|
Post by rational on Sept 23, 2014 10:40:41 GMT -5
Good morning. For the second time, rational, I readily acknowledge that the essential topic of this thread is "beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding". It is unclear to me whether or not you have a problem with this fact, if you have a fundamental issue with folks discussing this topic on TMB please refer your objections to one of the monitors. I have no problem with any discussion. If I do I have the ability to not participate. I was not extending you remarks other than to give examples of the type of things that I consider under the paranormal umbrella.The topics were not provided for your review but you should feel free to do so should you be inclined. The very idea of transcendental phenomena place them under the umbrella of the paranormal. Phenomena are facts or situations that are observed to exist or happen and transcendental puts them in a spiritual or nonphysical realm. Your casting 'god' as the ground of all being clearly is casting god as a paranormal being. I mentioned the schizophrenic tie in because someone who has difficulty in differentiating between reality and, for example, hallucinations could possibly be suffering from some form of schizophrenia. When someone claims they are hearing voices alien telepathy is not the first thing that pops into my mind. There is no reason you should.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 23, 2014 10:50:05 GMT -5
I regret my lack of clarity in expressing myself on this thread. My comments have clearly led you to misunderstand my intentions. Assuming that your comments are intended to clarify rather than obfuscate, I will attempt a clearer expression of my interests. This clears up a lot. I see what you are saying. I think mdm made an interesting point: God is so incomprehensible to us that we cannot talk about what He is, but only about what He is like - through His attributes in some measure.I do not think this is the case. I think that man created their god(s), defined them up to a point, but to make them superior to mortals left some of the god's characteristics undefined and suggested that they could not be understood by mere mortals. If they could be understood by mortals then they would not be superior. You have defined your being as being beyond human understanding. Is not your "transcendent consciousness" really the way many people view god?
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 23, 2014 11:06:56 GMT -5
. . . . . the ability for humans to communicate over a distance without the need for physical or measurable energy transfers. Rational, are you aware of experimental data that unequivocally negate unobserved information transfer across distances without physical or measurable energy transfers? If so, could you provide us with specific references detailing these experiments? I am sure you are familiar with double slit experiments using entangled particles. The unexpected results of these experiments suggest that particles might (can?) exchange instantaneous information across distances. As I suggested in an earlier post, perhaps human cognition has not yet evolved to that point where meaningful questions about interconnectedness can be posed and answered productively.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 23, 2014 11:13:26 GMT -5
Your casting 'god' as the ground of all being . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 23, 2014 12:53:26 GMT -5
. . . . . the ability for humans to communicate over a distance without the need for physical or measurable energy transfers. Rational, are you aware of experimental data that unequivocally negate unobserved information transfer across distances without physical or measurable energy transfers? If so, could you provide us with specific references detailing these experiments? No, I am not. Are you aware of any experimental data that proves that information transfer across a distance contradicts the principle of locality? Even the idea of superluminal communication still has many lose ends. There certainly are many interpretations of what has been demonstrated. As I pointed out, it does suggest instantaneous communication across distances but it is not without questions or alternative explanations. I think the questions can be posed but no definitive answer has yet been provided. From your questions and explanation am I safe in assuming you are talking about quantum teleportation? A simplistic way to look at it is to compare it to the telegraph. You introduce a pulse at one end of the wire and without any material moving the effect is seen many miles away. Qubit communication still required standard communication which raises the whole locality question. It seems that you were responding to my post containing: "...the ability for humans to communicate over a distance without the need for physical or measurable energy transfers." still remains to be demonstrated.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Sept 23, 2014 18:21:36 GMT -5
When Rational speaks of a "paranormal being," I am entirely in sympathy with this concept, in regard to the frequent representation of God as the mighty, judging, "Man" up there, handing out rather arbitrary laws and rulings. But, I believe it is Tillich who also speaks of God as not a being to be compared to others - even as "incomparably" higher and mightier than other beings. He is not a "being," but the ground of ALL being. So for me, "paranormal" does not fit in this context, as the "ground" is very "normal." The comment I would have that the word 'ground' is not the issue but the entity that is being defined as the 'ground' of all beings. The definition of ground comes into question. The foundation or basis. The reason for a belief. Restated as the foundation of all being. Or the reason for all being. It once again places us in a non-normal place. Not unlike a creator being. The reason for all being. Okay, I'll leave it here then, as I would likely get tangled up in words if I were to push the point. "Non-normal" or "paranormal" is okay with me . . . I am likely rambling here, but will leave my post at this for now, if you don't mind me respectfully edging into the conversation . . . Seems like a good idea! Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 24, 2014 8:53:27 GMT -5
