Hello, and welcome to the Mr. Renaissance discussion forum. You can interact with others here and express your thoughts freely. If you came here in search of older entries prior to February 2006, they are archived here.
| Post New Topic Post A Reply | |
Perfect Love |
printer friendly version next newest post | next oldest post |
| Page 1 of 2 | Pages: 1, 2 |
| Author | Messages |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
     
 Posted Wednesday, May 23, 2007 @ 04:14 PM
I responded deeply to the latest newsletter…”Perfect Love: All Oughts Dissolved in Is” It is so helpful to be reminded that God IS…not WAS; and that Heaven can be here and now. Thanks for making my day brighter. |
|
Alpine Artist
Sergeant First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: May 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 86 |
Posted Friday, May 25, 2007 @ 09:09 AM
Eric, I’ve always agreed that to know God now, whether there is an afterlife or not, is more than enough in so many ways. His precious presence, His sense of humor (whenever I get it), His easygoing responses to my constant, uneasy questions about life, just the wonderful relationship alone with the Master Himself warms life on this chilly planet. But then, consider what the glorious beauty of this relationship weaves into our other relationships. You’re so right, Eric-we come from His presence with a glow that just gets all over others. And you can’t explain it, they can’t explain it, and it would ruin the moment to try. Even if life ended at the grave, just the opportunity to trade my earthly hurt, jealousy, fear, and emptiness for His sweet wonder, childlike rest and fearless grasp on life’s every little treasure is…well, the best trade I’ll ever make. A few years ago, in a most difficult time of my life, a wise counselor explained that the angst that I was experiencing came from a need for me to shift from “do” to “be.” I never thought that I was a “do-er.” I thought I was a pretty good “be-er.” But alas, I looked deeper into my cup and found a fair amount of: * showing others love through duty * asking others’ love through duty * reluctance to take time with someone who I knew God had placed for me that day, because after all, I had all these good works to do today, so much to “do…” * I said, “ought” alot. Wow, whatta Martha. I really did need to get to know the “is.” The “I Am.” And what a ride it’s been, learning to be. Perfect love has been the bridge. In love, it’s ok if you miss a duty, or if they do, because you know one another’s heart. In love, the “interruptions” of life become cherished expectations. It gradually becomes clearer how Love (God) dwelling in the spaces between us, becomes the golden thread that weaves this human tapestry together. I laugh more now, and mean it. I hug more now, and mean it. I feel for others more now, because I remember their pain. And it’s easier to reach out now, for the object of love means more than the offense, the fear, etc. “Is” has been my freedom. “Be” has brought me back to His feet, reclining, listening and enjoying. It’s time to abandon all “oughts,” and just enjoy each other. Time to kick “or elses” to the curb once and for all. Plan what we can for tomorrow, relish all that we have in yesterday, but stand in today’s beauty and fullness, breathing deeply of “I Am.” |
|
karen
First Sergeant
Gender: Unspecified
Location: US Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
Posted Friday, May 25, 2007 @ 10:04 AM
This newsletter brought me to tears. It so expresses what I have experienced and longed to express and have been so frustrated in my inability to express to others about God. Thank you, Eric. I feel that finally someone else in the world understands what I feel in my soul but can never seem to share. |
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 810 |
Posted Saturday, May 26, 2007 @ 11:19 AM
Thank you all very much for your comments. I’ve started several replies, but each one fell flat. I will simply say, then, that the newsletter was borne out of several conversations I have had recently with persons struggling with their previous understanding and experience with Christianity and how these answers don’t seem to speak to the growing desire for spiritual intimacy that they feel so acutely today, or at least feel acutely when they are around me. Intuitively I have sensed this kind of a change in my thoughts from the mainstream for at least the last year and a half—actually much longer than that but only in that length of time reaching the full bloom of maturity—but it has only recently jelled into a level of conscious awareness that I was able to communicate with clarity and precision to others, owing in large part, I think, to my particular reading of Buber. These recent conversations have been rich on many levels and deeply meaningful to me, but my attempts to recreate them leave me throughly frustrated. The newsletter distills their essence; their particulars, I suppose, are something best left treasured in my own thoughts. What pleases me is that even if I cannot share with everyone how deeply meaningful some of these conversations have been to me, I can at least communicate some of the truths that have emerged from them. Buber is correct: expression is “addression” (or the other way ‘round perhaps), and while conversation may sometimes be approximated, only with a special grace may it be transposed: how can one mirror “addression” when it is a moment encapsulated in time, unique, and non-repeatable? Something of the spirit may be caught while it yet lingers, but the totality will never be captured anymore than distilling a three-hour-long movie to an inquiring friend will be able to recreate the effect of experiencing it for oneself. There is a real sense in which the movie is the story and apart from that medium, it is no longer a rich and moving portrait but instead merely a skeleton of the narrative framework: an approximation at best. Given that movies are art portraying life and conversations are themselves something similar (even while also being a part of life on a level unlike that of the movie), it would seem we are often several times removed from the original source, though of course the original is nearer than our own flesh even while yet being wholly other. Or something like that: words are frustrating sometimes. |
|
jellybean
Private
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: May 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 8 |
Posted Tuesday, May 29, 2007 @ 10:39 PM
So, this is in reaction to the snippet below: “Well, it is official. I find myself joining the ranks of those who think, perhaps naïvely, that if everyone could just understand the nature of the relationship they share with God and what faith means to them, everyone would experience a strange attraction, drawn by something both winsome and deeply desirable. Then again, I do not see Christianity as I always have: there was a time in which I was not even remotely interested, my stomach turning at its mere mention.” This intro made me think of two things: one is a memory at a restaurant and the other, a verse. The restaurant memory had to do with drinking wine. The sommelier had brought several different glasses of very nice wine for me to try; and to each one, after tasting, I declined and asked for another. After about the third wine tasted, I asked the dude why each seemed to have a tar-like aftertaste. He responded by asking if I had had anything sugar-y before the meal. If I did, then the sugars from the prior food would be interfering with the sugars from the wine. It turned out I had had a doughnut before coming to this nice, shi-shi restaurant and it was ruining the taste of the wine. So… what does this have to do with your comments? Well, I might be wrong, but I’m wondering if the “understanding-leads-to-strange-winsome-attraction-desire” might benefit from framing the attraction to God in terms of appetite rather than understanding. Being attracted to God may depend on the ability to have an appetite for God. To finish the story, the dude recommended that I have some bread first to wipe the renegade sugars from my mouth so that I could actually enjoy the wine. So I draw an analogy here. Having a taste or attraction for God may require that our appetites be put in proper order, otherwise the effect will be not what we expect it to be? Which brings me to this verse I’ve been thinking about; it’s 2 Peter 1:5–8. Here, an ordering of some sort is provided. We’re commanded to add to our faith, goodness, and to goodness, knowledge, and to knowledge, self-control and to self-control, perseverance, and to perseverance, godliness, and to godliness, brotherly kindness. It seems that before we can stomach exhibiting brotherly kindness properly, there are prior steps of growth that need to be taken. So, all this to say (and sorry if this is just tedious ramble), that perhaps our attraction to God has an ordering of sorts where as we mop up the bad sugars with the bread of His word (understanding), our appetite for Him will increase. But until we do so, His winsomeness will not be as accessible to us…? --------------------
|
|
karen
First Sergeant
Gender: Unspecified
Location: US Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
Posted Wednesday, May 30, 2007 @ 09:36 AM
Jellybean, are you suggesting that God is not accessible to us or we are not able to develop a desire to know him unless we clean up our act, engage the shoulds, follow the rules and rituals? Because I find that the opposite is true: people shy away from God, dread him, reject him outright when they are saddled with shoulds, rules and rituals. And when they are guilted into a “relationship with God,” ie, going to church, walking the walk, talking the talk, what they get is religion, not God. No love develops between two parties who are forced together under duress, particularly in a slave/master configuration. And religion does just that, puts us into the position of fawning obedience “or else.” |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Wednesday, May 30, 2007 @ 09:42 AM
Your observation is astute, Jelly Bean, and reassuring to those of us who have more frequently experienced the absense of God in our lives than His presence. I have only recently begun to understand….and FEEL….the existence of God as a reality, and this was only after many years (I’m over 50) of search and inquiry and…yes…disappointment. For me, the transition occurred (and it was not sudden) when I became intellectually & emotionally exhausted and said, “Screw you, God. I don’t care if you exist or not; I shall worship you anyway.” Why? Because I loved the Good. Even if human life was ultimately meaningless, I would raise my fist in the air and proclaim to an empty Universe (in a spiritual sense) that I chose kindness rather than cruelty, compassion rather than indifference, love over hatred…..even if was the more difficult path to take and had no “reward” at the end. Simone Weill expresses so much better than I…… God, even in the soul, is but a beggar. He calls men in secret, but if they don’t answer his call, he will not allow himself to compel their souls. This God, whose reality seems so weak and so close to unreality, is the God whom men love with a love that consumes them. Even if he did not exist at all, it would be necessary to love and serve him more than any existing thing because he is the good. What intrigues me is how creatively God reveals himself to those who earnestly seek Him. Each one of us is unique and His response to us is varied. I, for instance, have not been the type of person who experiences dramatic revelations. For most of my life, if I had seen God in a burning bush, I’m quite sure I would have been in a psychiatrist’s office the next day. However, at this point, my faith in God has become an inherent part of my being, even though I’m not quite sure when or how it occurred. I hope this is a comfort to anyone out there who, like me, longed for an intimate relationship with God in a manner similar to the others who responded to the recent newsletter with such enthusiasm, but who….again, like me….never seemed able to achieve it. Don’t give up, keep praying with honesty and sincerity, and trust that God will….at the right time and circumstance….respond to your desire. |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Wednesday, May 30, 2007 @ 09:52 AM
Hmmm…interesting. Two different interpretations of your comments, Jellybean. This reaffirms my conviction that it is dangerous to assume that anyone is truly capable of interpreting the literal truth of the Bible! |
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 810 |
Posted Wednesday, May 30, 2007 @ 02:21 PM
