacted.  So in that regard it still seems to me to be ‘out there’ as in not a part of who we already are.

I've addressed this concept/question some 15 or so years back. I came to believe, to the best of my understanding, that the Higher Spirit/God is both outside and all around one, as well as inside one's own spirit and being. Where you say it's "an attribute one already has as a part of their being. " I really like that idea or concept. I don't know if it's something that I have experienced, or maybe I was disconnected from it myself, but I really like and can appreciate the concept. For myself, it really felt like I had to find or "contact" the Higher Spirit, both inside myself and through my "insides" into the outer world.

Interestingly, indigenous Australians, probably historically the oldest and most isolated human culture, reports no slavery before European’s arrived on the scene.  I wonder if in their isolation from the rest of humankind some 50-90,000 years prior meant the thought of enslaving another human just never crossed their minds?  And yes, it wasn’t until 1833 that the English abolished slavery in their empire, 1848 for the French (they had abolished it long before but it had come back) and eventually the US in 1865.

I think that you're probably right here. I'm also wondering if the indigenous Australians really had anyone to enslave or exploit. Also sometimes slavery has be what was considered the right thing to do with captives of war. That certainly isn't the only reason why it has gone on, but it is a consideration.

i too believe slavery should be eternally held as wrong.  I’m just making the point that historically the majority of humankind throughout history seems to have thought it was right.  So my only point was that ‘truth’ as we determine it often reflects the societal and cultural situations we find ourselves in.

I wouldn't consider that, "truth" Maybe it's the 'reality' that people found themselves in so they thought of it as "truth", but in a Divine, Higher sense of the word, myself, I really don't think of it as "truth.

I agree, but again my point is just that such understandings are reflective of our cultural values.  Today we couldn’t imagine a man marrying a 13yr old girl, but historically nobody batted an eyelid.  So ‘truth’ was understood differently at different times, I would argue. 

I was a 13 year old girl once, and believe you me , this is NOT "truth". NO,... no way, no how, not never. . uh-uh.. . .NO.. . no

Respect and tolerance are two buzz words we use.  I don’t disagree with them, particularly if it is respect and tolerance of what I believe is right! :). But if part of your identity was that you believed God wanted all infidels to be beheaded, then I wouldn’t be as keen to see you exercise your right to ‘be who you are’.  This is where I see understanding self as reflective of our cultural and societal influences.

But then one gets into having to respect the unrespectable and tolerate the intolerable, whether they are "buzz words" or cliché’s or not. What does one do with that/this!?!. . .  I'm not tolerant at all of 'beheading in the name of God' even if it's one's "religious" belief. . . & is that really a person's real, true self? . . . . I've cut my teeth on religious tolerance and freedom, but there are some real serious limits to it too!. . . How about religious cannibalism, or child sacrifice? ! ? ! There are people's who practiced this as part of "religion" just 1 generation ago.   It doesn't matter how big or small a particular "religious" group is, some stuff is just nuts. 

No problem.  Peace and goodwill.

By 'One Love ~ True Love' I also mean Lifelong as well as Eternal Love . .  . . (though I do think there are some real grounds for divorce and separations, (though in the Christian tradition, one doesn't need "grounds" for a separation, (though both parties can't "do anything" if they are  separated). . . . (& they are supposed to get back together or just remain separated,... forever . . .). . . 

I've been certain about much in life, only to change my mind at a later date.  So like Aristotle, the one thing I know, is that what I 'know' can change and all of a sudden I 'know' something different to what I previously 'knew'.  This is probably why I don't think there is any particular 'universal truths' but only human decisions based on our experiences and cultural/societal settings.

Concerning aboriginal Australians, they did have distinctly different 'tribes' called 'clan groups' or 'nations', but from what I understand they didn't consider themselves that much 'different' from one another and considered themselves as all part of the same people who came from The Dreaming.  It seems to me that this was more a thought process of theirs that perhaps wasn't 'corrupted' by other humans who at some point did decide that slavery was a good thing for their tribe.  It simply didn't enter aboriginal Australian's heads so to speak.  

I'd have to say regarding 'truth' is that it seems to be in the eye of the beholder.  That's what I mean concerning previous societies accepting slavery.  For them it seemed 100% okay and I'm sure they were able to justify it culturally and religiously.  For them, the truth seems to be that slavery was okay.  We hold a different truth today.  Perhaps there will yet be another truth concerning it tomorrow?  I don't know.

Concerning respect and tolerance, again, I think it is in the eye of the beholder.  Religious 'nuts' who want to behead infidels are well regarded in some societies.  People who blow themselves up can be considered martyrs worthy of eternal paradise too in some cultures.  In my society, we don't really want either of those types of people.  Who's right and who's wrong?  Both are in my view, depending on which society they are living in.  It all comes down to our experiences, culture and society, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PaulS said:

 

I'll go with the life long scholar on the first part and the second is fact.

The truth of the myth (stoning) has worked and built community for many for generations, as it has for me.

Edited by thormas
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thormas said:

I'll go with the life long scholar on the first part and the second is fact.

The truth of the myth (stoning) has worked and built community for many for generations, as it has for me.

Like I said - Each to their own.  If it works for you and makes you a better person for our community - great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service