I have been quietly listening in on the conversation a bit this morning (well, it is still morning here on Guam!), and I first find it imperative to first comment that I do appreciate the respectful tone of the conversation, even in expressing at least somewhat opposing views! The topic is highly meaningful to me, and I believe some of the questions asked have in some measure "been there" in my consciousness for much of my life, while it is in the past couple of years that I have begun to find, not "answers," but responses and promises that correspond to - or confront - those hardly utterable questions. I do not join the conversation with the assertion that I have any answers, but would like to present things that I have been reading that seem to resonate with the topics being discussed. Paul Tillich speak of "God" as "the ground of our being," and as a transcendent "other," leading into the future, through promise, response, and fulfillment. I find this to be the most satisfactory way for me to comprehend God. I understand why "New Age" people speak of God being "within," as we do become aware of something deep within being touched, or perhaps "awakened" would be a more appropriate term. At the same time, the Judeo-Christian God is narrated as the ultimate "other," with whom we can not only enter into relationship, but who promises and fulfills as we respond. This has been my experience. When Rational speaks of a "paranormal being," I am entirely in sympathy with this concept, in regard to the frequent representation of God as the mighty, judging, "Man" up there, handing out rather arbitrary laws and rulings. But, I believe it is Tillich who also speaks of God as not a being to be compared to others - even as "incomparably" higher and mightier than other beings. He is not a "being," but the ground of ALL being. So for me, "paranormal" does not fit in this context, as the "ground" is very "normal." Of course, "paranormal" is spoken in reference to what we cannot see and quantify, and that is also valid, particularly when I am asked to believe something contrary to sense and experience - i.e. the world was created in six literal days. I began to question some of this as a worker, an "entry point" for me being the Tower of Babel. I love language, and when some fellow workers grew nervous at my talk of languages evolving (I have seen it happen in my lifetime!), I knew something was amiss. But I love the story of Babel! I see it, not as an historic event, but as a myth (not a "fairy tale), speaking of humanity's continual striving for something that is not his (or hers!) to grasp for. But then I don't require you to believe it or find meaning in it, and won't consign you to a "lost eternity" for not understanding it in the same way as I do! I am likely rambling here, but will leave my post at this for now, if you don't mind me respectfully edging into the conversation . . . Cool post Alan, most provocative. I have no knowledge of Paul Tillich's work but after reading your post I checked him out. Interesting guy with a very interesting approach. I have only looked at abstracts but his analysis seems pretty dense, I don't know if I will be able to crawl through it. The abstracts suggest his work is accessible though. Do you have any specific recommendations for a starting point? I like your comments about myths. I think of myths as a sort of "structured vocabulary" (a vocabulary that enables an exchange of experiences between laymen in the absence of "tangible evidence"). I often regret that the value and utility of mythological structures has been depreciated and lost in our modern society. I wonder if we may have lost some of the cohesion in modern society because we have lost effective symbolic vocabularies to formulate some of our questions and express some of our understanding. I think this is the kind of stuff that Joseph Campbell and Jung used to worry about. Although the media did a yeomen's job trying to explain the nature and meaning of the recent events relating to the "God Particle", I have not had the sense that the layman (myself included) is able to relate to the science on a visceral level. I believe this gap between experience and understanding is unhealthy in a society. My fear is that it is leading to a new "priesthood" revering scientific "facts" (much as religious "priests" revere transcendent "facts"). It is not the reverence that concerns me as much as the misapplication of knowledge (power) toward manipulation of the uninformed. So I am torn between a desire for a functional vocabulary that would enable the effective exchange by lay-persons of inexplicable experiences - as myths might have done - and a fear of the manipulative power vested in the personification of a putative transcendent consciousness. There is a rich historical record documenting such abuse dating from the dawn of recorded human history and playing out in the headlines of our daily news today. It is a sundering similar to my desire to appreciate the intricate mechanics of the reality I experience (a verifiable explanation of how "things work") and a fear of the manipulative power vested in the "high priests" of materialism.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 24, 2014 15:09:25 GMT -5
When you ask Wally and Nathan about their 'relationship' with God it seems you are after hearing about something that's experiential and relational. Yet, when I tell you about my relational and experiential perception of God, you want me to put aside the relationship and experiences and talk about... theory? You mention “fashioning” a relationship with God. If it’s imagined, it’s not a relationship at all, it’s just ideas. Can we have a relationship without knowing the one we are supposed to be having a relationship with or at least experiencing them in some way? If we are truly experiencing, then we are not trying to imagine - we know. I can’t talk in theoretical terms about something that is a reality to me, just like I can’t do that about any other relationship. Do you believe that God wants to or can reveal anything about Himself to you inwardly (not just through physical creation)? God is so incomprehensible to us that we cannot talk about