|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Who do you think he is? Jesus, that is
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This sort of humble approach might help some people. But presumably they'd have to go to places like the URC for it, rather than expecting it from charismatic evangelicalism.
It is a lovely poem and a good example of an approach. But it is an approach that is found within charismatic evangelicalism as well-- if you're willing to look for it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I resist the 'Jesus is my boyfriend' stuff whilst holding onto the mystic experience granted to some and the blessing of the nearness of Christ granted to all.
I don't resist it. I don't share it either, but it reflects the mystical experience of those who wrote these songs.
Does it? Or does it reflect what they think their audience wants to hear? If you think everybody else is having an experience you're not, you might still use that language, because that's what everybody else uses, and that's what it takes to be in the swing with that group of people. Churchianity is as much about belonging as it is about believing.
I recently read an article that said that the general reports on college campuses about how often your average undergrad was having sex were grossly overreported, and that if you believe everybody else is having sex more often than you, it can make you feel inadequate and depressed (if you're the sort of person who wants to have a lot of sex). So you lie, and tell everybody you're getting it twice a day, even when you're just like them and getting it twice a semester.
If I were trying to sell albums to a particular people group, I would definitely use their language and pretend (if I didn't really) to understand and have experienced what they say they're feeling and doing. That's just good business.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This sort of humble approach might help some people. But presumably they'd have to go to places like the URC for it, rather than expecting it from charismatic evangelicalism.
It is a lovely poem and a good example of an approach. But it is an approach that is found within charismatic evangelicalism as well-- if you're willing to look for it.
Out of interest, which denominations are you thinking of? Or which strands of charismatic evangelicalism?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This sort of humble approach might help some people. But presumably they'd have to go to places like the URC for it, rather than expecting it from charismatic evangelicalism.
It is a lovely poem and a good example of an approach. But it is an approach that is found within charismatic evangelicalism as well-- if you're willing to look for it.
Out of interest, which denominations are you thinking of? Or which strands of charismatic evangelicalism?
The sort of differences we're talking about here are more individual-- have more to do with the leadership and community of particular churches than of any particular denomination. But I have been to many charismatic evangelical churches that have that sort of humility and honesty about their struggles and yearning for God. Again, that kind of transparency is usually modeled from the pastoral staff which lets others know that it's safe to admit your own struggles.
That hasn't been true of every charismatic church I've attended, but it's been true of enough to say it's not a one-off experience.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I suspect the same is true of every denomination, btw. Any tradition/ community can become a stifling straightjacket of rigid expectations that cause members to conform to those expectations (i.e. "faking it"). That can be true of high church liturgical churches just as much as low-church Pentecostals-- it's just a different set of role expectations you'll fake in each. And either would be equally damaging to one's faith.
But, blessedly, congregations within any of those traditions can also be havens for real authentic community when members feel safe to question the norms, to share their doubts and confusion and even struggle with the mystery. Again, I think that happens when someone-- usually the pastor but sometimes some other courageous person-- steps up and starts being honest and transparent themselves.
I've seen in happen in all sorts of churches, all over the theological spectrum.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Barnabas62. Sir.
mr cheesy
I missed your: 'Does anyone else understand what Martin is saying or is it just me [who is too thick to understand it]?'.
No, it's definitely NOT you.
Therefore I apologize to you as I didn't formally address my failure to communicate with you.
Is there anything outstanding?
cliffdweller too, anything you need me to elaborate on on the path this thread has taken?
A path which has helped me clarify my thinking even if I fail to express it, as ThunderBunk expressed too.
The clarification, the proposition is that no one, from Jesus on down, ever has internal mystical - transpersonal - experiences that are anything other than our own, lone, John Donne island, bare foot in our own mysterious head experiences and that no one since Him and a couple of concentric circles out, a couple of handshakes, has experienced anything miraculous. Not in any significant, transferable, meaningful, useful way for the rest of us.
This in no way diminishes God, especially God in Christ. Or the Bible.
And when I prayed for the group of broken men I was sitting with on Friday night, OF COURSE I used relational, experiential language in trying to water the seed that the key to happiness is gratitude, my prayer - suggestion, to the suggestible - was that they would find something, anything positive to express gratitude for.
We MUST meet people where they are, so, yes Mudfrog: "Let's welcome everyone to know Jesus personally and enjoy his loving presence ... God who creates and loves you has redeemed you and wants to fill you with his love and presence." whilst being ... real and not raising their expectations CRUELLY. Acknowledging their raging confusion, ignorance, pain, loss, yearning and that He completely feels that and embraces them in it WITHOUT any expectation that they will, or could or should experience anything at all.