Jellybean, I think you bring out some interesting observations. Painting with broad brushes, I do believe that there are persons who, for whatever reason, have no interest in God or his ways. While I agree with Karen that this often has to do with an institutional misrepresentation, I do not believe that that this answer is always definitive. I’ll follow by an anecdotal account. My own journey to God was an interesting one. Raised around church my entire life, I suppose it was that element that did initially cause a loss of interest. Then too, being a loner most of my life, a factor to some degree preconditioned by my upbringing and life circumstances, the thing I most yearned for was friendship and the sense of belonging that accompanies it. In high school, I found not only friendship but also popularity and a hidden charisma that I had never before known realized through the mediums of short stories, poetry, and musical expression; there was also the philosophical temperament that gave a unique coloring to even the most mundane observations. All of these elements were fostered and fed by my close friendships and it was because I was a student of the human heart that I grew by such leaps and bounds. Church did not fulfill me; my friends did. What complicates matters is that hedonism was also becoming a watchword: too much too fast all rushing to my head and a sense of entitlement along with it. My view of the world also began to narrow, a factor to reach its culmination when a good friend’s parents introduced me to Wicca. Here was an example of another religious system that seemed to benefit its devotees at least to the same degree that Christianity had done for others in my own experience, which admittedly was a bit on the paltry side, but whereas Christianity lacked all enigma or interest, my imagination was at least fueled by these strange new pagan tenets with their sensuality and passions. In any case, these experiences coalesced in my mind into a belief that all religious systems were human fabrications and thus false: that too I attribute at least in part to the conception Christianity as I had seen it was played. In other words, Christianity made much of God and little of humanity and to have anything “of man,” whether doctrines or anything else, was considered the ultimate apostasy. I now realize all religions are necessarily person-sized; it is more a case of whether their humanity is truly human: do they call us to be more than we are and to aspire higher? To the degree that this factor is accomplished is the degree to which that given religion has genuine merit, for even the most sacrosanct truths must still be appropriated in the human sphere if they are to mean anything to us; a religion of utter transcendence is utterly worthless if it does not have an effect on the human subjects who comprise it. To get a better handle on what I am saying, early I recognized that most religious systems expressed psychological truths, but I considered these empirical observations easily apprehended by science. Why the need to have them wrapped in unprovable, faith-based extras such as God, much less the various dogmas that accompany any faith that even the most liberal adherents cannot fully dismiss (for if they did, it would no longer be faith of any sort, however abstracted)? What is more, if faith was required to see, what of the person like myself who did not have faith? How could I see when I had not merely lost my glasses but never owned a pair to begin with? At best, all religions packaged psychological truths side by side with unprovable tenets and you were expected to swallow the entire lot or choke; at worst (as I increasingly came to believe) they were so fraught with faith-based elements as to be utterly fraudulent: a bit of bad science woven together with fanciful ideas of God or his equivalent(s). The fact was, as I came to see, God was as much a fabrication as the rest of it, perhaps a metaphor for the unexplainable but certainly no real answer for any rational human being. The answer was that there was no answer: that I truly believed; the only thing that kept me from embracing that answer without any reservation at all was the fact that I could not explain my own existence: heck, let’s chop off the part about me: I could not explain existence period, my own existence merely the proof required to prove existence in the large. Logically, it boggled the mind to think that something always had to have existed; logically there was no other possible conclusion to be drawn. Thus, I could not utterly banish mystery from my life, for there must exist eternity running in at least one direction—backward—and ever straining toward the unknown ahead realized moment by moment on this queer blue sphere. I saw accurately that I lacked faith; I did not see how great was that lack. I did not see that psychological truths only grow and flex when they encounter the transformative virtues of which faith is the gateway. I failed to see many things I see today with clarity: I had never owned my own pair of glasses. I was not ready for the truth all at once, just like you imply. The first saint sent into my life didn’t seem very Christian at all, though in my dimming world, his candle burned brightly: brighter than I even knew, as often others make a more vivid impression on us than we realize in the moment. What sunk me was first the drugs and then the voices: utterly sincere and thinking of nothing more spectacular than human spirits or masters of arcane arts (in both case, very human or human-like, for there was no god in my sky), my first heartfelt plea was this one: “If there is anything living or dead that can help me, please do.” I needed to be able to learn how to master this strange new reality of voices, you see; I concluded that the drugs had opened up a gateway in my mind and that I now had tasted of a forbidden fruit: I could read the thoughts of others. Such a gift I had longed for as a child; now that I had tasted of it, the sweet juice had turned bitter in my mouth: the boon had become the bane, the coveted gift my loathsome curse and now I must attempt to deal with the consequences as best as one could: I must find someone else who had traveled this road, someone else who could hear me precisely because they too could read thoughts. Such a one could teach me to live with this curse, to exercise it with a degree of responsibility: I would prove myself a worthy apprentice. I was quite lost to the dark, yet these thoughts and my plea were the stirrings of light. There was a sense of taking responsibility for my actions, of wishing to make the most of a curse for my sake and for others, a sense of being teachable, of recognizing resources outside of myself: there was the honest plea for help from some external agency. Perhaps I was not quite as alone in the universe as I had imagined. Was I able to read minds? I don’t think so looking back. But that’s only an incidental question of little interest to us here as it was but the means by which God first began to take possession of my soul, not by raping but by wooing. The presence that responded, whoever or whatever she was, taught me about God. Not all at once: God was never mentioned at first. The word “God” brought revulsion and my reaction is best described as an expression that has unfortunately grown trite from overuse as it is actually quite rich to envision: I jumped out of my skin. I was God’s enemy, though I did not fully understand that fact at the time, and “God” a filthy word. When I finally recognized that God was real and became utterly persuaded of that fact, it was still some time before I was willing to offer my life to him. My surrender did not happen overnight; it rarely does. Such wooing almost invariably happens by stages though we so soon forget how far we have journeyed; the entire spiritual life is one of growth and maturation. What separated me from God was the same thing that separated me from some who came to buy my drugs. I can vividly recall one such couple who stopped by one day to buy an ounce of pot: you know: sell three quarters, skimp the bags a bit, add some seeds to tip the scales further, and thus have a bit less than half an ounce of smoke for free: that’s how things are done on the small, working-class scale. And when my eyes happened to look into the man’s eyes, I suddenly turned away by compulsion. I looked in his eyes and saw a level of innocence I no longer knew; I looked in his eyes and saw the utter blackness of my own heart and I turned away: I had no wish to corrupt this man and his wife further than they already were. This man and his wife lived in a gingerbread house with a quaint garden of pot plants sporting pretty little red and purple buds: I lived in hell, a good hundred floors down at least. What separated me from this man and his wife was the utter loss of innocence; the turning into oneself in utter selfishness as is the logical conclusion of hedonism: Narcissist falling in love with his own reflection, deaf to the plaintive cries of Echo who yearns to love him if he will but accept her overtures. He cannot hear her, he cannot feel her, he cannot accept her love: he is turned in on himself. In a word, what separated me from this man and his wife, what separates man from man, man from nature, and man from God is sinfulness, for we serve one of two masters: God or our own selves. I have noticed that in my walk with God even now my acts of sinfulness blunt my perceptive of his touch somewhat, perverting it as in a twisted glass in a fun-house hall of mirrors. I feel it still, but I also feel my own wretchedness. My sinfulness causes me to despair of myself, another way of saying that I am focused inward and ultimately despairing of God and his ability to save me: he can save me from pestilences without number, but he is not powerful enough to save me from myself. I become grotesquely enlarged in the distorted glass and God’s graciousness is perverted, for the glasses that now sit astride my nose have become sullied. I feel his grace, but I feel my blackness more. Yes, I believe you are correct in your observations. The one who walks with God will always exude an ineffable aura, but some will turn away at the sight of their own black hearts. As they turn away, they vote with their body, as I do with my sin, “I am bigger than God. The walls of my inner prison are too vast for him to scale. Thus, I will simply wallow in this padded cell, for at least I have grown used to it and I am reasonably comfortable here.” Others will not see God, but they will nevertheless want “it” for themselves—they know there is some “it” to be had; the person of God appears to own a shiny bauble of some sort and they covet it, personal gratification, power, or other such motives interspersed with a nevertheless basically positive impulse, for it is at least firing according to design. God takes us where he finds us; it could not be otherwise. But the lover will not leave the beloved in the dirt, but will woo her by degrees into the hinterlands of his kingdom, then into his courtyards, then into his castle, and finally into his arms. Sometimes the beloved must travel a great distance, but the lover is gentle and infinitely patient. |
|
Alpine Artist
Sergeant First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: May 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 86 |
Posted Wednesday, May 30, 2007 @ 08:29 PM
What a blessing it is to come here after a dry day and drink! Just listening to you, Sara, talk about how determined you were to serve Love before you knew His Name (or existence,) even after hurt and disappointments. And Eric, such transparency about your winding road to the Lover and His palace of mystery and joy, finding there such vast mystery and joy that we can never begin to touch it all… Also, I just love how Karen continues to call us away from the ritual and rigidity that ultimately hated and struck the Rock, our Christ. And I think I really hear what you’re saying, Jellybean, about the lesser sweets of this life ruining our palate for the greater. Funny, in another thread we discussed St. Augustine- I remember one of his writings on this very thing, upon finding his freedom from lust and lechery in the superior pleasures of God: “How sweet all at once it was for me to be rid of those fruitless joys which I had once feared to lose!..You drove them from me, You who are true, the sovereign joy. You drove them from me and took their place, You who are sweeter than all pleasure.” C.S. Lewis, in The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses, simply states, “We are far too easily pleased.” I know it’s true. Hey, forget lust, lechery, and the “renegade sugars.” Even “healthy” pleasures (fellowship, service, learning, etc.), when tasted beside the sweetness of His holy presence fulfilled in our being, are like that doughnut -nice, but turned bitter by the mellow, oak-aged, fruity taste of our favorite wine. I don’t want to be easily pleased. I really do want more of Him. May I ask this: In what ways do you find more of Him in such a busy world? |
|
jellybean
Private
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: May 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 8 |
Posted Wednesday, May 30, 2007 @ 11:47 PM
wow… I tried joining a book club a few years ago. And the discussion topic? Spiritual Direction. The books selected were massively interesting - writings by Brother Lawrence, Eugene Peterson, etc. The only difficulty was, the discussions never really went anywhere for me - it may have been lack of maturity on my part. But somehow this forum feels very different from that experience. And there’s the added luxury of being able to re-read the thoughtful comments here and hopefully be able to write an equally thoughtful reply. So, responding to each in turn by order of posting…. :-) Karen - I can see why you might have thought that I was advocating rules/rituals in coming to God. Maybe it was my interpretation of the Peter verse and the emphasis on order… But I think I may have been aiming at something a bit simpler. The experience of “coming to God” seems widely varied for individuals so I was focusing on one way (but not the only way) of framing how we might have more of an inclination for God by interpreting things in terms of our appetites. I was thinking about the varied pleasures that we enjoy and considering (by analogy of wine vs. other sugars) whether some pleasures can interfere with our ability to enjoy God, to truly “taste” that He is good. It’s likely that other pleasures (like my friendships) can greatly enhance our enjoyment of God because it shows us an aspect of goodness we might be unfamiliar with. For example, I grew up without a real mother, so knowing such a love has been largely absent in my life. But recently, I’ve received a lot of Godly love from an older sister who has taken on that role. Like trying to imagine the taste of watermelon without every having tasted it, so is knowing such love as a mothers is beyond the power of my imagination. Yet my friend ‘mothers’ me so to speak and so I know a little more of what the goodness of God’s love might be like. However, a contrasting example is perhaps an appetite for gossip. Being greedy to hear about the others’ dirt and the subsequent varied forms of subtle social rejection that might follow, may make it difficult for me to ‘rejoice’ with someone in the blessings God has for this someone being gossiped about. So this is a trivial example, but hopefully it clarifies what I tried to say. Sara - So, thanks for sharing the Simone Weill quote. I’m intrigued that your experience echoes with the nuanced but intense feeling conveyed in it. Your comments make we wonder how well acquainted we are with the goodness of God. Part of this is a question raised in theodicy but the other aspect is perhaps, like with all the things, the more we know, the more we realize how little we know? Like you said (similar to the verse in Hebrews 1 about how God showed Himself “many times and in various ways”) that God is