what He is, but only about what He is like - through His attributes in some measure. Not all the attributes are human, but some are. I don’t have a problem with that because that’s what we can relate to and understand. If I believe that I know some aspect of what God is like, does it mean that I thin I know what He is? No. I don’t feel that my perception of these attributes puts God in box, only that I know in some measure how He sees me and the world around me. Even though ‘love’ is a misused word, we know that human love doesn’t equal God’s love. The Greeks have several words for ‘love’ – perhaps that would be helpful. We just don’t have anything better in our vocabulary, so we have to use what is available. .. If we experience something that feels like love, but have not better word for it, what else can we do but label it as 'love'? If the thought that ‘God is love’ appeals to you, and if you perceive love around you, do you think that love is directional and relational? Can there be love without two entities giving and receiving it? Can you talk about how you see this presence/entity without personifying it and using human attributes? Maja, I fear that I am frustrating you with my disjointed and often contradictory comments and questions. I apologize for treading such a random and circuitous path. MY intent is not to confuse or frustrate. Rather, my comments reflect the fact that I have no clear path forward in my own quest toward understanding, meaning and purpose. My questions are intended to learn how others understand some of the vexing questions about meaning that face us all. My vocabulary probably does suggest an interest in theory. My interests are not theoretical. I find it difficult to have a conversation on some of these topics without at least an attempt at clarity of meaning and the consequence is often strident. You ask the very reasonable question if we can have a relationship "without knowing the one" or "at least experiencing" the (one?) with whom we seek that relationship. In my own case, I don't feel as if I do/can "know" that which transcends knowledge but I do feel that I "experience" a consciousness that transcends understanding. I am unable to say what "God wants" but yes, I do believe that there is a process of revelation that individuals can perceive by quieting their mind and opening themselves to insight. I agree with your observation about the incomprehensibility of that which we call "God". And at core, I understand and accept that if we are to have fellowship one with another about our experiences we have no choice but to use the language we have. My anxiety about the personification of "God" is not about language, it is about how we project human characteristics, human feelings and human emotions onto something about which we really have no knowledge except for our own personal experiences. I fear this projection of humanness. I stumble when I learn from someone that "God" wants my hair a certain length. In my mind, projections of that nature are projections of "man" seeking dominion. I am unable to accept that such dominion relates to the meaning or purpose of my life. Your comments about "love" are excellent and I have no ready answer. One response that has occupied my mind since you asked is the thought that my conception of "God" in not only omniscience but also omnipresent in which case it seems fair to consider "love" as a permeating entity rather than a directional entity. Toughest of all is your question about how I see "this presence/entity without personifying it". It is remarkable how comparatively easy it is to say what isn't or what is wrong and what we don't believe. It is a whole different story for me to say what I do believe. Honesty compels me to say . . . . "I do not know". I seem to be stuck in a permanent state of seeking but that state disables commitment. This concerns me. I will start with a metaphor that is so hackneyed, so trite and so superficial that I am red-face embarrassed to use it. . . . . . I think of a transcendent presence much as a "fish would relate to water". It is a metaphor that implies the presence of "one in all" (i.e. the water permeates all) and "all in one" (i.e. the fish and all that gives it and it's experiences meaning are contained within one entity). It is weak, but it is the best I can offer at the moment. BobWilliston's grandchild seemed to share a similar view if I am not mistaken. One aspect of the metaphor that I like is the implied duality. I subscribe to a particular duality. When I think of my own existence, I try to hold two very distinct images in my mind simultaneously. I try to embrace the thought that I am both "the center of the universe" and "of no greater import than a single grain of sand". The one image demands unassailable humility. The other image demands inescapable responsibility for the welfare of the reality I perceive. To the extent that I am able to sincerely and genuinely connect (love, care, nurture, comfort) with the reality of which I am now a part, I feel that I have started along the path of understanding my purpose. Insights that I may gather along the way freshen both my desire and commitment. Should those insights be part of a grander plan, I am gratified. If not, I remain fulfilled. You allude to spiritual abuse with the purpose of establishing man’s dominion over others by applying human characteristics to ‘god’ and requiring adherence to arbitrary form. I can appreciate that. I don’t see how that would relate to the meaning or purpose of anyone’s life. For myself, even though I may reject ‘Christian’ teachings (whatever they may be in a particular church), I cannot reject the Bible. Why? Because my spiritual experiences refer me back to its teachings, because I find in it instruction I appreciate, guidance that has proven helpful, because when I have a new understanding or answer in prayer, I say: “oh, so that’s why the Bible says such and such,” because God has spoken to me using verses in the Bible. So, I hope you’ll forgive me if I quote a verse that comes to mind regarding love being the ‘permeating’ reality. In Isaiah, Seraphim call out: “The whole earth is full of His glory.” His glory permeates the whole earth. (On the other hand, there is something the earth