There is no proof of God ...

[otherbrother]

Actually not particularly a Pauline teaching, and largely out of favour today. And redemption is not through "the Church's grace".

About the whole transactional/Ransom thing: Yes, Thomas, I certainly don’t think of that notion as consistent with grace theology. Grace is not about owing, more about growing from a freely available abundance of God love.

I also associate it with a focus on “plugging “ into energy (subtle energy). The only “sin” is the missed opportunity of plugging in. It would be a sin to miss out on Love. The only thing owed is perhaps “thanks.” And even that is not a requirement, but a natural free response to a process chat uplifts us, allows us to feel more alive.

Thomas, Your (now quite substantial) thread brought me to my own personal proof/reason: I need someone to thank for all the deeply meaningful good things in my life.

 

[wil]

Thomas, Your (now quite substantial) thread brought me to my own personal proof/reason: I need someone to thank for all the deeply meaningful good things in my life.

I find that awesome.

Although I don't find it to be something that can be extrapolated as proof for all.

I find no need for "a someone" plenty right here in front of me (like you n thomas) and all around... I need to look neither high nor low as I am in the midst!

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, Your (now quite substantial) thread brought me to my own personal proof/reason: I need someone to thank for all the deeply meaningful good things in my life.

I think that as much your seeking as my pointing, and thanks to you for the dialogue which made me think ...

I also associate it with a focus on “plugging “ into energy (subtle energy)...

I can go along with the 'plug in' and 'energy' analogy – as long as it's an analogy!

The Orthodox Church observes the distinction between the Divine essence (ousia), and the Divine energeia, by which God makes Himself known to His creation. The Divine ousia is uncreated, and cannot be comprehended in words. It is in and through the Divine energeia that we are able to experience something of the Divine, at first through (cataphatic) sensory perception and then later via an (apophatic) intuition or apprehension – a knowing, although dark and oblique. St John Damascene says "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."(An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Chapter 4.)

The work or activity of Grace (in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy) is a participation in the Divine Nature – 2 Peter 1:4 "By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature" Love is a participation. There are, as in all things, matters of degree.

All life participates in the divine inasmuch as one is alive – in Him we libve and move and have our being – but that medium transcends the world as such, and is forever an inaccessible mystery. 'Plugging into' that divine energy is disclosed in the teachings of the Revealed Traditions – meditation, contemplation, prayer; the Sacramental Rites and Liturgies are the more intimate and unmediated means of participation.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

He is indeed a useful reference, but to base one's conclusions entirely on him is to follow him up his own bleak alley.

Wiser to to view Ehrman's opinions and insights alongside a broader scholarship. The Anglican theologian N.T.Wright, for example, has appeared alongside Ehrman, and is complimentary of some aspects of his scholarship, critical of others, and especially so of the conclusions that Ehrman derives from his researches ...




Er, not sure which 'Kaiphas and corp' @talib-al-kalim is referring to, but I'm assuming Simon / Cephas (Aramaic Kipa) Peter, one of the Twelve?

Your Caiaphas is is Joseph ben Caiaphas, High Priest during the years of Jesus' ministry, different bloke.

I meant the latter, as the most prominent actor who rejected Jesus; made him be crucified and continued to be hostile to his followers.

 

[otherbrother]

I find that awesome.

Although I don't find it to be something that can be extrapolated as proof for all.

I find no need for "a someone" plenty right here in front of me (like you n thomas) and all around... I need to look neither high nor low as I am in the midst!

Wil, I think I see what you are saying: (one’s own) being in and of itself, and “Mind Itself “ (one of my nicknames for God) has a kind of otherness without another other! Perhaps spirituality is much about sensing something behind and beyond regular thinking. I once had a dream in which my spirit walked around holding my decapitated head! To me it indicated a consciousness behind and beyond normal thinking. Meta consciousness?

 

[wil]

Perhaps is an appropriate word.

 

[otherbrother]

Perhaps is an appropriate word.

You and I seem to prefer Supranatural over Supernatural . Would the Hindu concept of the Atman (A universal “self”) fit our line of theological thought?