And Gamaliel. You're on top form. Lovely poem SvitlanaV2. And yes I need to invoke, assume the presence of the Spirit of encouragement, inclusion ... repentance, soundness.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And when I prayed for the group of broken men I was sitting with on Friday night, OF COURSE I used relational, experiential language in trying to water the seed that the key to happiness is gratitude, my prayer - suggestion, to the suggestible - was that they would find something, anything positive to express gratitude for.
We MUST meet people where they are, so, yes Mudfrog: "Let's welcome everyone to know Jesus personally and enjoy his loving presence ... God who creates and loves you has redeemed you and wants to fill you with his love and presence." whilst being ... real and not raising their expectations CRUELLY. Acknowledging their raging confusion, ignorance, pain, loss, yearning and that He completely feels that and embraces them in it WITHOUT any expectation that they will, or could or should experience anything at all.
Anyone who wants to know who Jesus Is? Their answer rests somewhere in the above post.
Preach it guys ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The sort of differences we're talking about here are more individual-- have more to do with the leadership and community of particular churches than of any particular denomination. But I have been to many charismatic evangelical churches that have that sort of humility and honesty about their struggles and yearning for God. Again, that kind of transparency is usually modeled from the pastoral staff which lets others know that it's safe to admit your own struggles.
That hasn't been true of every charismatic church I've attended, but it's been true of enough to say it's not a one-off experience.
I understand what you're saying here, and in fact, I've often wondered what it would feel like to be a member of a high octane Pentecostal church who's unable to speak in tongues. Difficult, I suppose. I understand that some members 'fake' the experience. But what's the point? Why not attend some other church instead?
Moreover, I thought we were (also) talking about the kinds of people who didn't want or believe in having a particularly close spiritual connection with Jesus. For them, what would be the appeal of belonging to a charismatic evangelical church?
ISTM that for very many people, attending a particular church often has little to do with its theology, teachings or its spiritual expectations. People go because of their friends, or family tradition, or the style of music, or the demographic, or because it's livelier and friendlier than the 'sensible' church down the road, etc. But these things are of limited usefulness if the core teachings and emphasis of your church don't agree with you.
[ 30. August 2015, 11:54: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Difficult, I suppose. I understand that some members 'fake' the experience. But what's the point? Why not attend some other church instead?
That is SO much easier said than done!
I don't go with the theology of my Church much any more - but I belong there and there I will stay. People come way, way before theology imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In Him we live and move and have our being rolyn. All of us. ALL of us. Including all of IS. And they will ALL know.
I struggle ... barely, nominally to include the hyperbolic, highly exaggerated, aspirational claims we make in Jesus, that Jesus Himself made. I MUST I realise. I MUST embrace Mudfrog and cliffdweller and SvitlanaV2 and Lamb Chopped and Jamat and Raptor Eye and ENDORSE what is true for them. Graciously. Not just use the same language because there is no affective alternative for the vast majority of we the broken. I struggled this morning in church with the grandiose, pre-modern language of Jesus' brother James, who nonetheless always delivers the realest of punches: DO SOMETHING KIND.
I raised an eyebrow at a close friend in his use of God's path, plan terminology for me and then had to apologize and endorse it. And what he recommended for when I retire in less than four years WAS truly inspiring.
This thread and sitting in church this morning DID get me to one of those ... spooky, momentarily spine tingling places where I realised that I MUST invoke the Holy Spirit and ALL of His gifts which I do NOT treasure as having. I MUST declare them to myself. I must get them out of the box and be confronted by them for a start. Was that a prompting of the Spirit itself? It was in metaphor at least and I'm grateful for it.
Out walking yesterday I was wondering how to embrace one of the volunteers (we are ALWAYS the worst off, the most inadequate, the least helpful!) with the homeless who was going on and on in his wagon ride that he will inevitably fall off soon and descend in to self harming alcoholic madness. Every time he comes back I'm amazed he's still alive. He was authoritatively telling people that Satan can't read their minds like God can and that it's all about choice so Muslims are damned and last week how God had saved him yet again from a three month binge and the damage isn't permanent.
This in a group 'led' by a nice woman who acts out laying burdens on Jesus' cross, who was wildly enthusiastic about the perfect revelation of God in Psalm 139 who knows every moment of our future for ultimate good AND ill.
I say nothing. I lie. I was compelled to say that the language of choice doesn't work for me (didn't go down well, a mistake, I REALLY should have endorsed it FOR HIM, say I understand why he thinks such a way about Muslims AND that a better way awaits him ... one just cannot avoid passive aggression) and that if God has written our story, to one anxious, medicated chap, I don't think He does unhappy endings.