is not full of, and that is the knowledge of God. That’s when all will be in agreement with His love.) Now, if love or glory permeate the earth, does that necessarily negate that they have a point of origin? I like your fish metaphor. What it’s lacking for me personally is that the ‘fish’ is supposed to be evolving through seeing the bigger picture and accordingly modifying how it relates to other fish. Or is that covered in your next paragraph? Your two ending paragraphs had me thinking: how fascinating is it that at the heart of our search for God and meaning of life lies the question of how we relate to other humans and the world around us, and what our purpose is in that context! It really has to do with mundane issues of this life in the material world we live in, and yet it transcends them and makes them sacred. Because it is relationships that provide the vehicle for spiritual growth. If our understanding or beliefs don’t affect positively how we relate to and treat one another and don’t change us for the better, they are meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Sept 24, 2014 23:22:51 GMT -5
Cool post Alan, most provocative. I have no knowledge of Paul Tillich's work but after reading your post I checked him out. Interesting guy with a very interesting approach. I have only looked at abstracts but his analysis seems pretty dense, I don't know if I will be able to crawl through it. The abstracts suggest his work is accessible though. Do you have any specific recommendations for a starting point? I like your comments about myths. I think of myths as a sort of "structured vocabulary" (a vocabulary that enables an exchange of experiences between laymen in the absence of "tangible evidence"). I often regret that the value and utility of mythological structures has been depreciated and lost in our modern society. I wonder if we may have lost some of the cohesion in modern society because we have lost effective symbolic vocabularies to formulate some of our questions and express some of our understanding. I think this is the kind of stuff that Joseph Campbell and Jung used to worry about. Although the media did a yeomen's job trying to explain the nature and meaning of the recent events relating to the "God Particle", I have not had the sense that the layman (myself included) is able to relate to the science on a visceral level. I believe this gap between experience and understanding is unhealthy in a society. My fear is that it is leading to a new "priesthood" revering scientific "facts" (much as religious "priests" revere transcendent "facts"). It is not the reverence that concerns me as much as the misapplication of knowledge (power) toward manipulation of the uninformed. So I am torn between a desire for a functional vocabulary that would enable the effective exchange by lay-persons of inexplicable experiences - as myths might have done - and a fear of the manipulative power vested in the personification of a putative transcendent consciousness. There is a rich historical record documenting such abuse dating from the dawn of recorded human history and playing out in the headlines of our daily news today. It is a sundering similar to my desire to appreciate the intricate mechanics of the reality I experience (a verifiable explanation of how "things work") and a fear of the manipulative power vested in the "high priests" of materialism. Thanks, yknot! One of my earliest encounters with the assignment of anthropomorphic qualities to God was as a not-yet-professing teen, in record stores guiltily reading the back cover of Jethro Tull's Aqualung album, with it's text reading, "In the beginning man created God, and in his image created he Him . . ." Blasphemy in my young mind, and of course, we (meeting people) "knew the truth about God." And yet, a fascination was there, perhaps a seed, one of those questions that remains and informs much of one's life . . . I really don't know where to direct you as far as an entry point to Paul Tillich's writing. It is dense! The phrase I referred to - "ground of our being" - is from his three-volume Systematic Theology, I believe, which sat on my bookshelf for over a year before I finally tackled it last summer. He has a number of shorter works, of course, and some at least refer to, assume, this way of referring to God, but I have not read extensively in his works. One of my earliest theological readings was Tillich's The Courage to Be (which is not the heart-warming motivational book the title may imply!). He deals in this work with humanity's earliest fears of death, then later feelings of guilt, and finally the modern absence of meaning in human existence. As I have read through the dialogue on this thread, Maja and Yknot have posed questions and made statements that somehow resonate with me - questions that matter to me! These correspond with various writings that have been formative of my thought in the past (nearly) three years, so in order to maintain at least a semblance of cohesion in my response, I have determined to list and comment on several of these works - sort of a "selective annotated bibliography." 1) Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of DiscipleshipThis became a favorite while yet in the opening paragraphs! Bonhoeffer fled Germany (to the U.S.) in the early 30s, growing nervous with the political climate, which German Christianity fully supported. Bonhoeffer subsequently returned to Germany before the war, feeling it imperative as a Christian to oppose the ruling party. He was in time imprisoned and executed. The book's value for me is in the defining of discipleship as a radically transforming relationship - not simply reading some "teachings" and attempting to "apply" them to one's life. Bonhoeffer deals with the seemingly immediate call and response of those early disciples - "Follow me. And they left their nets and followed him." We want to know the details! Had they listened to Jesus before? How much time had transpired? But the writer asserts that the paucity of detail is theologically-based: the focus is on a deeply transformative experience in these lives, which had to do with a call and obedience. They are intended as neither historic nor biographical sketches. Thus, "discipleship" is formed through obedient response, rather than through historic analysis (which can prove interesting and possibly helpful). 