My metaphysical belief is that the deepest level of selfhood is so convergent or “entangled” that it becomes a matter of semantics whether we call Ultimate Reality a (part of) self or an other. A rose is a rose even if it goes by another name.

Does a beyond God separate into selves? Or are selves seamlessly connected in a way that we name as “God?”

I do generally lean toward the latter, because I don’t like the spiritual disempowerment risked by the former.

 

[otherbrother]

You and I seem to prefer Supranatural over Supernatural . Would the Hindu concept of the Atman (A universal “self”) fit our line of theological thought?
My metaphysical belief is that the deepest level of selfhood is so convergent or “entangled” that it becomes a matter of semantics whether we call Ultimate Reality a (part of) self or an other. A rose is a rose even if it goes by another name.
Does a beyond God separate into selves? Or are selves seamlessly connected in a way that we name as “God?”
I do generally lean toward the latter, because I don’t like the spiritual disempowerment risked by the former.

And the Supranatural view seems more consistent with democracy that assumes there is enough widespread positive human potential to build effective cooperation. Of course this means there needs to be a process of actualizing that widespread potential. Democracy means we “believe” in each other, but it does not presuppose that the basis of believing in each other happens automatically. Democracy requires education and growth. A highly consumeristic society/culture stunts growth and blocks positive potential from actualizing. If we are going to keep democracy, we must be intentional about growth. I believe a secular version of interconnectedness and positive potential needs to be intentionally created in our culture. Traditional religions would also benefit from this base of believing in each other. It would add to, rather than replace, traditional religions. Some theological tweaking within those religions would need to be tolerated though.

 

[otherbrother]

And the Supranatural view seems more consistent with democracy that assumes there is enough widespread positive human potential to build effective cooperation. Of course this means there needs to be a process of actualizing that widespread potential. Democracy means we “believe” in each other, but it does not presuppose that the basis of believing in each other happens automatically. Democracy requires education and growth. A highly consumeristic society/culture stunts growth and blocks positive potential from actualizing. If we are going to keep democracy, we must be intentional about growth. I believe a secular version of interconnectedness and positive potential needs to be intentionally created in our culture. Traditional religions would also benefit from this base of believing in each other. It would add to, rather than replace, traditional religions. Some theological tweaking within those religions would need to be tolerated though.

The shift to a Supranatural view within Christianity may be part of the necessary “tweaking.”

 

[otherbrother]

The Orthodox Church observes the distinction between the Divine essence (ousia), and the Divine energeia, by which God makes Himself known to His creation. The Divine ousia is uncreated, and cannot be comprehended in words. It is in and through the Divine energeia that we are able to experience something of the Divine, at first through (cataphatic) sensory perception and then later via an (apophatic) intuition or apprehension – a knowing, although dark and oblique. St John Damascene says "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."(An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Chapter 4.)

I really liked this line of thought. And will try to reflect on it for a few more days before commenting. It seems to resolve some of my apparent contradictions.

 

[otherbrother]

I really liked this line of thought. And will try to reflect on it for a few more days before commenting. It seems to resolve some of my apparent contradictions.

I do, like you, feel it is important to say we don’t know God, God’s nature. I encountered that stance in my own writing recently while editing a book in progress about a faith building father and son road trip (pilgrimage theme).

 

[talib-al-kalim]

And the Supranatural view seems more consistent with democracy that assumes there is enough widespread positive human potential to build effective cooperation.

A single view is not consistent with democracy; tolerance between different views is needed.

Of course this means there needs to be a process of actualizing that widespread potential. Democracy means we “believe” in each other, but it does not presuppose that the basis of believing in each other happens automatically. Democracy requires education and growth.

Is democracy a question of belief? In my opinion, it's a means to avoid that a state is being ruled against the majority of the people.

A highly consumeristic society/culture stunts growth and blocks positive potential from actualizing. If we are going to keep democracy, we must be intentional about growth. I believe a secular version of interconnectedness and positive potential needs to be intentionally created in our culture. Traditional religions would also benefit from this base of believing in each other. It would add to, rather than replace, traditional religions. Some theological tweaking within those religions would need to be tolerated though.

In a world where people with different religions and philosophies live together, representative democracy can only be lived in religious freedom, i.e. all should be enabled to live according to their beliefs but also agree this to others.