The strange thing is the 'leader' asks me to pray and LOVES IT when I do! I need to embrace the un-embraceable. Whilst encouraging the TRULY powerlessly vulnerable 'beneath' them. Which HAS to have the higher priority. Yet I MUST not alienate the ... crazed evangelical volunteers who are allowed to peddle their madness by the vicar who just does the hoovering. Who is incidentally brilliantly hands on before we do the God slot.
Happy days!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Boogie
Yes, you're a prime example, aren't you? But if all the members of your church moved in the same theological direction as yourself, would it matter? Would the community still exist in the same way? Would everyone still make the effort to turn up and worship meaningfully on Sunday mornings?
One book I read suggested that liberal Christianity was parasitic. This is a harsh way of putting it, but looking at it more broadly, it does occur to me that many of us in the church rely on other people's stronger and more orthodox faith to get things done and to promote the faith. We want the freedom to dissent, but if there's no cohesive core of faith, no dynamism born of conviction, no pioneers relying on the guiding hand of God, then there's nothing to dissent against, and no community to buy into.
So it may not be the theology that makes evangelical churches attractive, but without that theology the appealing culture that they develop wouldn't exist, in most cases. If that were not so then the MOTR churches would surely be far more popular than they are.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SvitlanaV2: One book I read suggested that liberal Christianity was parasitic. This is a harsh way of putting it, but looking at it more broadly, it does occur to me that many of us in the church rely on other people's stronger and more orthodox faith to get things done and to promote the faith. We want the freedom to dissent, but if there's no cohesive core of faith, no dynamism born of conviction, no pioneers relying on the guiding hand of God, then there's nothing to dissent against, and no community to buy into.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I'm not even sure if that warrants a serious reply. I don't know who wrote this book, but (s)he definitely has a couple of screws loose.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm grateful for the shoal I swim in. Liberalism is not a parasite. Except when it tears down, predates, harms. Guilty. It should go beyond commensalism to mutualism in symbiosis. By being strongly benevolent in the face of the shoal's ignorance and fear.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
LeRoc
It wasn't the whole thrust of the book by any means, and the author didn't expand on this point.
However, there are contexts in which it doesn't seem entirely ridiculous. For example, IME it's not unusual for the clergy in historical churches to admit privately that they don't entirely share the theological conservatism of their congregations. But since they want to keep people in the church, they don't discuss these kinds of issues publicly.
I'm inclined to think that churches are more productive if everyone is generally pulling in the same direction, be that from a more liberal or a more conservative perspective, or anything in between. It must surely create more openness, and hence more closeness. But it seems to be difficult to achieve. I think the clergy/laity divide makes it harder, but that's probably a different discussion.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So it may not be the theology that makes evangelical churches attractive, but without that theology the appealing culture that they develop wouldn't exist, in most cases. If that were not so then the MOTR churches would surely be far more popular than they are.
I imagine this is a subject for another thread. But I agree with you. Fervour and passion cause churches to grow. People who are passionate about the 'cause' will be much better sales men and women than folk like me are. Like I said earlier, I brought a lot of 'people to Christ' in my time.
Someone said to me the other day that they'd never had a 'rollercoaster ride' in faith. I think they hit the nail on the head there. Some people are ardent enthusiasts and throw their whole self into what they do (I am one of them) so when that thing loses its appeal, for whatever reason, they tend to crash and burn.
Our minister gave an excellent sermon today on how our faith needs to be personal. She made the analogy of swimming. That all humans can swim, but it's lack of faith that the water will hold you that makes some take a very long time to learn. Some never do and some swim easily after a couple of tries. She said that accepting God's love was like this.
She didn't mention those who swam with confidence on day 1 and called many into the water, giving them help to take their feet up - but then themselves put their feet back down and started to walk to shore.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The sort of differences we're talking about here are more individual-- have more to do with the leadership and community of particular churches than of any particular denomination. But I have been to many charismatic evangelical churches that have that sort of humility and honesty about their struggles and yearning for God. Again, that kind of transparency is usually modeled from the pastoral staff which lets others know that it's safe to admit your own struggles.
That hasn't been true of every charismatic church I've attended, but it's been true of enough to say it's not a one-off experience.
I understand what you're saying here, and in fact, I've often wondered what it would feel like to be a member of a high octane Pentecostal church who's unable to speak in tongues. Difficult, I suppose. I understand that some members 'fake' the experience. But what's the point? Why not attend some other church instead?
Moreover, I thought we were (also) talking about the kinds of people who didn't want or believe in having a particularly close spiritual connection with Jesus. For them, what would be the appeal of belonging to a charismatic evangelical church?