2) Walter Brueggemann, Finally Comes the PoetBrueggemann is an Old Testament theologian whose writing has helped me to break through the narrow boundaries through which i have viewed scripture. He relates the prophet to the poet - symbolically expressing truths that cannot be spoken only through the objective, rational mode with which modern society is enamored - though these of course do have their place! In this book, Bruegemann takes us through the book of Daniel, showing - as in all his writings - what it means when God intervenes, when He gives His judgment, and lives are transformed. I believe that opening up to this symbolic - mythic - way of understanding is vital. Another writer (Tillich?) said that we don't need to de-mythologize the Bible, but to de-literalize our interpretation it. This has brought much misuse by Christians themselves, and much justified criticism from outside the church. 3) Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified GodWe are obviously approaching "trinitarian" doctrine here! Moltmann focuses on God fully entering into human suffering. Trinitarian doctrine has become problematic through the use of Greek "substantial" thought and terminology, leading to absurd considerations of "How can God be in three places at one time?" The Trinity was intended to be a means of conveying ideas of the directional working of God: God the Father sending the Son, who returned to God before sending the Spirit. It expresses beautiful truths about the relationships, and is meaningful in our own discipleship - receiving the Spirit and being sent into the world. For Moltmann, the ability of God to suffer in turning from the Son, and of the Son to suffer - both humanly in separation from the Father - is critical. If God cannot suffer, we end up "creating" an "omnipotent," unfeeling and uncaring "being," which is really more of a personification of our own use of power. Additionally, Jesus' suffering (and being tempted) is part of his being fully human, an aspect which is often neglected in deference to his "divinity." For Moltmann and others, "divinity" was not substantially-based, but rather in obedience and doing. Most of those that I read do not believe in a literal "virgin birth," which would have created a biological "freak,' rather than a fully human being. The stories of Jesus' birth emulate common "god-birth" myths. I do not feel they were used to validate Jesus' divinity, but rather to express - in a symbolic manner - this inexplicable dealing of God and transformation within a human heart. 4) Douglas John Hall, Lighten Our DarknessHall is a student of Tillich, who both admires and challenges him! Hall is Canadian, and seeks to bring a North American background to his theology, whereas many of the others we look to - Barth, Tillich, Bonhoeffer, Moltmann, etc. - are German in perspective. Nothing is "wrong" with this, but they speak to specifically German concerns, much of it centered around the despair of World War II. In simply retaining theologies of past generations, we humans tend to turn it into a pious or intellectual "Christianity." As is suggested by the title I cited, Hall addresses the all-too-consistently denied "darkness" in our "positive" North American culture. He is not a "gloom-and-doom" prophet, but feels that we have an almost obsessive denial of life's darker aspects. This can be in the sense of "social issues," but it also speaks to our own, deep uneasiness or quest for meaning in life. Hall does not advocate an easy, "jump-on-the-bandwagon" activism, but rather a reflective engagement with our own idolatries, or with what we make "ultimate" (more Tillich!) in our lives. 5) Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society, The Meaning of The City, and The Politics of God and The Politics of ManI only "discovered" Ellul this summer (I think I was led to him really), and have finally found a writer that confronts humanity radically enough for me! I list three of his books because Ellul writes in a way that on book will only bring a reader "halfway there." A sociologist by profession, Ellul writes sociological analysis that can leave one feeling quite hopeless, intending that one also reads his "confronting" theological writings. I have listed two of his theological works, which I feel both address The Technological Society.Ellul asserts that "technique" (not only technology) has become the ruling power in modern society - an idol - which we repeatedly attempt to "fix" with ever more "techniques." He refers to industrial technique (the original machine), economic technique, educational technique, religious technique, sports technique, recreational technique, political technique, business technique - all of which are interwoven. We believe we can control them, but they control us, and alienate us from what it means to be truly human. Ellul finds these in every type of government and economic system - Communist or capitalist, democracy or dictatorship. He is not attacking a particular system. Theologically, Ellul links these powers to idolatry - which also had a power, and brought unintended consequences to the worshipers - oppression, slavery, violence. _________________________________________ Though this post does not specifically address the thread topic - "The Personification of God" - I feel that it (like all topics) is interwoven with all areas of life. The writings that mean so much to me point to God's concern with right relationships - as expressed even in the Decalogue - the Ten Commandments. I feel that it is a skewing of these relationships that leads us to "personify" God in hurtful ways, as in earlier idolatry. And yet, Jesus used these "personifying" metaphors. I see his use as transformative of meaning. "You call me Lord and Master, and I am among you as one that serveth" and "The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto . . . a sower, a mustard seed, leaven." These define a much-changed set of relationships, though we are so prone to simply assume our human versions of kings and kingdoms. Jesus well knew our inclinations, and sought to portray for us a radically different "kingdom."