 

[Thomas]

My metaphysical belief is that the deepest level of selfhood is so convergent or “entangled” that it becomes a matter of semantics whether we call Ultimate Reality a (part of) self or an other. A rose is a rose even if it goes by another name.

The 'entanglement' happens at a sub-metaphysical level, really ... pure metaphysics addresses the Principles that transcends the 'forms', which is where the entanglement occurs,

For example, if one sees the Sanskrit term atman means 'essence' or 'breath', and then looks at the occurance of 'breath' in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that even the Greek psyche is from the verb 'to blow' ...

That's why I look outside my own tradition as well as in when considering metaphysics.

Does a beyond God separate into selves? Or are selves seamlessly connected in a way that we name as “God?”

I too prefer the latter, so long as I don't assume a necessary ontological continuity between Self and the seamless selves ... or between the Uncreate and the created.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

The 'entanglement' happens at a sub-metaphysical level, really ... pure metaphysics addresses the Principles that transcends the 'forms', which is where the entanglement occurs,

For example, if one sees the Sanskrit term atman means 'essence' or 'breath', and then looks at the occurance of 'breath' in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that even the Greek psyche is from the verb 'to blow' ...

That's why I look outside my own tradition as well as in when considering metaphysics.


I too prefer the latter, so long as I don't assume a necessary ontological continuity between Self and the seamless selves ... or between the Uncreate and the created.

I thought 'prana' meant 'breath'?

 

[Thomas]

I thought 'prana' meant 'breath'?

Apparently, both do ... but in metaphysics, have differing senses.

 

[otherbrother]

I think that as much your seeking as my pointing, and thanks to you for the dialogue which made me think ...



I can go along with the 'plug in' and 'energy' analogy – as long as it's an analogy!

The Orthodox Church observes the distinction between the Divine essence (ousia), and the Divine energeia, by which God makes Himself known to His creation. The Divine ousia is uncreated, and cannot be comprehended in words. It is in and through the Divine energeia that we are able to experience something of the Divine, at first through (cataphatic) sensory perception and then later via an (apophatic) intuition or apprehension – a knowing, although dark and oblique. St John Damascene says "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."(An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Chapter 4.)

The work or activity of Grace (in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy) is a participation in the Divine Nature – 2 Peter 1:4 "By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature" Love is a participation. There are, as in all things, matters of degree.

All life participates in the divine inasmuch as one is alive – in Him we libve and move and have our being – but that medium transcends the world as such, and is forever an inaccessible mystery. 'Plugging into' that divine energy is disclosed in the teachings of the Revealed Traditions – meditation, contemplation, prayer; the Sacramental Rites and Liturgies are the more intimate and unmediated means of participation.

This post on my thread about Maccabees and the Easter story goes on to describe a “Pattern” that is like a bleed over from Universal Mind, God, to our earthly plane of existence. The line of thought seems to closely match the concepts you shared in the above post. See if you see a similarity also. Of course my tendency is to see similarities where there may be quite a stretch of imagination and reason. I’m more of a “leveler”. You seem to be more of a “sharpener.” Our respective tendencies though might be complimentary in a productive way.

Here it is. Copied and pasted from the other discussion thread (You are the only fish so far who has nibbled on that bait!):

…“The Christian value of an intercessor between Divine (open Mind) and human (closed Mind/mind), suggests a less-open sort of mindfulness {than Buddhism-derived mindfulness} —one that allows for impressionistic Pattern recognition, processing, and utilization/application.

Patterns pay little attention to inside or out. They just are. Like formats of energy which bridges Mind and Matter Itself. The traditional “blood” of Jesus is another way of saying Jesus energy (too bad the metaphor is used in a transactional manner of “paying” for our sins and implying we owe Him one, instead of gracefully simply aligning, drawing closer, plugging into this highly spiritual energy format, often referred to as “The Way.” )

The resurrection/resilience Pattern works faithfully in either individual or collective or both. The forerunners of Christianity knew and practiced this picking up on energy formats, or Patterns.

Christ fulfilled a Pattern. Thereby amplifying it for each of us to consider using it to deal with death-like situations in our lives (individual or collective or both).