creative in the ways He reveals Himself, so is He in his expressions and understanding of goodness? That the goodness we know is but a drop in the bucket and that had we an “infinite stomach” of sorts, we could better acquaint our appetites with His varied smorgasbord of goodness? (Quoting Sara) “This reaffirms my conviction that it is dangerous to assume that anyone is truly capable of interpreting the literal truth of the Bible!” So my reaction to this is mixed… part of me wants to gently protest, but, but perhaps we may know the literal truth of parts of the Bible since we presently see all “through the glass darkly”; but then the other part of me wants to say, I think you have a point here. I read a book recently arguing that Augustine had misinterpreted the meaning of the word predestination in the Bible because he was biased (or rather misinformed) by his amillenialist position. Eric - Wow - thanks for sharing your story - using the word ‘compelling’ to describe it doesn’t do it justice; I’ll start by responding to your “for even the most sacrosanct truths must still be appropriated in the human sphere if they are to mean anything to us”. It seems a natural follow-on to this observation is pointing out the obvious but endearing fact that God seems to agree with you. “The Word (Jesus) became flesh and moved into the neighborhood” as Eugene Peterson aptly states in his version of the Bible. “early I recognized that most religious systems expressed psychological truths, but I considered these empirical observations easily apprehended by science”. (quick tangent: Psychological truths = empirical observations? i suppose you mean here “empirical” as in not really…) Ohhh, this observation has a rub in it for me… I’m digging into the readings of Polyani to better understand how science has not cornered the market on human knowledge - that empirical knowledge isn’t the end-all-be-all of knowledge. It isn’t something I’ve been able to buy yet but I’m working on it - especially since my knowledge of God falls in the “other” category. So it’s interesting that you dabbled in Wiccan stuff while at the same time discounting religious knowledge as unscientific and therefore not valid. “But the lover will not leave the beloved in the dirt, but will woo her by degrees into the hinterlands of his kingdom, then into his courtyards, then into his castle, and finally into his arms. Sometimes the beloved must travel a great distance, but the lover is gentle and infinitely patient.” So… when you say these words, you’re speaking from experience? I guess I’m asking in a rhetorical fashion since experience Jesus as lover of my soul in the deepest sense of companionship is something that is fairly new to me. Another friend had to show me what such a friend looked like. Learning from this relationship, I’m beginning to know the ins and outs of innocent intimacy with another person and have come to the conclusion (with a gentle gasp) that just maybe loving God looks a lot like this friendship. Alpine Artist - The Lewis quote is interesting - it can sound like an indictment in one sense; but I’m inclined to think of it as a matter-of-fact observation of our ‘udderly’ sheep-like nature. (I hope sheep have udders or this corny joke will lack any humor-value whatsoever.) You asked: “In what ways do you find more of Him in such a busy world?” This sounds like a question which only begins to be adequately addressed by the whole of John Piper’s “Desiring God”. But nevertheless, here is my anemic but candid answer. I use anemic because the depth and richness of what I see often have no words that I posses to describe it. I often wonder if our vocabulary in heaven will be an extraordinarily powerful language where we’ll have access to nouns and verbs and other word types that clearly and compelling conveys our thoughts and meaning disambiguously… The strength of the line - such a simple concept yet so powerful, no? The aesthetic aspects of my existence, such as the lovely lines of an object, is one way I see God since I attribute the goodness of what I see to Him. I also feel a pleasant relief when a friend overlooks a gaffe or an insensitivity of mine. There is a sweetness in their belief that God’s redemption continues to work in me - that my gaffes don’t leave me a lost cause. An example of “more of God”? Oh yes. Another example are things like antinomies. The sheer mystery and the complexity of trying to explain our very existence very much leaves me in awe of Him. It just occurred to me that these observations could easily be made by one who doesn’t believe in God. But at the same time, I don’t know too many who don’t know God and make similar observations about their gratitude and appreciation for all the goodness they seen in their lives… But I could be wrong. **** Quasi-related question for the general group: Does anyone often think that they meet vibrant compelling non-Christians who don’t seem to need God and that these people lead far more interesting lives than you do? --------------------
|
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Thursday, May 31, 2007 @ 07:58 AM
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “vibrant compelling non-Christians who don’t seem to need God”….that could include both Albert Einstein, Camus, and Paris Hilton. (okay, stupid joke) Frankly, in my own case, I have never “needed” God, in an emotional sense. I was an existentialist for the first half of my adult life and, even now, I am a rather unorthodox Christian. For instance, I’m not entirely convinced “I”…good old Sara who loves pizza & playing Scrabble…will survive after death and I am quite skeptical of a lot of Christian dogma. What started me on the path to God was intellectual curiosity, a desire to transcend myself, and a puzzling love of virtue. However, back to your question abut vibrant compelling non-Christians…. I don’t think a belief in God is a prerequisite to happiness. However, joy is a different thing altogether. I’m not sure if people who live without God can quite understand the exquisite pleasures and challenges of leading a spiritual life. Perhaps I can explain it another way, in more personal terms…. I am childless, however, this has never caused me excessive grief or unhappiness. Why? I think it is because I have never experienced the joy of being a parent and loving a child. How can one miss what one has never experienced? Like you, Jelly Bean, I have “intimations” of what it must be like to have a mother-child relationship, but it is only a hint of a reality I can never really know. Can I have an interesting and fulfilling life? Of course, but a joy that I have never felt is missing from it. Hmm…was that a good example? I’m not sure. but I’ll leave it. I must add one more thing. Since I’m quite a bit older than the rest of you, I have to point out that the second half of life is…in some ways….more challenging than the first half. Not only does one have to cope with guilt, disappointment and disillusionment, etc., but, at some point, one has to face the loss of loved ones and one’s own diminishing powers. I have observed that people who have faith are much more able to endure these challenges. That’s sort of a pragmatic reason to believe in God, but real, nonetheless. Your question also made me think of Kant, who, I believe never traveled more than 70 miles from Konigsberg. From what I’ve read, he lead such a predictable and routine life that people in his neighborhood used to set their clocks by his activities. Every day, at the same time, he would take the same route on his walk and talk to no one. Boring life? Hardly. But, it certainly “seemed” that way to everyone who saw him. |
|
Alpine Artist
Sergeant First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: May 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 86 |
Posted Thursday, May 31, 2007 @ 07:09 PM
Quasi-related question for the general group: Does anyone often think that they meet vibrant compelling non-Christians who don’t seem to need God and that these people lead far more interesting lives than you do? JB, there are two in my life. One is a co-worker, who also happens to be my son’s mother-in-law. She appears to me on a very level emotional plane and at least as thoughtful of others as any believers I know. We work in an environment where swearing is moderate, but she always chooses a higher vocabulary. She has many questions about my faith, and has accepted, on occasion, my advice to pray for her children, and now our children (and soon-to-be-born grandson), yet for the time being, she seems to be doing fine without “religion.” Another is a man who my husband has worked with, whose family are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Many things have turned him off to “religion,” not the least of which the untimely death of a devout loved one. But he’s always pleasant and positive, full of vision and good works toward others, not out of any sense of obligation, but seemingly out of a genuine love for them. His vernacular is comically “colorful,” but without the usual guile or ignorance behind it. Like you, JB, I wonder quite often about each of them, and how God views them. Their lives don’t seem necessarily more interesting than mine in content, but interesting in that I think it rare to find someone with such peace (former example) or joy (latter) without a professed pursuit of God from Whom these gifts always flow. One thing worth noting: each of these people do have close relatives who do pursue God, who may have more of an influence on them than they might profess. Hard to imagine that this is always the case, but perhaps it’s a factor to look for… |
|
jellybean
Private
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: May 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 8 |
Posted Thursday, May 31, 2007 @ 09:48 PM
Ooops! I just reread how I posted the “quasi-related question” and it sounds a bit rude(?). I don’t mean to imply in any way that anyone on this post has a mundane life… I just wondered if anyone had the same thoughts about some non-christians that I find myself having. All day where I work, I’m surrounded by very talented, artistic, uber-intelligent, philosophically saavy, culturally in-tune, “hip”, musically gifted, well-spoken, smashing witty, erudite non-christians. In many ways, they seem so “together”… I also find others who are fiercly loving and kinder than some christians. And so I find myself wondering if they ever feel the need for a God, especially when they meet seemingly mediocre Christians like me. --------------------
|
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Friday, June 1, 2007 @ 07:21 AM
You weren’t rude at all. I was just suggesting that the inner life of some people (Christian or not) is often richer and more exciting than the event-filled lives of others. Emily Dickinson is a good example. I was the one who got off-track. However, I, too, am puzzled why some people yearn for God, and others don’t. I suppose there are many explanations (one being Reincarnation, which I’m not endorsing…just mentioning), but there are other factors, too, which exist and have existed in most advanced cultures. When someone is blessed with many worldly endowments….looks, personality, intelligence, achievements….he or she is often too “comfortable” to have any need for God, and too busy to think in great depth about metaphysical questions. There are exceptions, of course, but, in general, this seems true. However, as soon as they experience loss in some form….as soon as the suffer….or when they recognize how transient their achievements really are, they usually begin to question the meaning of existence. This often leads to God, but not always. This still does not answer your question, though. In fact it’s a rather cynical response, implying that religion is the “opiate of the people.”, etc., (which I happen to believe, even though I believe in God as well) Although I have thought about it often, I simply do not know why some people….who are not obviously in “need”…. desire God and others don’t. When I get depressed, I think perhaps it is only a matter of temperament & circumstance, but, those are also the times when I reassert my “faith” and go on serving a God who may only be an illusion. I can do nothing else. |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Friday, June 1, 2007 @ 09:27 AM
One more possibility….. Perhaps your co-workers do have a belief in some kind of transcendent reality, but they don’t share their ideas with you because they know you’re a Christian. I have no way of knowing what type of Christian you are or how pleasant or unpleasant your personality is (though you certainly do seem to be a nice chap), but I usually avoid metaphysical discussions with Christians because I have no desire to bore myself or force them to question beliefs they hold dear. It’s usually a waste of time for both of us and leads to nothing other than bad feelings. Please understand….I’m not referring to ALL Christians (why indeed would I be a fan of this website), but to many Christians, esp. the Fundamentalists. You also have to recognize, JB, that we are living in a transitional era and that, in many ways, the Old Gods are dying. I do not mean that as a literal comment because I, a theist, know that God is eternal and I try to love and serve Jesus with my heart, soul and mind, but. in many ways our world…esp. in Europe…is now a post-Christian culture and is likely to evolve in that direction until…or unless Christianity can incorporate (without losing its essence) a more sophisticated understanding of the world into its belief system. I’m not sure how…or if…that can be done, but I feel that it is possible and that it is a problem that must be faced by those who wish Christianity to remain a viable alternative for those “very talented, artistic, uber-intelligent, philosophically saavy, culturally in-tune, “hip”, musically gifted, well-spoken, smashing witty, erudite” people that you describe so well. Religion is the only form of knowledge that is not permitted to evolve. That’s why so many die out and are replaced. Meet any Zorastrians lately? I am not suggesting that there were not some eternal truths in Zorastrianism; nor that there are no eternal truths in Christianity. The problem is in figuring out which truths are eternal, and which are historical, while remaining faithful to the essential beliefs of the religion. I know this is a controversial viewpoint, and I don’t wish to get into a dispute about it. Just consider it a hypothesis, if you please. |
