Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
I can't give you any more reps SG but that is soooo right on
Designing a New Religion
- Thread starter TealLeaf
- Start date
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The difference between this
[ ...
...]
and this
[...
...]
may have more to do with the individuals' level of conscious commitment than with a cynical institutional process.
[ ...
and this
[...
may have more to do with the individuals' level of conscious commitment than with a cynical institutional process.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Commitment? To an Institution?The difference between this
[ ......]
and this
[......]
may have more to do with the individuals' level of conscious commitment than with a cynical institutional process.
{Where are those nice young men in their clean white coats?}
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The body of Christ.Commitment? To an Institution?
Tao_Equus
Interfaith Forums
What an utterly meaningless idea.... such talk is what convinces me that to be religious you have to embrace some level of insanity.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Does the Spirit come from the Body, or does the Body come from the Spirit?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Hey, I embrace insanity every time I face PMS. What does that have to do with religion?
Tao_Equus
Interfaith Forums
Would that be Post menstrual syndrome, Pre menstrual syndrome or pre meditated strop?Hey, I embrace insanity every time I face PMS. What does that have to do with religion?
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
The collective psyche of the Christian community . . .
Oh, by that I'm not talking about insanity, but what he/she meant by "the body of Christ," explaining in as plain as English as I can find. I hope that approaches a level of sanity that would make you feel comfortable.
Yeah it does make me somewhat uncomfortable when people say "body of Christ" because it's not the terminology of the people of today. It makes me think . . . not of a collective psyche, which is what I think it really means (ie. the soul of the community) . . . but arms, legs, a head, brain, heart, liver, eyes, ears and mouth . . . like we're part of a Greater Human Being.
So when is this big baby going to start walking? How long has it been drinking milk? When is it going to start talking properly (and oh boy! What a question to ask)? When is the big baby going to grow up?
Maybe then it'll start sounding more like . . . music to the ears . . .
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Hmm, both are hellish states where you're eager to shed blood...Pre menstrual syndrome or pre meditated strop?
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
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
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Different labels for the same thing?
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
According to Paul, the physical body is spiritualized. I suspect you can find the relevant Corinthians passage as quickly as I can.
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
Mercuræn Buddhist
Is that in reference to the mother-goddess who keeps herself carefully concealed in illusion?
Hmm, interesting when you compare it to these:
I suppose it could become a really interesting if you also throw Tao Te Ching 1 into the mix for comparison.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
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.
<...>
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
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.
There's a verse where he talks about the difference between a physical body and a spiritual body.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Cut and run?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.
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.
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
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Is this what you were referring to?...
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
Mercuræn Buddhist
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.