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 25, 2014 7:42:48 GMT -5
Thank you Alan, I really enjoyed reading through your annotated list of theological references. Delightful! That was a lot of effort and much appreciated. There seems to be so many quality studies of these issues and I have never availed myself of any of that literature. Seems like I have found a path forward, huh?
I want to reflect some on what you have posted before responding. Back at ya, later.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 25, 2014 7:54:36 GMT -5
You allude to spiritual abuse with the purpose of establishing man’s dominion over others by applying human characteristics to ‘god’ and requiring adherence to arbitrary form. I can appreciate that. I don’t see how that would relate to the meaning or purpose of anyone’s life. For myself, even though I may reject ‘Christian’ teachings (whatever they may be in a particular church), I cannot reject the Bible. Why? Because my spiritual experiences refer me back to its teachings, because I find in it instruction I appreciate, guidance that has proven helpful, because when I have a new understanding or answer in prayer, I say: “oh, so that’s why the Bible says such and such,” because God has spoken to me using verses in the Bible. So, I hope you’ll forgive me if I quote a verse that comes to mind regarding love being the ‘permeating’ reality. In Isaiah, Seraphim call out: “The whole earth is full of His glory.” His glory permeates the whole earth. (On the other hand, there is something the earth is not full of, and that is the knowledge of God. That’s when all will be in agreement with His love.) Now, if love or glory permeate the earth, does that necessarily negate that they have a point of origin? I like your fish metaphor. What it’s lacking for me personally is that the ‘fish’ is supposed to be evolving through seeing the bigger picture and accordingly modifying how it relates to other fish. Or is that covered in your next paragraph? Your two ending paragraphs had me thinking: how fascinating is it that at the heart of our search for God and meaning of life lies the question of how we relate to other humans and the world around us, and what our purpose is in that context! It really has to do with mundane issues of this life in the material world we live in, and yet it transcends them and makes them sacred. Because it is relationships that provide the vehicle for spiritual growth. If our understanding or beliefs don’t affect positively how we relate to and treat one another and don’t change us for the better, they are meaningless. Wow! Your last paragraph says it all! The elegance of the view you express is so powerful I just want to savor it for a while. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 25, 2014 8:59:38 GMT -5
Your two ending paragraphs had me thinking: how fascinating is it that at the heart of our search for God and meaning of life lies the question of how we relate to other humans and the world around us, and what our purpose is in that context! It really has to do with mundane issues of this life in the material world we live in, and yet it transcends them and makes them sacred. Because it is relationships that provide the vehicle for spiritual growth. If our understanding or beliefs don’t affect positively how we relate to and treat one another and don’t change us for the better, they are meaningless. Wow! Your last paragraph says it all! The elegance of the view you express is so powerful I just want to savor it for a while. Thank you. I agree! I have been following this thread with interest, wondering if there would be a way for me to participate. Maja's statement, quoted above, resonates - possibly fully - with my sense of where my search for meaning and purpose lies.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 25, 2014 9:09:10 GMT -5
I agree! I have been following this thread with interest, wondering if there would be a way for me to participate. Maja's statement, quoted above, resonates - possibly fully - with my sense of where my search for meaning and purpose lies. I totally agree matisse. It is amazing that such a straight forward statement can result in such sympathetic resonance between markedly different perspectives. I'm blown away.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 25, 2014 9:27:40 GMT -5
I agree! I have been following this thread with interest, wondering if there would be a way for me to participate. Maja's statement, quoted above, resonates - possibly fully - with my sense of where my search for meaning and purpose lies. I totally agree matisse. It is amazing that such a straight forward statement can result in such sympathetic resonance between markedly different perspectives. I'm blown away. This locates one point of "richness" that I have experienced through what I described earlier in the thread as a "stark" point of view. Strip away the "foliage" and you find that we are not all that different or distant from each other.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 25, 2014 10:59:59 GMT -5
Thanks a lot Alan... now I have 'Aqualung'stuck in my head Great reviews by the way!
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Sept 25, 2014 18:54:37 GMT -5
Thanks a lot Alan... now I have 'Aqualung'stuck in my head Great reviews by the way! Hah! Thanks, Lee. Well, I hope you're not "feeling like a dead duck; spitting out pieces of your broken luck."