|
jellybean
Private
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: May 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 8 |
Posted Friday, June 1, 2007 @ 11:56 AM
[quoting Sara] “When I get depressed, I think perhaps it is only a matter of temperament & circumstance, but, those are also the times when I reassert my “faith” and go on serving a God who may only be an illusion. I can do nothing else.” I catch myself finding comfort in Pascal’s wager when I begin to doubt; and also (like you) in the idea that goodness seems a lot more pleasant, beautiful and fun than not. --------------------
|
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Friday, June 1, 2007 @ 11:58 AM
Oh dear, now I’m beginning to worry that you guys will think I’m equating Christianity with Zoratrianism. I couldn’t do that even if I tried because I know NOTHING about Zorastrianism. I hope you all understand that I did not wish to disparage any of the essential beliefs of Christianity. My point….I think….is that we must allow for a certain amount of diversity in our differing interpretations of Christian dogma, which should be easy, but isn’t. I mean, really….is it THAT important that one person interprets the Virgin Birth symbolically and another literally? Just asking……. |
|
jellybean
Private
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: May 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 8 |
Posted Friday, June 1, 2007 @ 12:10 PM
I didn’t really interpret it that way. And I think the question of how literally one interprets the Bible is a difficult one. I tend more towards the literal interpretation while others don’t. I guess one starting point that some have identified is the difference between those beliefs are essential to Christianity (e.g. God exists and Jesus Christ died and rose again) and those that are not. Though I’m not sure if the immaculate conception of Christ falls in this category… --------------------
|
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Friday, June 1, 2007 @ 12:58 PM
Do you think that someone who believes in God and loves Christ, but who has questions about the literal vs symbolic representation of the Resurrection and/or the phrase “Son of God” should be able to be a part of the Christian Community? I’m sincere about this question…I’m not trying to be confrontational because, frankly, I don’t know the answer myself. However, I am this kind of believer. I have chosen Jesus Christ as my Savior, whether or not He is the literal son of God and rose from the dead. My faith doesn’t rest upon those factors. For some peculiar reason, Heaven is of little interest to me, and Hell is preposterous, for a variety of reasons I prefer not to debate. Jesus is my Savior because I love Him and I feel that I commune with Him. I know that God, through Him, has transformed my life. If I don’t have an expectation of eternal life, Why Jesus? I shall let someone much more articulate than I answer that question. This was written by C. Randolph Ross and excerpted from Common Sense Christianity. . Why Jesus of Nazareth? If we do not claim an absolutely unique relationship between Jesus and God, then how do we justify recognizing Jesus’ authority? Even if it fits with our common sense, how can we justify choosing this person as our compass when there may be others just as accurate? This is a legitimate and important question. But we need to remember that we do not need to claim that Jesus is the only trustworthy guide to God. I hope we are not so insecure that we need to claim that everyone else in all other religious traditions is hopelessly misguided. We can consider each other to be wrong without necessarily impugning the validity of the other’s religious beliefs, if their beliefs lead to right relation with God and people. And indeed, should we not rejoice if others find themselves directed to truth and to God, even if it is by other paths than our own? Well, if we don’t claim (and so don’t need to try to prove) uniqueness for Jesus of Nazareth, how then do we justify giving him the role and authority of compass? There are four parts to our answer: (A) we are not aware of any equally good alternatives; (B) Jesus has been confirmed in this role by many faithful lives; (C) our interpretation of Jesus’ role is subject to the correction of tradition and ongoing public discussion; and (D) in the end, it depends on the response of our hearts. You will note that these are mostly reasons of historical accident, dependent on our own historical situation. We are historical creatures, influenced greatly by our circumstances. Our claim is that — partly because of these circumstances — Jesus can function as the Christ for us, and does function this way for those who choose him. (A) Why choose Jesus of Nazareth when there may be others who were as sensitive to God? The plain fact is that we don’t know of any others who would fill the bill for us. The other people of whom I am aware who show in their lives this same sensitivity and devotion to the cause of God and rightness are themselves acknowledged followers of Jesus. If we were to choose one of them as a guide we would find ourselves directed right back to Jesus as compass Now I freely admit that my not being aware of good alternatives to Jesus of Nazareth may be due to simple ignorance on my part and is no doubt culturally conditioned. Nevertheless, it makes no sense to withhold our allegiance from Jesus merely because it is possible that there may be other options, if in fact there are no actual viable alternatives in sight. (B) If we were to become aware of another individual, or even several people, who seem to point to God and to the deepest truths as consistently and accurately as Jesus of Nazareth, we would still have another question. What kind of confirmation is there for the ability of these individuals to serve as accurate guides in aligning our lives with God? The fact is that the teachings and example of Jesus have been tested out in many lives over many years. It is painfully true that his principles have been tested out by only a small fraction of those who have called themselves Christians through the centuries. But we do have numerous examples of people who, orienting their lives by the Christ, have lived in right relation with their neighbors and God, displaying unselfish caring for the hurts and needs of others. This is very mundane historical fact. But the fact of the matter is that Jesus’ ability to function as a compass has been tested and confirmed over many generations. It is unlikely that we will find an alternative with this kind of confirmation, in whom we can have the same level of confidence. (C) We need also to consider the fact that the content and implications of Jesus’ message are the subject of ongoing public discussion and debate. The importance of this must not be underestimated. When someone chooses to follow this particular compass they have as a resource an existing institution — the Church — to provide support and encouragement as well as the challenge and reminder of what it means to live in this direction. Who among us does not need this encouragement from time to time? Given a free exchange of ideas, untraditional points of view are free to test themselves against accepted beliefs and a new and stronger synthesis may emerge. (D) Points A, B, and C address the intellect. However, we cannot answer the question “Why Jesus of Nazareth?” by appealing to reason alone. It is a question of value and meaning, and as such is a question that addresses the heart. The first three points show that the choice of Jesus of Nazareth as compass makes sense and has certain arguments on its side. But the choice itself must be made with our hearts. In the final analysis, the question “Why Jesus of Nazareth?” must be answered by each of us individually, and the only adequate answer is a strong conviction in our deepest being that Jesus’ message is indeed the wonderful and powerful Truth. Why Jesus? Because the message that he preached and lived grabs us, permeates our values and gives our lives meaning. People other than Jesus, for reasons both circumstantial and substantial, do not seem to grab us as profoundly. What is this? Does it all boil down to a subjective response? Has Jesus of Nazareth no more of an objective claim on our loyalty than Sun Myung Moon or the Dalai Lama or the latest self-proclaimed messiah? In one sense, he has not. Jesus has no claim of authority apart from our own subjective choice of him as compass. Democratic symbolism is appropriate here: he has authority only as we “elect” him or choose him. His message is authoritative for us only as we recognize its truth. In another sense, as we pointed out in A, B, and C, there are some objective reasons which support this subjective choice. Those who fully appropriate the central message of Jesus into their lives, whatever portion of “Christians” this may be, evidence a combination of freedom, moral concern, inner peace and good works of love that often bear fruit in the lives of others. So why Jesus of Nazareth? Because we find in him a key that yields meaning, a guide to value and truth that is confirmed as we live out our lives. Because his example and his teachings first grab us and then prove themselves over time. Because we find that the attitude, the faith, embodied in him leads to right relationship. And because we know, in our deepest heart of hearts, that his call to love and service is the call to that which is right and true in a way that transcends all other So, the question is….may I consider myself a Christian? Most would say no; but a few will say yes and those few, to me, represent the Christianity of the future. No one who loves God will be excluded. |
|
jellybean
Private
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: May 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 8 |
Posted Saturday, June 2, 2007 @ 08:12 AM
S: Do you think that someone who believes in God and loves Christ, but who has questions about the literal vs symbolic representation of the Resurrection and/or the phrase “Son of God” should be able to be a part of the Christian Community? JB: I’m not sure how having questions alone can be the basis of including or excluding anyone. Both the Virgin Mary and Zechariah in Luke 1 had questions. However, Mary’s question seemed to be one of process (how will this be?) whereas Zechariah seems to have been one of possibility (how can this be?). Questionning whether to interpret the Resurrection literally or symbolically seems reasonable but perhaps what you might really be asking is “am I a Christian if I don’t believe in a literal Resurrection or that Jesus is the Son of God?” S: I have chosen Jesus Christ as my Savior, whether or not He is the literal son of God and rose from the dead. My faith doesn’t rest upon those factors. For some peculiar reason, Heaven is of little interest to me, and Hell is preposterous, for a variety of reasons I prefer not to debate. Jesus is my Savior because I love Him and I feel that I commune with Him. I know that God, through Him, has transformed my life. JB: So it seems to me here that you may not necessarily be questionning the validity of whether or not Jesus (the Son of God) rose from the dead but are rather indifferent to the particulars of who He claims to be. Your basis of faith seems to be your experience with what you know of Him (whomever He might be). Do you think that you might loving and seeking to know Him as He knows Himself to be or rather seeking to know Him as you would best like Him to be? Maybe it’s neither. Don’t mean this to be a false choice scenario. Let me know if there’s a third. S: If I don’t have an expectation of eternal life, Why Jesus? I shall let someone much more articulate than I answer that question. This was written by C. Randolph Ross and excerpted from Common Sense Christianity. JB: So this is an interesting read and thank you for posting. It seems one of his more controversial points is that Jesus (though He claims to be) is not the only way to God (not sure which God Ross is speaking of). There is a scene in Lewis’ “The Last Battle” which seems to agree with this but then again there are the words “I am the way the truth and the life and none come to the Father except through me.” Maybe there isn’t a contradiction between these two. S: So, the question is….may I consider myself a Christian? JB: Perhaps you’re asking this rhetorically… knowing very little of you and not likely being able to ever know you enough even if there was an opportunity to meet, I wouldn’t know. I hesitate to make that sort of determination of anyone, perferring to leave that task to an infinitely more competent Almighty. S: Most would say no; but a few will say yes and those few, to me, represent the Christianity of the future. JB: I’m not sure what you might be claiming here… are you saying that in the future, the basis for the Christian faith will be largely experiential. If so, how do you know? S: No one who loves God will be excluded. JB: Does it depend on which God one is loving? Can it be any God of one’s choosing or definition? --------------------
|
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 810 |
Posted Saturday, June 2, 2007 @ 09:37 AM