ISTM that for very many people, attending a particular church often has little to do with its theology, teachings or its spiritual expectations. People go because of their friends, or family tradition, or the style of music, or the demographic, or because it's livelier and friendlier than the 'sensible' church down the road, etc. But these things are of limited usefulness if the core teachings and emphasis of your church don't agree with you.
I've been in that place. And to some degree still am (I can technically claim to be a "tongue speaker" but it's such a rare and unusual part of my experience as to be negligible). Many, many of my friends in the Pentecostal church I attend do not have this experience. And my church, like most charismatic/Pentecostal churches in the US, is attracting far more nonbelievers than non-Pentecostal churches. So, there is something here that is attractive and doesn't alienate those who don't share the same experience.
Again, Pentecostal churches vary greatly-- and so do liturgical churches and every other sort of church. People are drawn to authenticity. So, when you have a Pentecostal church where there is a community norm of honesty, authenticity, transparency, it's OK to say "I don't share that experience" or "I'm not sure I believe that." You feel connected with others who are honestly sharing their journey, their struggles, even when it is different from your own. You don't feel pressured to be or do or feel something others aren't.
And, of course, there are other sorts of Pentecostal churches that are quite different and people will feel uncomfortable if they don't experience what everyone else does, will wonder why God doesn't speak to them the same way he seems to for everyone else, and will be likely to fake it, and/or leave.
And I know from experience that the same thing happens in liturgical churches as well-- it's just a different sort of cultural expectations and doctrine that people may or may not feel pressured to conform to. You will have liturgical churches that are safe places to be honest and transparent, and those where it is not. Just like in the Pentecostal churches. Again, I suspect the largest factor in determining which sort of church it will become is the leadership-- if the pastor and/or others in significant roles are transparent in genuine.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Our minister gave an excellent sermon today on how our faith needs to be personal. She made the analogy of swimming. That all humans can swim, but it's lack of faith that the water will hold you that makes some take a very long time to learn. Some never do and some swim easily after a couple of tries. She said that accepting God's love was like this.
She didn't mention those who swam with confidence on day 1 and called many into the water, giving them help to take their feet up - but then themselves put their feet back down and started to walk to shore.
I think Kierkegaard said something similar - describing faith as being suspended above 70,000 fathoms of water. He also says that when he was a child, he pretended to his father that he could swim while still keeping one foot on the bottom of the pond. Where your minister's analogy breaks down is that swimming (at least in safe waters) repeatedly reinforces our faith in its ability to keep us afloat through direct experience. Which is why you don't get many swimmers becoming non-swimmers. Faith of course isn't like this. Sadly, for many, experience does anything but confirm their faith.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Like Cliffdweller and Boogie I don't think that any of this neatly boils down to any particular theological movement ir tradition.
I've met RCs who have lost their faith and still attend Mass because they like the sense of community.
I've heard of Pentecostals who no longer believe in speaking in tongues but still go to the meetings.
I've heard of British people who've become Orthodox who affect Russian accents. I knew fellas back in the day who would unconsciously affect a Welsh accent when preaching because the head-honchos in our particular restorationist network were Welsh.
Mousethief is onto something with the belonging thing ...
Heck, even in private I've noticed that if I say an Anglican daily office often enough I find myself lapsing unconsciously into Anglican style plainchant - or if I recite the Orthodox Trisagion prayers it's not long before I find myself chanting them in a kind of approximation of Byzantine chant.
I have no idea what 'tone' it is - if any.
There were instances in the Welsh Revival of 1904 of increasingly Anglophone young people lapsing back into childhood Welsh during prayer meetings.
All these are 'creaturely' and contextualised responses - as is 'tongues' I would submit - that doesn't invalidate them.
Ultimately, we none of us know what's going on in people's hearts and heads.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
... catching up on Pacific Standard Time...
... as the conversation has moved from practice (e.g. tongue-speaking and prophesy) to doctrine (more liberal beliefs than the rest of the congregation) I find the same dynamic remains. There are churches where it is safe to have beliefs that are in some way out of line with the norm, and there are churches where it is not. In churches where it is not OK to diverge, you'll feel pressured to conform, in churches where questioning, doubt, and disagreement is an accepted part of spiritual formation, you won't. And again, you'll find churches in each of those camps across the theological spectrum, although of course there seem to be some denominations that are more prone to one or the other.
Certainly in the Pentecostal church I attend I am by far the most liberal (both theologically and politically) person I know. There I find it helps to have a bit of humor about it-- "here's me doing the commie-pinko-liberal thing again..." And in so doing I find that a surprising number of people will confess to having similar sentiments. In the non-Pentecostal church where I serve, I'm not quite as far askew from the rest in my beliefs, but certainly further than many. We're a congregation mostly of academics so discussing alternate doctrinal views hasn't been very shocking for anyone. There it's been the experiential aspect of my faith that's been edgier to communicate. But in both venues I find openness, humility and authenticity opens doors to acceptance and genuine discussion. ymmv.