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Sept 25, 2014 19:06:08 GMT -5
Your two ending paragraphs had me thinking: how fascinating is it that at the heart of our search for God and meaning of life lies the question of how we relate to other humans and the world around us, and what our purpose is in that context! It really has to do with mundane issues of this life in the material world we live in, and yet it transcends them and makes them sacred. Because it is relationships that provide the vehicle for spiritual growth. If our understanding or beliefs don’t affect positively how we relate to and treat one another and don’t change us for the better, they are meaningless. Maja, this is a very meaningful and vital question for me as well. We humans - in our religion, sociology, politics and elsewhere, seem to continually have difficulty in finding the appropriate interaction between the individual and community, between the "secular" and "religious," between the physical and the spiritual; creating dualities that ought not to exist! It seems oversimplified though to simply say, "We're all one, part of each other," as these statements fail to address the ways in which we favor one to the exclusion of another resulting in oppression, exploitation, etc. You state it well!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Storebo on Sept 27, 2014 12:54:29 GMT -5
The bible-god is a "personal" god...and with all of mans personal ego based faults. People seek to simplify God by giving Him their own personal attributes, & their cultural values. I see God as being less of a person. How about a god where all that exists is part of God? We are God rediscovering Himself. We are discovering our own inherent divinity. All is connected, separation is illusion.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 27, 2014 16:17:08 GMT -5
The bible-god is a "personal" god...and with all of mans personal ego based faults. People seek to simplify God by giving Him their own personal attributes, & their cultural values. I see God as being less of a person. How about a god where all that exists is part of God? We are God rediscovering Himself. We are discovering our own inherent divinity. All is connected, separation is illusion. It's fine for you to believe that description of God. You don't believe that's the traditional concept of either the OT God or the NT God, do you?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 28, 2014 9:35:35 GMT -5
The concepts of "omniscience" and "omnipotence" are striking me as being anthropomorphic. Knowledge and power are important for human leadership and survival. I apologize if I state the obvious or if I am disrupting the flow of the thread. I just hadn't thought about it quite this way before.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 28, 2014 10:49:15 GMT -5
Thanks a lot Alan... now I have 'Aqualung'stuck in my head Great reviews by the way! Hah! Thanks, Lee. Well, I hope you're not "feeling like a dead duck; spitting out pieces of your broken luck." Yes, suffering has been challenging to the way I see God. Theologians (some) ask us why good things happen to bad people, but the story of Job relentlessly asks, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Not simply I have determined. Being made in his image, it is natural that people would personify God. The suffering Christ put this tendency into check by placing greater scrutiny upon our motivations, to the end that we would identify with what is most real in ourselves and others.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Sept 28, 2014 13:13:02 GMT -5
1) Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of DiscipleshipThis became a favorite while yet in the opening paragraphs! Bonhoeffer fled Germany (to the U.S.) in the early 30s, growing nervous with the political climate, which German Christianity fully supported. Bonhoeffer subsequently returned to Germany before the war, feeling it imperative as a Christian to oppose the ruling party. He was in time imprisoned and executed. The book's value for me is in the defining of discipleship as a radically transforming relationship - not simply reading some "teachings" and attempting to "apply" them to one's life. Bonhoeffer deals with the seemingly immediate call and response of those early disciples - "Follow me. And they left their nets and followed him." We want to know the details! Had they listened to Jesus before? How much time had transpired? But the writer asserts that the paucity of detail is theologically-based: the focus is on a deeply transformative experience in these lives, which had to do with a call and obedience. They are intended as neither historic nor biographical sketches. Thus, "discipleship" is formed through obedient response, rather than through historic analysis (which can prove interesting and possibly helpful). I was introduced to Bonhoffer by a young American missionary (who later became my husband). This was more than 20 years ago, so I don’t remember the details. I do remember that, as a brand new Christian who had just discovered the Bible, I enjoyed Bonhoffer's writing, but couldn't comprehend why to my friend it would seem radical in a new and significant way. Well, of course, it had to do with the fact that I was reading the Bible (specifically NT) without the clouded lens of church culture and traditions, and Bonhoffer offered nothing that wasn’t already obvious from reading the NT (as much as I could understand then or remember now). Even if I was wrong in my assessment then or in my recollection now, it is true that as Christianity becomes a family or societal tradition, it loses its radical value. For example, in those days, a war started in what was then Yugoslavia. Some of the young men in our and other protestant churches - brand new converts who converted often in opposition to their families and definitely in opposition to the general public sentiment - were pulled into mandatory army service. Off to war they went, and we heard them talk about choosing to not fire a single shot. What to protestant church members of the same day in the US would have seemed ‘radical’ (and who in church services thanked US soldiers for fighting in Iraq or wherever) to them was only natural. At the extreme end of the spectrum, there were the long established Orthodox and Catholic Churches in Yugoslavia, very