After being away without Internet access for a day or two, it seems the forum has overflowed with thoughts. I will begin mine by answering you, Sara, then tying up a few loose ends from the earlier reply from Jellybean. (And as an afterward, I see now as I go to post that you’ve beat me to the punch, Jellybean: your last reply was not yet here when I was typing this response: you must have been posting just as I started to type.) I remember when you first joined the mailing list, Sara, and the replies you left on the forum then. At that time, you could not in good faith say that you believed in Christ on any level other than that of outstanding moral teacher and inspirational spiritual leader. Within the past year (or year and a half?) you have come to some kind of reckoning within that opened up that possibility to you in a way in which it was previously closed. The spiritual life is one of stages and it would not be proper for anyone to tell you that you were in or out; others might have contradictory opinions about the conclusions you have currently drawn, of course, but God and the individual soul are the only two partners who can say what the nature of their relationship involves. There are quite a few things that have come to mind that I think may bring clarity and the difficulty on my part will be in organizing them into a coherent whole. I will begin by repeating an idea framed by Lambert Dolphin: “Jesus is the only way to the Father, but there are many ways to Jesus.” I firmly believe that the lover woos the beloved long before she feels his love and that long after she has become enfolded in his arms she yet realizes new levels of this conscious awareness. When she first enters the hinterland, she knows nothing of the palace courtyard; when in the courtyard, she may catch only glimpses of the castle; when in the castle, she has not yet been fully enveloped in embrace; enveloped in embrace, her love affair has no bottom or end and continues to increase even to the degree it increased from hinterland to being enfolded in the loving arms and beyond. In one sense, we have not arrived; in that same sense, we are always arriving. In another sense, we have already arrived; in that same sense we likewise are always arriving. Every day is new and transformation and growth are watchwords of the kingdom of heaven. Now I mentioned that others might hold contradictory opinions to yours, Sara, and there is a very good reason why they might on several levels. To begin with, it is possible to believe in God without believing in Jesus, it is possible to believe in Jesus without believing in the bible (whether in whole or in part), and once believing in the bible, it is possible to have a wide berth of understandings based on what one reads. What becomes problematic and uncomfortable for those who are inclined to believe the bible in whole and more or less at face value are the apparently rather straight-forward and unambiguous passages (especially in the Gospel of John) that suggest that no one comes to the Father but through Jesus. We will here index a few of those passages, not to beat anyone over the head, but in an open-minded attempt to compare and contrast and see what, if anything, suggests itself to us. I have taken the liberty of linking the entire chapter to provide context if anyone reading this post wishes to read these passages in context: “Thomas said to Him, ‘Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me’” (John 14:6–7). “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned” (John 15:5–6). Here, as in other passages (such as the intriguing parable of the Good Shepherd in chapter 10 which is ideally read in its entirety), we have much of the biblical basis for the exclusivity of Christ: that is, it is these passages and those like them that persons struggle with concerning this question. In philosophy, there are two basic ways of verifying or falsifying an argument and possibly a third. Remember the classic syllogism that consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and the necessary conclusion? Let’s try a silly one out here: 1. All human infants have webbed feet. 2. Kendra is a human infant. 3. Therefore, Kendra has webbed feet. In this instance, a philosopher would likely attempt to disprove the major premise; in another syllogism, it would be possible to argue with the minor premise; in reasoning in general, one might attack the premises as being faulty whether there were two premises or many. Attacking the premises of a claim is one way to wrestle with meaning. But a philosopher might also grant that the premises are true as stated, but that the conclusion does not follow from them. 1. All men have violent tempers. 2. Alfred has a violent temper. 3. Therefore, Alfred is a man. Alfred may well be a man, but we can’t be certain that the conclusion follows, for while all men might indeed have violent tempers, other beings in the universe might also have violent tempers as well and for all we know “Alfred” may be the name of one other such being. If we knew that Alfred was a man, we would know he had a violent temper based on this information; knowing that he has a violent temper, however, does not tell us conclusively that he is a man. Thus the conclusion is faulty, even if the premises are true; the conclusion is faulty even if it is also true. All this elementary philosophy is tiresome, but the point remains that on its face, it appears that in our approach to God, Jesus, or the bible, we must either invalidate the premises or the conclusion or both: in the case of the bible, it appears on its face that we must either claim that the bible itself is faulty; if we do not claim that, we must claim that the conclusions are not warranted; or if not that, we must embrace the conclusion at the expense of a planet filled with others of other faiths; or we must adopt some combination of the above. Perhaps, however, there is a point at which we can move beyond these conclusions and premises and transcend them both? Rather than being forced into an “either/or” sort of reasoning, is there a way that we can have a “both/and”? To the degree that the latter ideal is possible, that is what an apologist of any sort seeks. An apologist is always seeking to smooth out the rough edges and synthesize and transcend the various barriers. For example, there is another kink in your conception of Christianity versus that of others, Sara. For a good many believers, Jesus being the only way to the Father hinges on the security of the world to come. For many Christians, Jesus has everything to do with living in heaven and escaping hell and that is often the way that Christianity is billed: “If you were to die tomorrow, do you know where you would spend eternity?” If this life is the only life we live, maybe we can be less concerned about the apparently exclusive claims that Jesus makes, for there is no real negative effect and the positive is simply measured in quality of life now. For someone who looks to Jesus as being the Savior from a life of eternal torment and a doorway into a life of paradise, however, the stakes might not appear so neutral. And, as it so happens, for the vast majority of persons who call themselves Christian, these concerns are, if not foremost, then at least a dominant focus. By contrast, the institutional forms of the faith have always seemed to you somewhat odd based on your education and background and that understandably affects your perspective. I consider the approach of the apologist important, because one of the criticisms of fundamentalism is that it sets up an us versus them dichotomy that is unhealthy. However, the blade can slice both ways. Often, who becomes a fundamentalist and who becomes an apostate is decided by different standards, and namely those standards are decided by what I said earlier: “To begin with, it is possible to believe in God without believing in Jesus, it is possible to believe in Jesus without believing in the bible (whether in whole or in part), and once believing in the bible, it is possible to have a wide berth of understandings based on what one reads.” In fact, most of the fundamentalist/apostate labels come in based on one’s reading of scripture: the fundamentalist is the one who takes the bible as a cornerstone of faith; the apostate is one who doesn’t.  Yet it seems that in both cases there is an awareness that the pieces don’t always seem to fit as nicely as we might like: thus, the one is inclined to dismiss the book, the other society and culture, and we have again the philosopher wrestling with syllogisms.What my heart would say and what came out in this post are not exactly the same thing; believing very strongly as I have often written that it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness, I do not often highlight the very real tensions that exist in the realm of Christianity. Instead, I try to focus on aspects that inspire others to seek after God and try not to focus on changing other people’s minds about views that are contrary to my own. I seek either to agree or agree to disagree and in any case to live in harmony, for I do firmly believe that the Gospel message is and remains the reconciliation of man and God, man and man, and man and earth. Now then, I said I would answer Jellybean briefly: I meant by empirical observations things that could be either verified or corroborated by the experience of others both in the present and historically. As with the British empiricist and the rationalist tradition from which they were born, psychological truths can be their own objects of study. An emotion as an emotion may be described as subjective in the Lockean sense; an emotion as an object of study, by contrast, has become objectified. The categories of subjective and objective and of primary and secondary properties are also problematic and one reason why I not only adopt a Kantian epistemology (that is, a recognition that we live in a phenomenal reality and can never get “outside ourselves” to see the noumenal), but why I so strongly believe that love is an is that fulfills all oughts. Put another way, a degree in philosophy has left me utterly persuaded on a level I never was before that the deepest part of humanity is not the intellect or rationality. There is so much more I could write on that subject, but for now I would just refer you to everything I have written in the last year and a half at least—smile. In any case, back to the point: That it is more rewarding to do acts of kindness than meanness, that faith in a higher power can enrich a person’s life, that in helping others we find happiness: these things require no book to teach and indeed form a basis of most religious systems. Most religious systems do not stop with such psychological observations, however: they require faith in some kind of ontological or metaphysical claims about the origins, ends, and constitution of the world unseen. Most especially, the majority adhere to some kind of deity or deity. My dilemma was that I did want to believe and find the truth, but I lacked faith: I lacked the very key required to unlock the door should there be any door to unlock. It was for me a damnable catch-22. What good did the parts of a religious system do me that could be confirmed by observation? By observation I could assimilate them and I believed they were true. What posed the greatest difficultly was not what was observable but everything else.  When I say that I was introduced to Wicca by my friend’s parents, I mean only that I gained its acquaintance. I explored it, certainly: I was in search of something more. But I never ascribed to it and ultimately concluded it was false. Wicca seemed to provide for my friend’s parents what Christianity did for my own parents and it had some rather exotic teachings, but it was the basis that caused me to conclude not just that it was flawed, but that all faiths were false; all faiths were human fabrications. Yet I was still obsessed with faith and spirituality, as is very common for someone raised around it all his life yet who feels, for whatever reason, he can no longer believe. Perhaps this obsession, at times maniacal as psychological literature bears out, is an even greater search for meaning because of a more acute sense of its apparent loss. Yet though I read of other religions often, I did not know much of some of the major world religions and may not have taken as dim of view if I had, particularly of Buddhism which in some forms is little more than an astute study of psychology. Nevertheless, I concluded that all religions—without exception—were false based on my exploration and rejection of Wicca after the sense of disillusion I already felt for Christianity. Only much later when I sought to get to the bottom of my experiences did I briefly entertain the idea that Wicca might be true; before it was a beautiful mythology that cast a meaningless world in a poetic light and nothing more: the Goddess as the earth personified: our mother, the planet that gives us life. |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Saturday, June 2, 2007 @ 11:16 AM
Well, I have to admit that both JellyBean and Admin made some excellent points. I keep trying to call myself a Christian because of Jesus. Not the “historical” Jesus as much as the Jesus who lives in the hearts of those who love Him. However, I know, technically, that I’m being ridiculous. No, I can’t be an orthodox Christian. I just thought maybe I could be an Unorthodox one. I know it’s sort of weird not caring whether I gain eternal life, but I’m rather tired of myself. I somehow believe that the eternal part of me mingles with God at death (and even before in life), but that is a matter of faith. I never think of “Heaven” because to do so seems base. How can anyone love God with purity if they are hoping to “get something” out of it? Yes, my understanding of Jesus has changed, Eric, since I first logged onto your website. As a matter of fact, my correspondence with you, both formally and informally, influenced my thinking….and perhaps more importantly…my feelings about Him.. I no longer simply believe He was a “good guy”, but someone who had an intimate (not sure of “unique" relationship with God that was quite beyond the ordinary. I also believe, since there is so much evidence for it, that He is a doorway for those who seek union with his “Father”, whether that term is used literally or not. (again…the only doorway? No. I find that unacceptable, both logically and emotionally. However, that isn’t really important, is it? I guess it is to others, but not me.) JB. Does it depend on which God one is loving? Can it be any God of one’s choosing or definition? That’s a tough one to answer since God is perceived in many different ways, but I would suggest that a universal moral code exists in all cultures that has not varied much through time. As C.S. Lewis pointed out……”If a man will go into a library and spend a few days with the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics he will soon discover the massive unanimity of the practical reason in man. From the Babylonian Hymn to Samos, from the Laws of Manu, the Book of the Dead, the Analects, the Stoics, the Platonists, from Australian aborigines… he will collect the same triumphantly monotonous denunciations of oppression, murder, treachery, and falsehood, the same injunctions of kindness to the aged, the young, and the weak, of almsgiving and impartiality and honesty There are, of course, differences. There are even blindnesses in particular cultures—just as there are savages who cannot count up to twenty. But the pretence that we are presented with a mere chaos—and no outline of universally accepted values showing through—is simply false.” I believe (here comes faith again) that “God” is either the author of these moral laws…or perhaps is the spirit within the moral laws themselves. Not sure of that, either, but…again…does it matter? Thank you both for your considered replies. |