(cross posted with Gamaliel, who as always said it better than I)
[ 30. August 2015, 14:14: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I imagine this is a subject for another thread. But I agree with you. Fervour and passion cause churches to grow. People who are passionate about the 'cause' will be much better sales men and women than folk like me are. Like I said earlier, I brought a lot of 'people to Christ' in my time.
Someone said to me the other day that they'd never had a 'rollercoaster ride' in faith. I think they hit the nail on the head there. Some people are ardent enthusiasts and throw their whole self into what they do (I am one of them) so when that thing loses its appeal, for whatever reason, they tend to crash and burn.
Our minister gave an excellent sermon today on how our faith needs to be personal. She made the analogy of swimming. That all humans can swim, but it's lack of faith that the water will hold you that makes some take a very long time to learn. Some never do and some swim easily after a couple of tries. She said that accepting God's love was like this.
She didn't mention those who swam with confidence on day 1 and called many into the water, giving them help to take their feet up - but then themselves put their feet back down and started to walk to shore.
This may be an important factor of this thread, rather than a tangent. If we need affirmation through the church as well as through our own personal devotions for our faith to thrive and grow rather than to go cold and shrivel, and the church we attend does not have the energy and motivation drawn from the vision of a thriving community of people who love God and others with a passion, this will impact on our faith.
Where there is no vision, the people perish, as the proverb says. If a minister sees him- or herself as leading a failing church, it will fail.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So, who do you think he is? Jesus that is.
Fully human. And fully divine. That's what.
Jesus was that. Still is, but all the big O's are back in place.
Therefore He did not have a 'personal relationship' with God just like us.
I watched me vicar of the time stand on stage and tell the story of how she, or rather God, worked out for her why she was alienated from her daughter by her re-telling the two-way conversation she had with God. Out loud in the original, with her playing both parts: with her being a spokesperson for God. A little lower than the angels and Moses and Abraham and the 0.000001% of humanity that God had a chat, often and more latterly at a movie, with.
I could hear Samuel having such a chat with God as me vicar's. "Ay up God, what are we going to do about yon Amalekites? What's that you say God? Kill every man, woman and child o' the bastards? Oh well, if you say so.".
Is that what Jesus did? Jesus the bloke in perichoresis with big O-less, SELF-less Love? 'In the presence'? More than even mythical Moses? Or Abraham? And less. Like Samuel. As God NEVER chatted with Jesus. He mentioned Him at a gig once. Some PA!
So how did Jesus do the miracles?
He didn't.
They happened all right. Not a problem. But a 100% human being sub- and pre-consciously, cellularly, neurologically but NOT consciously mind melded with Love (as the Father in and by the Spirit) could not possibly do them. None of them happened until that gig.
The Holy Spirit did.
How we doing so far?
Heterodox?
Too compulsively fecklessly incoherently obscurely metaphoric?.
This is what happens when the heterodoxy of 'a personal relationship with God' has light shone upon it. In and through and on a very cracked, crazed vessel.
At least that's what God told me.
Oooh, and that that John Shelby Spong is a Jehovah's Witness.
[ 31. August 2015, 09:56: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So, who do you think he is? Jesus that is.
Fully human. And fully divine. That's what.
Jesus was that. Still is, but all the big O's are back in place.
Therefore He did not have a 'personal relationship' with God just like us.
<snip>
Is that what Jesus did? Jesus the bloke in perichoresis with big O-less, SELF-less Love? 'In the presence'? More than even mythical Moses? Or Abraham? And less. Like Samuel. As God NEVER chatted with Jesus. He mentioned Him at a gig once. Some PA!
So how did Jesus do the miracles?
He didn't.
They happened all right. Not a problem. But a 100% human being sub- and pre-consciously, cellularly, neurologically but NOT consciously mind melded with Love (as the Father in and by the Spirit) could not possibly do them. None of them happened until that gig.
The Holy Spirit did.
How we doing so far?
Heterodox?
Too compulsively fecklessly incoherently obscurely metaphoric?.
This is what happens when the heterodoxy of 'a personal relationship with God' has light shone upon it. In and through and on a very cracked, crazed vessel.
At least that's what God told me.
We agree on many things, Martin, including the bit about God chatting with Jesus. It's not chat, but it is intercourse of the spiritual kind. It could be that we are all connected spiritually, but that we're largely unconscious of it, except when someone comes to mind who needs a call at this moment, for instance.