The Macabees prayed at a time when fighting might have worked better. They got massacred . Too open to God for their own good. Ironic, considering how they were known to be militant (which appears to be what caused a book about them to be excluded from the Bible). Where was their militant way when they needed it?! God appeared to “forsake” them (recall Christ’s words on the cross, “Why have You forsaken me?”).

Not to worry! An eventual resurrection of the defeated Israel will come sooner or later (probably the latter!). Based on a Pattern of resilience. Related to transformative adaptation? Creative thought that is open to sensing potentials not apparent in the bleak actual situation are put into motion by this particular Pattern. Suggests, I suppose, God’s Mind somehow shining into this opaque plain of existence. His thoughts being sensed in the material of our reality, like rocks crying out (a biblical reference).”

 

[otherbrother]

A single view is not consistent with democracy; tolerance between different views is needed.

Is democracy a question of belief? In my opinion, it's a means to avoid that a state is being ruled against the majority of the people.

In a world where people with different religions and philosophies live together, representative democracy can only be lived in religious freedom, i.e. all should be enabled to live according to their beliefs but also agree this to others.

Religious freedom, yes. But sense of connection , what traditionally has been called “spirituality,” must be culturally enabled in order for the collective to sustainably work. This can be achieved independently of organized religions. But it would be a mistake (throwing a baby out with the bathwater) to prevent religions from prompting and reinforcing spirituality, or whatever new (secular) word is agreed upon.

 

[Thomas]

…“The Christian value of an intercessor between Divine (open Mind) and human (closed Mind/mind), suggests a less-open sort of mindfulness {than Buddhism-derived mindfulness} —one that allows for impressionistic Pattern recognition, processing, and utilization/application

Again, uncertain about your 'intercessor'.

 

[Thomas]

... what traditionally has been called “spirituality,” must be culturally enabled in order for the collective to sustainably work. This can be achieved independently of organized religions. But it would be a mistake (throwing a baby out with the bathwater) to prevent religions from prompting and reinforcing spirituality, or whatever new (secular) word is agreed upon.

On the other hand, culture shows a marked habit of appropriation for its own gain, and traditionally, what is called 'spirituality' is the same as 'religion' and there is no distinction between the two. Tell an Orthodox 'I am spiritual but not religious' and see what happens!

Two trends: one is the elitism of the 'esoteric schools' who regard 'spirituality' as an intellectual exercise beyond the capacity of the average person (thus denying the other yogas).

And the redoubtable David Bentley Hart:
Even our ethics are achievements of will. And the same is true of those custom-fitted spiritualities—“New Age,” occult, pantheist, “Wiccan,” or what have you—by which many of us now divert ourselves from the quotidien dreariness of our lives. These gods of the boutique can come from anywhere—native North American religion, the Indian subcontinent, some Pre-Raphaelite grove shrouded in Celtic twilight, cunning purveyors of otherwise worthless quartz, pages drawn at random from Robert Graves, Aldous Huxley, Carl Jung, or that redoubtable old Aryan, Joseph Campbell—but where such gods inevitably come to rest are not so much divine hierarchies as ornamental étagères, where their principal office is to provide symbolic representations of the dreamier sides of their votaries’ personalities. The triviality of this sort of devotion, its want of dogma or discipline, its tendency to find its divinities not in glades and grottoes but in gift shops make it obvious that this is no reversion to pre-Christian polytheism. It is, rather, a thoroughly modern religion, whose burlesque gods command neither reverence, nor dread, nor love, nor belief; they are no more than the masks worn by that same spontaneity of will that is the one unrivalled demiurge who rules this age and alone bids its spirits come and go.
(David Bentley Hart "Christ and Nothing")

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Religious freedom, yes. But sense of connection , what traditionally has been called “spirituality,” must be culturally enabled in order for the collective to sustainably work. This can be achieved independently of organized religions. But it would be a mistake (throwing a baby out with the bathwater) to prevent religions from prompting and reinforcing spirituality, or whatever new (secular) word is agreed upon.

Your notion of "spirituality" is not really clear to me. You say, it is a sense of connection. Do you mean the connection to God (which is close to the usual understanding of the word) or connection between humans, a universal mindset that enables us to live together in a society?