|
karen
First Sergeant
Gender: Unspecified
Location: US Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
Posted Saturday, June 2, 2007 @ 12:42 PM
Do you think that someone who believes in God and loves Christ, but who has questions about the literal vs symbolic representation of the Resurrection and/or the phrase “Son of God” should be able to be a part of the Christian Community? Sara, if you aren’t a Christian, neither am I because I feel the same way you do. Doctrine and dogma don’t matter to me anymore. I have a friendship, a relationship with Jesus of Nazareth whose present life and reality are not in dispute for me. God raised Jesus from the dead in one form or another. All else, to me, including the reasons, are superfluous. As for the Virgin Birth, the doctrine of blood atonement for sin (which has become more and more ridiculous to me) and the like are simply not part of the relationship I have with Jesus or with God. Jesus is my savior because through knowing him, through learning from him, my life has changed. I have been saved from the ravages of the past, transformed into something a lot closer to my potential than I ever was before. He has shown me the part I have played in my own drama, and how to avoid the traps (although I don’t always catch myself soon enough). It’s my relationship, my friendship with him that has saved me, not confession of doctrine and creed |
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 810 |
Posted Saturday, June 2, 2007 @ 01:02 PM
Did it again: I see Karen posted even as I was typing: I quite agree. As an aside, Sara, Elaine Pagels has some interesting observations about the Gospel of John versus the gnostic Gospel of Thomas in her extemporaneous audio CD lectures captured in the 2-CD volume set The Gospel of Thomas: New Perspectives on Jesus’ Message. Just as scholars posit a “Q” source (from the German word for “source”—quelle) for the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, she suggests that both this gnostic Gospel and John shared a similar understanding of Gnosticism. Your concern over being Christian in the “orthodox” (note the little “o" sense is to large degree made or broken on the verity of John. You should check it out.I keep trying to call myself a Christian because of Jesus. If you know Jesus, does it matter what you call yourself? Since we’ve been batting Lewis back and forth here, he (quite rightly in my opinion) suggested that there are many who know him who may nevertheless not know his name. You may recall some time ago my links to Ian McCormack, the man who had the NDE after being stung by box jellyfish: his encounter had all the elements that have become proverbial in spiritual literature of all sorts: his life flashing before his eyes, being encapsulated in some kind of translucent spiritual body, the tunnel of white light. He spoke of a sense that the light rays emitting from the end of the tunnel and piercing his body were somehow alive and emitting love; he concluded that the source of the light was a living being, as though at the heart of the universe, the point at which it was all held together, there existed a living being of pure love. I will admit that his tie-in with scriptures at the end seemed to me a bit superfluous—others may well hold a different opinion—but nevertheless his experiences corroborate with my own. (If interested in listening to his accounts, right click and select “Save target as / Save link as” to download both MP3s of McCormack’s approximately hour-and-a-half long account: Part I and Part II. Unfortunately, the audio quality isn’t the best, but it is all there. You may recall that I had a vision much like that myself, leading me to conclude that there is one ultimate answer: see this post; it also mentions Ian McCormick.) Perhaps we do not know his name, but I am very inclined to agree with Dolphin in suggesting that there may be only one way to the Father but that there are many ways to Christ. I am very inclined to believe that as a metaphysical necessity there must be some definitive answer, even if metaphysical questions tend to be sources of great conflict and debate. One thing I did think to write that I thought you might find intriguing was an answer Father Jonathan (of Christ Episcopal Church) gave to an elderly woman who asked him recently in an adult education class if Christ was the only way. He paused for a moment, then said, “I will say only this much: I believe that Christ is a certain way.” His understanding, which one may infer from everything else he advocates, was an approach almost identical to mine. That is that knowing Christ was a certain way, but that perhaps there were other ways (and the key is ultimately through Christ, though this suggestion was left implicit) to the Father for those who do not know his name. Incidentally, there is scriptural warrant for such ideas for those who tend to be reassured by what they read in print: the beginning of Romans where it talks about Gentiles having a law written on their hearts, the passage of the Good Shepherd mentioned in my post above about having sheep in other folds, the Apostle in his Mars Hill discourse in Acts 17 in which he suggests that God “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation” (26): that is to say, that not only did God make the earth and everything in it, that God not only knows the name and location of every person just as he knows when a sparrow falls to the ground or the number of hairs on a person’s head, but has determined their “appointed times” (the century/millennia) and “boundaries of their habitation” (the geographic locale). Thus, it has not escaped God’s notice that in this vast world he has fashioned that different times and different locales have different levels of insight and understanding and I am very inclined to believe that quite the contrary to all faiths being false as I once believed, each of them, like colors in the spectrum, contain at least some reflection of the ultimate light source. (There are also many unexplored implications here for Jellybean’s question about those who do not know God.) When we add to that passages that suggest that he is willing that none should perish, that “God is love,” or finish out Paul’s discourse: “and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children’” (17:26–28): well, we could rather easily reconcile exclusivity with inclusivity: more on that from the mouth of Buber in a moment. Not the “historical” Jesus as much as the Jesus who lives in the hearts of those who love Him. Hence why the Orthodox understanding of the faith differentiates, at least conceptually, between Jesus and the Christ. And while I do understand what you mean when you write, ” How can anyone love God with purity if they are hoping to ‘get something’ out of it?” I would in turn inquire why it has to be an either/or? The idea of heaven is the idea of continuing that relationship on the other side of the grave and realizing it even more perfectly; it also in many instances involves the great hope of continuing in our relationships with those we love as well: I see nothing ignoble about either of those desires; in fact, I am inclined to side with Lewis in suggesting that these deep desires we have for intimacy and the great pain we feel when we suffer loss both point to a reality in which such will be fulfilled perfectly, as hunger points to food and thirst to liquid. Neither heaven nor hell, in the Orthodox sense, are so much geographic places filled with beautiful scenery or lack thereof (though they may well be those things as well): both are, as much as anything, relational words that have everything to do with life or its lack. Heaven, then, is more a synonym for eternal life than a celestial city, or to the degree that it is a synonym for a celestial city it is more in keeping with the idea of kinship than golden streets. If the ministry of reconciliation is in fact the heart of the Gospel message, its continuance and culmination would, as suggested, be far more relational and harmonious than geographic and opulent. As you know, I have been very struck with Martin Buber as of late and I find in his conception of spirituality one of the most wholesome and balanced systems available, not about any afterlife exactly, but I think the principles would apply, especially in the spirit mentioned above. I also believe, Alpine Artist, that there is here another perspective on good things besides God: a sense in which all may be redeemed in God: that through God, all may again be realized in proper perspective. In a moment I will include a brief excerpt from Buber’s critique of Kierkegaard known as “The Question of the Single One,” but first we should give it a cursory introduction. Buber admired Kierkegaard in many ways, yet he takes issue with what the “Single One” means for Kierkegaard: according to Buber, for Kierkegaard the “Single One” is the solitary individual—a fiction that does not embrace the total person. By contrast, the “Single One” for Buber is not the individual who knows no true community nor the collective that knows no single one, but the person: the totality of a man nourished relationally while being neither the solitary individual nor the collective drop indistinguishable from, or not valued separately from, the ocean. This means that politically Buber denies both the individualism of the West and the collectivism of East, it means that spiritually he rejects the pantheism of the East and the unification (as unification) of the mystics. That is to say on that latter point that he seems unification as relational, self-forgetful perhaps, but not beyond a partnership of distinctive selves. His example, interestingly, is the Johnine Jesus, who speaks of being one with the Father: for Buber, this is not an ontological description but a relational one; put in trinitarian terms (which Buber does with the utmost diplomacy and respect even though he is himself Jewish) God the Father and the Son are so immersed in one another as to loose all sense of self, yet nevertheless are dialogic in their relations and the Spirit flows between them. In other terms, we are not God nor are we consumed by him; rather, to the degree that we may be said to be united with God, we are relationally joined as a man and woman in intimate union: both the man and woman are still man and woman even as they are also united. They may be effectively lost in the other and to the other, yet they must initially have a self to be lost and again found. That self is the implicit or assumed “I” in the “I-It” versus “I-You” dichotomy: the nature of “It” or “You” determines if the final result—the “Single One”—will be the one-dimensional individual that is a fiction or the total person which is a glorious reality. Anyway, from “The Question of the Single One” in reply to both Sara and Alpine Artist: Quote: To the question—which was not merely directed at “tempting” him, but was rather a current and significant controversial question of the time—as to which was the all-inclusive and fundamental commandment, the “great” commandment, Jesus replied by connecting the two Old Testament commandments between which the choice lay: “Love God with all your might” and “Love your neighbor as one like yourself.” Both are to be “loved,” God and the “neighbor” (that is, not man in general, but the man who meets me time and again in the context of life), but in different ways. The neighbor is to be loved “as one like myself” (not “as I love myself”; in the final reality, one does not love oneself, but one should rather learn to love oneself through love of one’s neighbor); to him I should show love as I wish it shown to me. But God is to be loved with all my soul and all my might. By connecting the two, Jesus brings to light the Old Testament truth that God and man are not rivals. Exclusive love of God (“with all your heart”) is, because he is God, inclusive love, ready to accept and include all love. It is not himself that God creates, not himself he redeems; even when he “reveals himself,” it is not himself he reveals: his revelation does not have himself as object. He limits himself in all his limitlessness; he makes room for creatures, and so, in the love of him, he makes room for love to creatures. “In order to come to love,” says Kierkegaard about his renunciation of Regina Olsen, “I had to remove the object.” That is sublimely to misunderstand God. Creation is not a hurdle on the road to God; it is the road itself. We are created along with one another and directed to a life with one another. Creatures are placed in my way so that I, their fellow creature, by means of them and with them, may find the way to God. A God reached by excluding them would not be the God of all beings in whom all being is fulfilled. A God in whom only the parallel lines of single approaches intersect is more akin to the “God of the philosophers” than to the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” God wants us to come to him by means of the Reginas he has created, and not by renunciation of them. If we remove the object, then—we remove the object altogether. Without an object, artificially producing the object from the abundance of the human spirit and calling it God, this kind of love has its being in the void. * * * * * The essential is not that we should see things as standing out from God, nor as being absorbed in him, but that we should “see things in God,” the things themselves. To apply this to our relations with creatures: only when all relations, uncurtailed, are taken into the one relation, do we set the circle of our life’s world round the sun of our being. * * * * * [Quoting Kierkegaard:] “The Single One is the category through which, from the religious standpoint, time and history and the race must pass.” What is this “religious standpoint”? One beside others? The standpoint toward God, gained by standing aside from all others? God one object beside other objects, the chosen one beside the rejected ones? God as Regina’s successful rival? Is that still God? Is that not merely an object adapted to the religious genius? (Note that I am not speaking of true holiness, for which, as it hallows everything, there is no “religious standpoint.”) Religious genius? Can there be religious geniuses? Is that not a contradictio in adjecto? Can the religious be a specification? “Religious geniuses” are theological geniuses. Their God is the God of the theologians. Admittedly, that is not the God of the philosophers but neither is it the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of the theologians, too, is a logicized God, and so is the God even of a theology which will speak only dialectically and makes light of the principle of contradiction. So long as they practise theology, they do not get away from religion as a specification. When Pascal, in a volcanic hour, made that stammering distinction between God and God, he was no genius but a man experiencing the primal glow of faith; at other times, however, he was a theological genius, and dwelt in a specifying religion, out of which the happening of that hour had lifted him. Religion as a specification misses its mark. God is not an object beside objects, and hence cannot be reached by renunciation of objects. God is, indeed, not the cosmos, but even less is he being minus cosmos. He is not to be found by subtraction, and not to be loved by reduction. (The Writings of Martin Buber, 74–75; 77; 79–80: emphases in original.) |