If we are connected spiritually with each other, how much more are we spiritually connected with the one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whom we live and who lives in us? How very intimate that is, so close that communication is more close than the married couple or twins who know each other's minds.
God didn't chat to Jesus. Jesus was and is completely in tune with the Father.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We're certainly converging Raptor Eye.
Are our intellects and feelings being changed by an external force? That's a rhetorical question if you like. They are CERTAINLY being changed by our metanarratives including the ones we meet in: culture, the zeitgeist, here. And that is CERTAINLY driven by the Jesus narrative. By the hearing of the gospel.
I'm also CERTAIN that the Holy Spirit is delighted at you reaching out to me. What He has to say about me I daren't ask.
(I have an image, whether from above or below I cannot tell ... of Harry Corbett talking to his hand and listening to it and saying "What's that Sooty?", "Ohhhhh, I'm a solipsist!".)
[ 31. August 2015, 13:27: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We're certainly converging Raptor Eye.
Are our intellects and feelings being changed by an external force? That's a rhetorical question if you like. They are CERTAINLY being changed by our metanarratives including the ones we meet in: culture, the zeitgeist, here. And that is CERTAINLY driven by the Jesus narrative. By the hearing of the gospel.
I'm also CERTAIN that the Holy Spirit is delighted at you reaching out to me. What He has to say about me I daren't ask.
(I have an image, whether from above or below I cannot tell ... of Harry Corbett talking to his hand and listening to it and saying "What's that Sooty?", "Ohhhhh, I'm a solipsist!".)
But you don't actually believe in any kind of objectivity, do you? You think all spirituality is actually an internal conversation and just your use of the word meta narrative suggests that you have bought into the fact that meaning is an illusion we create for ourselves. God to you is a human invention,meaning is a created fiction and faith is a delusion. You are in fact a religious atheist are you not? If you aren't then you are cognitively contradictory. If God actually turned up somewhere in your life you'd have to look at him as an extension of yourself,your conditioning,your desires and your longings. If the Christian God is exterior to us then there is the possibility of kairos moments or points of break through. If Lewis or Finney or Muggeridge told you about conversions experienced you'd say wow what a con job you did on your own brain. What though if it was all true objectively; Jesus did embody the maker of the universe and he did come to call sinners to repentance?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
?
Why do you cling to the false dichotomy that you have made up in the face of the evidence that I'm not on it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
?
Why do you cling to the false dichotomy that you have made up in the face of the evidence that I'm not on it?
To be fair, Martin, several of us have asked you to be clearer about the points that you've made, so it isn't so surprising if anyone has misunderstood you.
How has Jamat mis-characterised your position?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Jamat, I can't speak for Martin because I don't really understand him either.
I'd say that it is possible to honestly self-deceive yourself about spiritual things. I can't remember the details of the conversion stories of Lewis or Finney or Muggeridge - but I'm not sure if they were of the "God spoke to me from the heavens in an audible voice" variety. Muggeridge is said to have converted following an experience of the divine he had whilst filming Mother Teresa (I might have forgotten or misremembered that).
If Muggeridge really thought that the light he saw was divine, that could be a good thing (even if it was just accidental effects of meteorology), couldn't it? Why are you suggesting a self-deception is always destructive?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've often wondered what it would feel like to be a member of a high octane Pentecostal church who's unable to speak in tongues. Difficult, I suppose. I understand that some members 'fake' the experience.
I don't think the word 'fake' functions here in the same was as it does in normal conversation - but that's another tangent.
The fact that everyone has different 'routes' into 'tongues' is probably what has led to the greatly diminished emphasis on them in second and third generation charismatic movements (accompanied by actually reading Corinthians rather than adducing practice from Acts). Plus there is also the emphasis on other gifts these days (it is after all, easier to train people to make Barnum statements).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Indeed mr cheesy.
Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
But you don't actually believe in any kind of objectivity, do you?
Yes.
quote:
You think all spirituality is actually an internal conversation and just your use of the word meta narrative suggests that you have bought into the fact that meaning is an illusion we create for ourselves.
Yes.
quote:
God to you is a human invention,
No.
quote:
[ ]meaning is a created fiction
No.
quote:
and faith is a delusion.
No.
quote:
You are in fact a religious atheist are you not?
No.
quote:
If you aren't then you are cognitively contradictory.
No.
quote:
If God actually turned up somewhere in your life you'd have to look at him as an extension of yourself,
[ ]your conditioning,your desires and your longings.
No.
quote:
If the Christian God is exterior to us then there is the possibility of kairos moments or points of break through.
