Designing a New Religion

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Yeah it does make me somewhat uncomfortable when people say "body of Christ" because it's not the terminology of the people of today.

Hi Saltmeister,

What is the terminology of the people of today?

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Hi Saltmeister,

What is the terminology of the people of today?

Well, they wouldn't be talking about the body of Christ. They'd either be talking about the noosphere, zeitgeist or collective psyche of the Christian community.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Well, they wouldn't be talking about the body of Christ. They'd either be talking about the noosphere, zeitgeist or collective psyche of the Christian community.

Different labels for the same thing?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Does the Spirit come from the Body, or does the Body come from the Spirit?

According to Paul, the physical body is spiritualized. I suspect you can find the relevant Corinthians passage as quickly as I can.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Maybe then it'll start sounding more like . . . music to the ears . . .

Alas, "noosphere, zeitgeist or collective psyche of the Christian community" don't seem very musical either.

The problem I have with Postfoundationalism is that it has the potential to strip away essential elements. To me G-d's Immanence is better captured by "the body of Christ" than some of the other terminology. It's also relevant to how one defines personal identity in terms of being part of a larger, integrated totality that is within Divine jurisdiction.

Maybe the other terms allow for a more realistic recognition of existential/historical gestalt, but they may achieve this at the expense of something I consider essential, which might have something to do with the tradition I was raised with. To me "collective psyche" has no sacred connotations. Neither does "noosphere" - at least not as a freestanding terms.

As an aside, just because terminology is "old fashioned" doesn't mean it's not useful. The concept of Divine Immanence is not something that was introduced to world religion by Jesus. In the introduction to the Isha Upanishad you will find reference to the world being "clothed" or "worn as a garment" by G-d (वास्यम् or vasyam). The notion of being on the inside is key.

To me that is still a useful description, which probably dates back to Vedas that are five or six thousand years old. The ancient texts are ambiguous, especially given faulty translations, but the theology may still be useful. It probably depends on the context of the discussion whether the language has any immediate value.

To get back to the original theme. I don't know if there is need for a new religion. Maybe it's more a matter of making existing traditions more functional?.....

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

As an aside, just because terminology is "old fashioned" doesn't mean it's not useful. The concept of Divine Immanence is not something that was introduced to world religion by Jesus. In the introduction to the Isha Upanishad you will find reference to the world being "clothed" or "worn as a garment" by G-d (वास्यम् or vasyam). The notion of being on the inside is key.

To me that is still a useful description, which probably dates back to Vedas that are five or six thousand years old. The ancient texts are ambiguous, especially given faulty translations, but the theology may still be useful. It probably depends on the context of the discussion whether the language has any immediate value.

To get back to the original theme. I don't know if there is need for a new religion. Maybe it's more a matter of making existing traditions more functional?.....

Is that in reference to the mother-goddess who keeps herself carefully concealed in illusion?
Hmm, interesting when you compare it to these:

Originally Posted by TealLeaf

Like I said though I am fuzzy on just where to draw the line around God or the Universe.

I have read that the Sikh religion's God is sufficiently fuzzy to be simultaneously a monotheistic creator God as well as something that is synonymous with the entirety of the Universe. Of course I have also read that the Sikhs are polytheists that while they believe in and worship one Supreme God also believe that other lesser Gods exist so I am not sure what to believe. I'd love to read their book "The Guru Granth Sahib" to see what they actually have to say and how they say it but it seems impossible to find a hard copy of the thing. (I hate reading things online.)

Originally Posted by seattlegal

An interactive universe produces a similar fuzzy effect. Young's double-slit experiment seems to suggest that it is an interactive universe.

I suppose it could become a really interesting if you also throw Tao Te Ching 1 into the mix for comparison.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

According to Paul, the physical body is spiritualized. I suspect you can find the relevant Corinthians passage as quickly as I can.

1 Corinthians 15 talks about the resurrection of the dead, as being sown as physical body and raised as a physical body, not about the Body of Christ.
1Corinthians 12 talks about members of the body of Christ being dependent upon the Spirit to be baptized into it, and stresses the uniqueness each individual retains while being part of the Body of Christ:

12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.
<...>
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Is that in reference to the mother-goddess who keeps herself carefully concealed in illusion?

Hi SG,

The context relates to G-d dependence.

I suppose it could become a really interesting if you also throw Tao Te Ching 1 into the mix for comparison.

It's too interesting already (and too time-consuming for me). We need to cut back on these ever more complicated discussions.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

1 Corinthians 15 talks about the resurrection of the dead, as being sown as physical body and raised as a physical body, not about the Body of Christ.
1Corinthians 12 talks about members of the body of Christ being dependent upon the Spirit to be baptized into it, and stresses the uniqueness each individual retains while being part of the Body of Christ:

12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.
<...>
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.

There's a verse where he talks about the difference between a physical body and a spiritual body.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Hi SG,

The context relates to G-d dependence.


It's too interesting already (and too time-consuming for me). We need to cut back on these ever more complicated discussions.

Cut and run?

There's a verse where he talks about the difference between a physical body and a spiritual body.