|
karen
First Sergeant
Gender: Unspecified
Location: US Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
Posted Saturday, June 2, 2007 @ 01:16 PM
*listens, smiling” |
|
Alpine Artist
Sergeant First Class
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: May 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 86 |
Posted Saturday, June 2, 2007 @ 04:02 PM
I think I get it, Eric. At least, in part. Quote: To apply this to our relations with creatures: only when all relations, uncurtailed, are taken into the one relation, do we set the circle of our life’s world round the sun of our being. As I sit, a storm reaches over the Southwest hills. The air is intoxicating. There is breathtaking beauty in the thunder and rain, and He is in it. I gigged at a little benefit the other night, and the small community in which it was held reminded us of Mayberry. There was simplicity and love, and He was in it. Thursday I did my everyday chores - nothing unusual - but out of determination to draw on His peace and joy that day, they both came in constant showers of refreshing. Of course, He was in it. Whether in nature, community, or as an individual, in a form of our own trinity we are drawn into reconciliation with the earth, with others, and thus ultimately with God, just by noticing His presence in it all. This is something I can do more of, and can’t wait to. Love (God) is a verb that, without an object, is meaningless. We are created to be that object, and to return that love to Him, as our love’s object. But it’s not just He and we. Nature and community get taken up in the circle. Indeed, the circle is incomplete without them. To thoroughly enjoy all relations against a backdrop of Love Himself would seem to be the highest purpose of our lives. Could it be that here, in seeking God in all relationships (better yet, in seeking each relationship as part of God) is where the Single One reaches his full potential: lost in love, no longer his own, yet beautifully unique for the divine purposes set before him? I’ve found that as I age, it becomes more clear to me that in order to enjoy life the most, all things must be done out of love, if possible. If a thing cannot be, then I usually forfeit. Love brings joy in fulfilling obligations and takes the “ought” right out of them - a much easier way to live! |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Saturday, June 2, 2007 @ 05:55 PM
After reading those responses, I certainly have much to ponder, but, unfortunately, little opportunity to do so because a tutor’s life is at its most harried in June. When the school term has ended, I intend to spend some time digging into Buber and Pagels and that guy who was bitten by the jellyfish. I certainly agree, Eric, that the desire for Heaven and a continuing relationship with God beyond death doesn’t have to be ignoble, but, I somehow think I’d manage to make it so if I allowed myself to think about it. However, my reluctance to admit to myself that I may have a desire for some kind of afterlife may have an element of fear in it. Fear that I will then be vulnerable to attack (by myself, not others) for losing all objectivity and/or inducing spiritual feelings as a result of “wishful thinking”, or something like that. I don’t think it is a “logical” concern, but it exists on a feeling level. Does that make any sense to you? I simply don’t want to “get” anything as a result of choosing God, even though, of course, I do. Wow, am I wacky, or what? There’s one other motivation to consider, as well, which I think you’ll agree is definitely base. On an ego level, I think it is a quiet form of protest….a way of replying to the “Don’t you want to go to Heaven?” Christians that drive me crazy. Sometimes it feels so pleasurable to say…”No”. And I’m not lying, because I really don’t think about it and the idea of eternal “nothingness” doesn’t horrify me. Why should it? I’ll be dead! I suppose I just dismiss the question of Heaven as “unanswerable” (along with many other aspects of reality I can’t figure out) and trust that whatever is…is what it should be. Thanks again to everyone for their thoughtful responses. |
|
karen
First Sergeant
Gender: Unspecified
Location: US Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
Posted Saturday, June 2, 2007 @ 06:05 PM
Sara, have you ever read “An Unknown Woman” by Alice Koller? It’s an old book; I read it when I was about 35 and it had a tremendous impact on me. It’s the story of a woman, a philosophy Grad student (or graduate) who takes a summer on Cape Cod to find out who she is, what she really thinks, how she really feels, what she’s really about. And where to go from there. Often, you remind me of her. |
|
Admin
General
Gender: Male
Location: USA Registered: Jan 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 810 |
Posted Sunday, June 3, 2007 @ 12:49 PM
Yes, Alpine Artist, I believe you have understood and do understand. Often God asks us to give up our Isaacs only to give them back; we sometimes (in my case often) need to have our perspectives re-aligned by such surrenders. I am reminded of Thomas Merton whom we explored briefly in Seeing Clearly: Ephemeral Reality in Spiritual Relief (the title of which captures the idea we’re seeking here); Merton speaks of hope “restor[ing] all values by setting them in their right order”; it is not that things have to be abandoned, but rather that we see things as they are: no more but no less. That is doubly true when the “things” are not “things” at all, but living beings and the splendor of nature: Quote: When we do not desire the things of this world for their own sake, we become able to see them as they are. We see at once their goodness and their purpose, and we become able to appreciate them as we never have before. As soon as we are free of them, they begin to please us. As soon as we cease to rely on them alone, they are able to serve us. Since we depend neither on the pleasure nor the assistance we get from them, they offer us both pleasure and assistance, at the command of God. For Jesus has said, “Seek first the kingdom of God and His justice and all these things [that is all that you need on earth] will be given you besides” (Matthew 6:33). (No Man is an Island 14—parenthetical comment in original) What Merton writes above is also, I think, why Sara feels as she does about “getting something” out of God. Yet I think—not in response to Sara but in general—that we can manufacture artificial feelings of piety over such notions. We do “get something” out of God: it is all about us. The difference is that it is about gaining the greatest good instead of settling for lesser goods and in so doing, gaining the lesser goods as well. That is nothing to feel ashamed about, for that is how we were designed: we are simply acting according to our natures and responding just as our creator longs for us to respond. When we seek the greatest good, we are returning the favor in the only way we can a bit as one lover returns the kiss of the other. We are no longer looking for love in all the wrong places, for having found its source we find there are no wrong places. But it does not really work so well the other way ‘round, for while lesser loves may lead us to the greatest love, the lesser loves do not in themselves contain the greatest love except incidentally—whereas within the greatest love is also found the lesser loves explicitly. Having found the greatest love, however, the lesser loves may teach us further about the greatest love, for we have learned to see in them their participation in the cosmic order. Now then, about philosophy grad students taking summers off to find out who they really are… that’s a truly frightening prospect! I remember a philosophy undergrad student who did that and look how he turned out!  Last of all, did any of you happen to catch this week’s Harmonia on NPR? If you have the free Real player, this week’s broadcast (in my opinion) was especially beautiful as it explores the harmonies of Medieval Spain as Moorish (Islamic), Jewish, and Christian influences come together: click on Medieval Melting Pot for the Real stream. I am reminded of Azam Ali, one of my favorite performers.
|
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Sunday, June 3, 2007 @ 01:31 PM
Karen, I was in the library today and took out “An Unknown Woman”….I’ll let you know what I think. I’m very curious and hope that I get to it soon. Thanks for the recommendation. Eric, I love that Merton quote. Sometimes I think I distrust my emotions to a neurotic degree, but I always remember reading and seeing movies about Nazi’s weeping over beautiful music and lovely scenery during their off-hours, while they were slaughtering people at “work.” Don’t forget, Nazi Germany was a “Christian” country. I often think that I try so hard not to deceive myself that I end up deceiving myself. I concentrate so hard on finding the splinter in my own eye that I don’t see that they eye that is looking for the splinter has splinters in it. I can’t help myself, however. It is the only way I know how to be. It’s a result of being the child of obviously flawed parents who believed their own lies about themselves. Not that I didn’t love them, but I promised myself that I would never make the same mistake. Of course, I did….many times….but that’s beside the point. I won’t give up trying! And I have to admit that my self-deceit has grown much more subtle to detect than in the old days, when my messy life made everything more obvious. Again…lots to think about. |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Sunday, June 3, 2007 @ 02:34 PM
Actually, I should have said, “I concentrate so hard on finding the splinter in my own eye that I don’t see that the eye that is looking for the splinter has a log in it.” |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Saturday, June 9, 2007 @ 06:30 PM
Karen, I poked around in An Unknown Woman today and could identify with some of Alice’s qualities. I know I would have loved the book when I was younger and was questioning my identity as a woman. At that time, one of my favorite books was “The Way of All Women”, by M. Esther Harding, which I believe may be one of the best books on feminine psychology ever written. (However, I haven’t looked at it in years, so I have no way of knowing if it holds up. Plus, it was written in the 30’s or 40’s, so may be dated) On the other hand, I’m quite different than Koller. Intrinsically, I seem to have a much happier disposition and less inner turmoil. I seldom brood about the past and have warm relationships with most of the people in my family. However, like her, I strive to be honest with myself….NO MATTER WHAT!!! And, yeah, I have that “Lost in the Cosmos” quality that she has… |
|
karen
First Sergeant
Gender: Unspecified
Location: US Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 209 |
Posted Sunday, June 10, 2007 @ 02:32 PM
However, like her, I strive to be honest with myself….NO MATTER WHAT!!! A wise approach for all of us. Yes, it probably was one of those “when the student is ready the teacher will appear” moments in my life when I picked that book up. |
|
BhaktaGlenn
Private
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Oct 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 3 |
Posted Wednesday, October 24, 2007 @ 03:24 AM