Yes.
quote:
If Lewis or Finney or Muggeridge told you about conversions experienced you'd say wow what a con job you did on your own brain.
No.
quote:
What though if it was all true objectively; Jesus did embody the maker of the universe and he did come to call sinners to repentance?
Yes.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Jamat ...
I'd say that it is possible to honestly self-deceive yourself about spiritual things.
Exactly.
I don't think we are talking about faking anything, just being swept away by the moment, by the group-think of the time. It's not unusual.
I suspect (but don't know) that that was me.
quote:
Why are you suggesting a self-deception is always destructive?
I can't think of any harm that my religious experiences/time spent on such did to me or others.
I probably spent more time at Church and in prayer groups etc than was helpful to my family. But both boys grew to be happy, independent, well adjusted atheists - so no harm done. If I'd been in their pockets it wouldn't have been good for them either.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
chris stiles
I'm aware that Pentecostal churches tend to reduce the emphasis on tongues over time. Some would say that this is to be expected, since greater education (as you imply) and social advancement, etc., are likely to make the psychological need and general desirability of this behaviour much less.
However, if the intensity of worship declines in this way, does the church in question eventually become a less attractive place? Or does the church gain by becoming attractive in a different way?
I wonder if any researchers have studied, for example, what percentage of Pentecostals in a church have to speak in tongues in order for the church to create the aura that even non-tongues speakers find invigorating? Or, what percentage of RCs at mass actually have to believe in transsubtantiation in order for the non-believers in the pews to feel moved by RC spirituality?
Theology might prefer to leave such things as an unquantifiable mystery, but a survey of British Methodists carried out a few years ago suggested that there was a correlation between the percentages for certain aspects of church life and personal faith and the overall temperature and effectiveness of the denomination.
[ 01. September 2015, 12:38: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I hope Chris doesn't mind me attempting to answer this as well ...
FWIW, I'm not sure that these things can be quantified objectively. I'd like to know more about the Methodist survey you cite about the spiritual temperature of congregations and the correlation between 'effectiveness' and intensity or depth of belief ... but I suspect the survey was dealing with rather more quantifiable matters than a belief in tongues or in transubstantiation.
A devout RC would probably say that even if 99% of those present didn't believe in transubstantiation, then transubstantiation would still take place - because it's not dependent on our desire or effort ...
We can't 'will' these things into effect by screwing up our eyebrows and going, 'GGGnnnnnnn ....'
From my own experience in full-on charismatic land, I'd say that the 'tongues' thing repelled as many people as it attracted. What tends to attract people in Pentecostal and charismatic circles isn't so much the tongues and prophecies but the sense of liveliness and vitality - people like the music and the groove - and this is what draws them - the sense of fervency and certainty ... the tongues and prophecy come later as people become acclimatised to the vibe.
Back in the day, I used to notice how many new or potential converts or enquirers would disappear once the tongues and so on were introduced. After a large evangelistic campaign - whether one we mounted ourselves when resources permitted or one we were engaged in city-wide alongside other churches - such as the Luis Palau and Billy Graham crusades in the 1980s - we'd have a fair number of visitors or 'referrals' the following Sunday.
The numbers would drop off rapidly as soon as they saw what went on and that 'tongues' and so on were part of our particular package.
Of course, a similar result may have taken place had they turned up and found us all bells and smells or whatever else ...
After a while, I began to wonder why we insisted on the tongues thing as it was so clearly a deal-breaker for a good many people ...
When I revisited my old church after 15 years I found it a shadow of its former self and with very little 'tongues' in evidence - just a few people babbling softly to themselves in the corner or at the back ... but the rhetoric was still the same.
One of the things that many 'classic' Pentecostals had against the 'Toronto Blessing' and some of the 'Third-Wave' charismatic types was that there was a lot less emphasis on tongues.
I think what we're seeing now in the more middle-class and settled-down parts of charismatic-land is a synthesis of some of the more attractive elements - lively or contemporary music - but much less obvious fervour or apparently 'bizarre' behaviour. It's all become very domesticated. It no longer frightens the horses.
In such instances the 'aura' isn't so much created by tongues-speaking - although that may still be in evidence behind the scenes - but by a sense of friendliness, a sense of community and a sense of liveliness. My guess would be that this will continue even in places where the tongues side of things diminish to the extent that it becomes almost invisible.
It's the sense of shared purpose and community that attracts - irrespective of the tongues. The shared purposed and community comes first - the 'manifestations' come later as people become acclimatised to the ethos and imbibe more of the package.
Similarly, I'm sure one can be moved by RC spirituality without necessarily appreciating that they believe in transubstantiation.
Even if you do know that and are antagonistic or indifferent towards that approach or belief, you can still be moved or affected by it.