much part of culture and politics, whose representatives fanned the flames of the war and went around performing blessing ceremonies over weapons. Similarly, the first worker we met talked about the early days of Truth in NZ, and how professing men refused to carry arms and consequently served time in prison. Yet, today, the 'friends' view politics and war much like the rest of the society. I don’t mean to talk about wars and politics, but just to illustrate how, as religion becomes a family or societal tradition, it loses the radical quality it had in the beginning. As it is simply passed down to each consecutive generation, what to the first generation was a fresh loaf of bread, for the next generation has turned stale, but they probably won’t even realize it because that’s what they are used to eating. To know what fresh bread tastes like, every person has to knead his own loaf. But that is not comfortable, easy or even encouraged. One has to get beyond the comfort zone of familiar religious culture, traditions and form, all of which obscure radical truths. One has to seek God all alone and not be afraid to think that God is not found in traditions and form, and that maybe they are just idolatry. Verses: “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you," and “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God,” are often quoted to potential converts, but they are really meant for everyone. I'll have to read Bonhoffer again and see if he seems more radical now than 20 years ago!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 28, 2014 14:55:45 GMT -5
Yes, suffering has been challenging to the way I see God. Theologians (some) ask us why good things happen to bad people, but the story of Job relentlessly asks, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Not simply I have determined. Being made in his image, it is natural that people would personify God. The suffering Christ put this tendency into check by placing greater scrutiny upon our motivations, to the end that we would identify with what is most real in ourselves and others. Of course that phrase, "Being made in his image," should be turned on it's head, because it is the other way round.
Since it is people who have made god in THEIR image, how else could they envision god but with the "Personification" that is their own characteristics?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 29, 2014 8:30:46 GMT -5
That's what this thread is about. The tendency for humans to identify with themselves while imagining they're identifying with something greater. Since God does not exist apart from our imaginations looks like we're screwed.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 29, 2014 10:02:50 GMT -5
The concepts of "omniscience" and "omnipotence" are striking me as being anthropomorphic. Knowledge and power are important for human leadership and survival. I apologize if I state the obvious or if I am disrupting the flow of the thread. I just hadn't thought about it quite this way before. Good morning matisse. I am not sure I grasp your meaning precisely. Anthropomorphic means having human characteristics. Neither omniscience nor omnipotence strike me as human characteristics. Superior knowledge and superior power are certainly representative characteristics of some humans but I think of those characteristics as more aspirational than actual. Would you mind expanding a little more on the idea you are expressing. I am intrigued by your idea from a human psychological point of view. As the efficacy of human's ability to manipulate their environment is perceived to expand, man's self-regard (ego) probably also expands. At some point it probably becomes increasing difficult to sustain both one's own ego and a conception of "God".
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 29, 2014 10:11:37 GMT -5
Powerful post above, maja. Thanks
Great food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Sept 29, 2014 10:16:39 GMT -5
Being made in his image, it is natural that people would personify God. The suffering Christ put this tendency into check by placing greater scrutiny upon our motivations, to the end that we would identify with what is most real in ourselves and others. This is a perspective that I have not heard expressed before. Could you say more about this idea Lee? Could you expand on how "the suffering Christ put this tendency into check"?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 29, 2014 10:44:13 GMT -5
The concepts of "omniscience" and "omnipotence" are striking me as being anthropomorphic. Knowledge and power are important for human leadership and survival. I apologize if I state the obvious or if I am disrupting the flow of the thread. I just hadn't thought about it quite this way before. Good morning matisse. I am not sure I grasp your meaning precisely. Anthropomorphic means having human characteristics. Neither omniscience nor omnipotence strike me as human characteristics. Superior knowledge and superior power are certainly representative characteristics of some humans but I think of those characteristics as more aspirational than actual. Would you mind expanding a little more on the idea you are expressing. I am intrigued by your idea from a human psychological point of view. As the efficacy of human's ability to manipulate their environment is perceived to expand, man's self-regard (ego) probably also expands. At some point it probably becomes increasing difficult to sustain both one's own ego and a conception of "God". Good morning yknot! Perhaps anthropomorphic is the wrong word. Think of the survival angle...knowledge and power are important (essential?) characteristics for survival of human beings in the face of predators, enemies, and the elements. If an individual is not knowledgeable or powerful, they can benefit from the presence of other knowledgeable and powerful members of the community they are part of. A group of humans may feel reassured by the belief in a "God" who holds knowledge and power beyond the obvious human limits. In this light, omniscience and omnipotence with respect to "God" can be seen as a possible extrapolation or projection of the essential, but limited human characteristics of knowledge and power. In the absence of enemies, predators, and threatening elements (for example), would there be any need for knowledge and power?
|
|