Perfect Love: All Oughts dissolved in Is First of all, may I say that whilst I believe in God, I am not a Christian, nor do I belong to any particular School of Religion. I practice Yoga under the guidance of a Buddhist Teacher who received a Roman Catholic Education in missionary school in Burma (Myanmar). I see Unity in Diversity. In the light of only one reality, all paradoxes are resolved. Thus, I see two categories of reality: Absolute and Relative. God is Absolute. The Rest is Relative. God is beyond Space and Time, All Dualities and Things, beyond Logic, Words, Language and Understanding: Ineffable. But yes, one may experience God. But, explaining that experience to another is something else! What does it mean “Is”. I am not schooled in Grammar but, it means “to be”. Just as I was born, I will surely grow old and die. So, “I” am not just “Is”. The Absolute Plane of Reality, which is God, is uncreated and has no Beginning, Middle, or End but, is the Beginning and the End of The Relative Plane of Reality, the Creation aka the Universe of Space and Time. God is the Nothing (No-Thing) From which the Universe came into being. But No-thing is not Nihilistic. No-thing is just beyond everything. God just is. So, I cannot conclude that He created the world about four or five thousand years ago, at twenty minutes after nine, one Friday morning. Eternity is Time. God created Time. This Absolute God is beyond all Names and Forms yet, he has a Personal Name and a Personality. His Personal Name and his Personal Form are his Personality. But, what is is Personal Form? Absolute Reality is beyond subjects and objects. names and forms but, when God manifests his Person, he is both infinite and alone, one without another, or a second. The Creation is born of the Desire of the One to become manifold. Human Beings become persons in the image of the One Person. God Loves the beings that he has created. He provides them with everything they need. Each being has his own created personality. This is the “I”. This “I” sees the world of sense impressions and mistakenly thinks that it is real. Absolute God is beyond sense-impressions, in the hearts of all His creation, even a single grain of sand. By associating with sense-impressions, human beings become absorbed in them and forget the unseen Absolute Reality within their own hearts. God Loves His created beings selflessly. God is Love and Love just Is. God’s Love has no Personality. But, Man fell from the Love of God. He fell into the world of individuality and knowledge, words and language. The reason that the Tree of Knowledge is poisonous is because all Beings must return to the one Absolute Reality, who is Immortal. There cannot be two Absolute realities and Two Immortals. But, through the Love of God, there is a way back to him. In his Fallen State, Man does not live in God’s Kingdom, which is Unified. He lives in the Binary World of Dualities, Opposites, which is under the yokes of Logic and Sophistry. But truth is simple. A thing is either right or wrong. In that simplicity, abides the “Ought”. Live truthfully and well, and one finds the Path to God. The “Ought” is a Path to the “Is”. Man falls in love and gets married. Together, man and wife share Personal Love, His Love in union with Her Love. Personal Love is not the same as God’s Love. But, it is vital for a happily married life. So. just as god’s Love is Immanent within His Creation, Human beings have personalities which Mirror the Personality of God, Human Love is a mirror image of God’s Love, from one to another in perfect harmony but, Man needs to awaken to this reality. |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Wednesday, October 24, 2007 @ 08:22 AM
I not only live in a binary world, but one that is multi-dimensional, as well, so I’m often confused, even though truth is supposed to be simple. I am not only burdened by the yokes of logic and sophistry, but, am also tossed around emotionally by hormones and enzymes and serotonin and cloudy skies. Seeing malnourished babies with flies in their eyes bums me out. I long to love everyone, but I don’t even like many people when I’m with them for an extended period of time. However, I’m very good at loving people I don’t know. In addition to this, I have a hard time figuring out the “oughts” of life, which I would gladly follow if I could separate the legitimate “oughts” from the silly ones that were inculcated into my brain by society. Remember how guilty Huck Finn felt about helping Jim, a run-away slave? “Jim said it made him all over trembly and feverish to be so close to freedom. Well, I can tell you it made me all over trembly and feverish, too, to hear him, because I begun to get it through my head that he was most free — and who was to blame for it? Why, me. I couldn’t get that out of my conscience, no how nor no way. It got to troubling me so I couldn’t rest; I couldn’t stay still in one place. It hadn’t ever come home to me before, what this thing was that I was doing. But now it did; and it stayed with me, and scorched me more and more. I tried to make out to myself that I warn’t to blame, because I didn’t run Jim off from his rightful owner; but it warn’t no use, conscience up and says, every time, “But you knowed he was running for his freedom, and you could a paddled ashore and told somebody.” That was so — I couldn’t get around that no way. That was where it pinched. Conscience says to me, “What had poor Miss Watson done to you that you could see her nigger go off right under your eyes and never say one single word? What did that poor old woman do to you that you could treat her so mean? Why, she tried to learn you your book, she tried to learn you your manners, she tried to be good to you every way she knowed how. That’s what she done.” I got to feeling so mean and so miserable I most wished I was dead.” Mark TwainHuckleberry Finn I don’t think I’m exactly disagreeing with your basic premises BhaktaGlenn (BTW, Welcome!), although, of course, it is a matter of faith, isn’t it? These propositions seems more reasonable to me than virgin births, etc. but it is still a “system” of beliefs, which one can choose to believe or disbelieve. Dualist that I am, I believe and disbelieve both everything and nothing. (Oh dear…am I a quadist?) I am so glad you wrote! Although I obviously disagree with you on some points, I do not wish to seem “disagreeable” because I found your ideas quite thought provoking. I’m interested in Eastern philosophies, but on a very elemental level, and enjoy learning from people who are more knowledgeable than I. I do hope your teacher is not personally affected by the recent troubles in Myanmar. |
|
BhaktaGlenn
Private
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Oct 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 3 |
Posted Wednesday, October 24, 2007 @ 10:19 AM
My Teacher lives in England so, like me, she will have seen the troubles of her homeland on the television news, read about them in the newspapers. I should think that she is very concerned about what has been going on over there. Although I pointed out that I am a practitioner of yoga and that my teacher is a Buddhist, it was not my intention to write about these too much. Buddhism is grounded in behaviourism and is very analytical. Morality is the foundation of the practice and has to be established before one can embark on a course of meditation. Just as in Christianity, one is given guidance in the do’s and don’ts of life but, one has to develop Insight into Morality, a Teacher is required for this. My teacher advised me to try this website out. I rather think that she was gently trying to hint that I have a tendency to over-analyse things. I noted that there is some very good writing on this website, so I agreed to give it a try. I think that what she was trying to tell me is that I need to get out more. The pains of the world upset me, too. I also have found out the hard way that it is not possible to love everyone. Most especially in the world of business. I do not work because of disability. But, like most people, I have to maintain the house, my wife has to work. Over the years, we have had many kinds of jobs done to our house and have paid a lot of money, too. What we usually find is that the world of Loving Kindness that sages Teach us about, does not really exist, e.g tip-top prices and rock-bottom quality, shoddy work. So, instead of being tranquil and morally aligned to the good path, I have found things out about myself that I would rather not confront. My teacher Taught me a strategy to cope with this. Basically, she said that whilst it would be nice if everyone was agreeable, reality dictates that most people aren’t. If a person has been disagreeable to me, their hurtful comments usually remain with me for a long time and I feel depressed about that. Protecting One’s Heart: My Teacher suggested that if someone was really hateful to me, then it was really a matter of personal choice as to whether I accepted their diatribe, or not. If I accept it, it will seep into my heart and wound it. On the other hand, if I do not accept it, the hateful diatribe will remain with the person that sent it to me. Silently, I can tell that person that I do not accept their hateful diatribe and I am returning it to them because it belongs to them. It is their intellectual property and has no place in my heart. Then I call to mind my wife and my beautiful daughters and offer them thoughts of loving kindness. My heart is protected, and the bad guy has been warded off. I can now think about the malnourished babies with flies in their eyes and offer them thoughts of loving kindness, too: May they be free of greed and selfishness, hatred and ill-will, ignorance and delusion. May they be free from sorrow and always happy. May they come to know love in their lives Because hate restricts and Love releases. May Love release them from their poverty and despair. Then, I think about the vast Universe and about the plight of all beings on all worlds: May all beings be free of greed and selfishness, hatred and ill-will, ignorance and delusion. May all beings be free from sorrow and always happy. May all beings come to know love in their lives Because hate restricts and Love releases. May Love release them all beings from poverty and despair. May all beings live in peace and harmony, May all beings be happy. Many years ago, someone told me about something called the Butterfly Effect. It means that when a butterfly flaps its wings the energy created travels across the Universe and alters it in a most irrevocable way. Whereas, many years ago, there was a programme on television based upon the notion that Love is like a butterfly. So, when I practice Loving Kindness meditation, I visualise the enrgy traveling across the Universe and altering it like the butterfly. |
|
sara
Major
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Feb 2006 Status: Offline Posts: 1253 |
Posted Wednesday, October 24, 2007 @ 12:00 PM
I am so pleased you joined the forum on this website. If you have a tendency to over-analyze, at least you won’t be alone. Our administrator has studied philosophy and is occasionally inclined to dissect dissections (intellectually, of course). And, yes, he is a wonderful writer. I agree with you….living in the world can be difficult. The values that are esteemed are the opposite of those we honor and strive to attain in our spiritual lives. However, we can….as you have done…..find ways to cope without compromising our ideals. By doing so, we slowly grow wiser, stronger, more insightful and creative in our responses to the world. I am told that Buddhists refer to these distressing events as “manure for enlightenment”, a phrase which has always charmed me. Again, welcome. |
|
cferraro
Master Sergeant
Gender: Male
Location: Custer, SD Registered: Nov 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 125 |
Posted Thursday, November 1, 2007 @ 01:59 PM
Not to get too theological, but just going along with this fact that God is here, God is. Here is a scripture that I’d like to share. John 3: 1: There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4: Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6: That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7: Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8: The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9: Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10: Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12: If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? 13: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Looking at this last verse, Jesus is saying that he was there talking to Nicodemus, while he was in heaven at the very same time. “How can this be?” I ask. But it is. I could get into my “why”, but I think it would bore you all to death, and 20 pages later, you might not know what I was talking about anyway, so I’ll leave it like this. God is love. Love is eternal and in all time since love is made out of light. Light is eternal. Since God is love, of course he “is”, which is a comforting thought. Be Blessed Chuck --------------------
Expectation is the Hindrance of Learning |
|
BhaktaGlenn
Private
Gender: Unspecified
Location: Registered: Oct 2007 Status: Offline Posts: 3 |
Posted Thursday, November 1, 2007 @ 03:13 PM
Quote: Originally posted by cferraro Not to get too theological, but just going along with this fact that God is here, God is. Here is a scripture that I’d like to share. John 3: 1: There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4: Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6: That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7: Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8: The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9: Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10: Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12: If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? 13: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Looking at this last verse, Jesus is saying that he was there talking to Nicodemus, while he was in heaven at the very same time. “How can this be?” I ask. But it is. I could get into my “why”, but I think it would bore you all to death, and 20 pages later, you might not know what I was talking about anyway, so I’ll leave it like this. God is love. Love is eternal and in all time since love is made out of light. Light is eternal. Since God is love, of course he “is”, which is a comforting thought. Be Blessed Chuck Worldy human beings are mundane, subject to birth, sickness, aging, and death. Jesus is Supramundane, Deathless and Immortal, beyond the range of the intellect and human thought but, he can be experienced. He can make himself one or manifold. Compared to worldy folk, he has supernormal powers which enabled him to perform his miracles during his life on earth. If one offers Thoughts, Words, and Deeds of Loving Kindess to Jesus, he will restrain one from evil; he will exhort one to do good; he will protect one with loving kindness; he will teach one profund matters that one has not heard before; he will explain and make clear to one the profound matters one has heard before; show one the path that leads to God. |
| Page 1 of 2 | Pages: 1, 2 |
| Welcome to Monsieur Renaissance : le forum de discussion, Guest! | |
| Login | |
| In order to make full use of the abilities of this forum, you are required to register as a member. Registration is free, and allows you to post replies and customize your experience on the forum, changing its look and functionality. Register now! | |
|
There are currently 0 members and 9 guests on the forum. The most users ever online at one time was 70 on 03-29-2009 08:16 AM | |
Home | About | Newsletter | Forum | Misc. | Contact | Search | Links | Random Page
.:| get up to date: newsletter :. 1&1 .: discussion forum: participate |:.