Yes, that's 1 Corinthians 15:

35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? What kind of body will they have when they come?" 36 Foolish one! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And as for what you sow—you are not sowing the future body, but only a seed, perhaps of wheat or another grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He wants, and to each of the seeds its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same flesh; there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is different from that of the earthly ones. 41 There is a splendor of the sun, another of the moon, and another of the stars; for star differs from star in splendor. 42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead: Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption;
43 sown in dishonor, raised in glory;
sown in weakness, raised in power;
44 sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being ; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
47 The first man was from the earth and made of dust;
the second man is from heaven.
48 Like the man made of dust, so are those who are made of dust;
like the heavenly man, so are those who are heavenly.
49 And just as we have borne the image of the man made of dust,
we will also bear the image of the heavenly man.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Does the Spirit come from the Body, or does the Body come from the Spirit?

Is this what you were referring to?...

Originally Posted by seattlegal

44 sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being ; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

In my prior post I was talking about commitment. To my way of thinking, commitment relates to a recognition of G-d dependence. It has little to do with institutional process.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Is this what you were referring to?...

That was regarding the resurrection of the dead. The verse from 1 Cor 12 was regarding the Body of Christ--many members being baptized into it by one Spirit.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

That was regarding the resurrection of the dead. The verse from 1 Cor 12 was regarding the Body of Christ--many members being baptized into it by one Spirit.

In answer to your original question, I would say the fulfillment of spirit potential takes the form of incarnation, transfiguration, resurrection and ascension. This transformation takes place "in Christ" and could be said to make the individual part of a larger unity, the resurrected body of Christ.

In Christian theology, there have been many discussions of eschatology. Some of them place an emphasis on some dramatic future End Times. Other emphasize the here and now and the importance of Divine Immanence. Although some of Paul's descriptions do suggest a future that is not yet here, there are other parts of his gospel that emphasize existential immediacy and our ability to respond to G-d's Immanence.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

In answer to your original question, I would say the fulfilllment of spirit potential takes the form of incarnation, transfiguration, resurrection and ascension. This transfomation takes place "in Christ" and could be said to make the individual part of the resurrected body of Christ.

1 Cor 12 talks about people being members of the Body of Christ while they are still living here on earth, by being baptized into the Body of Christ by one Spirit. If you are talking about the Body of Christ as an institution, it is one that is instigated by the Spirit, and not by the Body. (To think that it is instigated by the Body is tantamount to idolatry, imo, therefore the commitment would be to the Spirit, where ever it is found. Similar to your God dependence.)

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

1 Cor 12 talks about people being members of the Body of Christ while they are still living here on earth, by being baptized into the Body of Christ by one Spirit. If you are talking about the Body of Christ as an institution, it is one that is instigated by the Spirit, and not by the Body.

Agreed. Btw, I do not equate the body of Christ with the church or a ecclesiatic community and have a real problem with that. If you recall, I believe Jesus ushered in a universal priesthood.

To think that it is instigated by the Body is tantamount to idolatry, imo, therefore the commitment would be to the Spirit, where ever it is found. Similar to your God dependence.)

The Greek term for "body" is more abstract and does not necessarily support a literal view of a physical body. To me Paul's use of the term suggests a unified totality that is comparable to a fully integrated and fully functioning organism that it evolves and renews itself over time.

It appears Paul's use of the term soma for "the body" is intentionally different from his use of the term sarx with reference to the flesh. The one appears to be more abstract or poetic, the other is more concrete. More recently, theologians see soma as existential embeddedness, the person-environment nexus.

Regarding G-d dependence, to me it is an ontological reality in the sense that G-d is that in terms of which everything has existence. The psychological aspect would be a recognition/appreciation of this fact. I think the commitment flows from the recognition. This is probably why world religions tend to emphasize the need to replace illusion (faulty knowledge or failure to see the world as G-d Creation) with knowledge. There is no real religious commitment and no real effort to enact one's religious duties without that knowledge.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Agreed. Btw, I do not equate the body of Christ with the church or a ecclesiatic community and have a real problem with that. If you recall, I believe Jesus ushered in a universal priesthood.

The Greek term for "body" is more abstract and does not necessarily support a literal view of a physical body. To me Paul's use of the term suggests a unified totality that is comparable to a fully integrated and fully functioning organism that it evolves and renews itself over time.

It appears Paul's use of the term soma for "the body" is intentionally different from his use of the term sarx with reference to the flesh. The one appears to be more abstract or poetic, the other is more concrete. More recently, theologians see soma as existential embeddedness, the person-environment nexus.

Gotcha. Soma can be in reference to both the natural body (psychikos) of those living in the flesh, and to the spiritual body
(pneumatikos) of the resurrected. Flesh (sarx) and it's impulses can't inherit a part of the soma. (Hence the differences stressed between the fruits of the spirit and the works of the flesh in Gal. 5.) (Analogous to the wheat and the tares.)

Regarding G-d dependence, to me it is an ontological reality in the sense that G-d is that in terms of which everything has existence. The psychological aspect would be a recognition/appreciation of this fact. I think the commitment flows from the recognition.

Thank you for taking the time to explain it more clearly.

[TealLeaf]

Surrender to the interactive optimization of the Universe. Resistance is futile.

You have been optimized.