Indeed, even as a 'hotter Prot' than I am now and with suspicion of the more Catholic end of things, I could find myself moved - as well as repelled - by elements of more Catholic or sacramental worship.
So, I'm not sure it's simply 'Theology' which might prefer to leave such things as an unquantifiable mystery ...
I think the personal faith element comes into it in the sense of 'authenticity' that one might pick up - 'These people really believe this ...'
That, I'm sure, applies equally as much in Pentecostal as it does to RC settings.
An observer might think, 'This is mumbo-jumbo but there's an integrity here - these people sincerely believe in what they're doing ...'
So yes, in that sense there's a measurable effect from spiritual fervour or intensity of belief - and, arguably, this doesn't necessarily depend on what those beliefs actually are ...
Professor Hollenweger, the great historian of Pentecostalism once observed, 'Take away the music and there's not an awful lot left ...'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@Boogie
The harm is in the opportunity cost and exclusivism, whether explicit (the norm in my experience) or accidental.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
But you don't actually believe in any kind of objectivity, do you? You think all spirituality is actually an internal conversation and just your use of the word meta narrative suggests that you have bought into the fact that meaning is an illusion we create for ourselves. God to you is a human invention,meaning is a created fiction and faith is a delusion. You are in fact a religious atheist are you not? If you aren't then you are cognitively contradictory. If God actually turned up somewhere in your life you'd have to look at him as an extension of yourself,your conditioning,your desires and your longings.
Well said!! The phrase 'religious atheist', however, sounds a bit od, unless the adjective means 'strong', or something similar. quote:
If the Christian God is exterior to us then there is the possibility of kairos moments or points of break through. If Lewis or Finney or Muggeridge told you about conversions experienced you'd say wow what a con job you did on your own brain. What though if it was all true objectively; Jesus did embody the maker of the universe and he did come to call sinners to repentance?
Key word here, as so often happens, is 'if' of course. And, to use the word again, if Jesus had been a particular individual, then any purpose in his life was a purpose decided on by him himself.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well said? What, in relation to my position? If you say so SusanDoris. I can't see how. I must have confused you to. Sorry. Didn't you see my binary response above?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Key word here, as so often happens, is 'if' of course. And, to use the word again, if Jesus had been a particular individual, then any purpose in his life was a purpose decided on by him himself.
The Easter Story has quite a few 'ifs' floating about ......"if you are the Son of God then come down from the cross".......being one from those who mocked Him. Do something, anything, to authenticate yourself was/is the common plea to God.
Jesus is as authentic as a person makes him. That's the hinge point of faith, held in place by the vital tension of the very question of who he was.....What He is.
Should the whole business become too much effort to the believer, or worse , a source of torment, then maybe bailing out is the best thing to do.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
... too ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
rolyn, no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
rolyn, no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
But Marin, in this case, what is the baby?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why are you suggesting a self-deception is always destructive?
As soon as you tell yourself something that is fiction and then give it truth status then you block yourself from any real truth or insight. I guess I believe that there is objective truth and that it is discoverable but not via self deception either calculated or inadvertent. I do not question that self delusion can be sincere. You just want something so badly to be true you tell yourself it is. With 'God' discussions this does, of course, cut both ways.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Well said? What, in relation to my position? If you say so SusanDoris. I can't see how. I must have confused you to. Sorry. Didn't you see my binary response above?
No, I was not confused by your posts,* I was thinking that Jamat had expressed the atheist view very well and was wondering whether here was one more person ready to step away from the confines (trap? prison?) of god beliefs, and into the freedom of knowing that we don't know a lot of course, but that that's okay and there is no need to imagine any god for any of that..
*Although I confess to not always analysing them! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I'm mostly thinking, ah, here's Martin60 so that'll be a post to say 'hear, hear!' to.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
As soon as you tell yourself something that is fiction and then give it truth status then you block yourself from any real truth or insight.
I don't see it this way. I think there are levels to the truth, and true insights often go through various levels of useful-but-not-objectively-true delusions.
Objectivity is over-rated - we are humans, we cannot help being influenced/misled by our perceptions.
quote:
I guess I believe that there is objective truth and that it is discoverable but not via self deception either calculated or inadvertent. I do not question that self delusion can be sincere. You just want something so badly to be true you tell yourself it is. With 'God' discussions this does, of course, cut both ways.
I think the delusion is more than just the act of will. It is honestly believing the things our minds and perceptions tell us are true.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Jamat
I have just had a look at your profile page and clicked on your home page link just to see if there were further details there about your religious beliefs or lack of, but the page would not load.
[ 02. September 2015, 05:54: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
As soon as you tell yourself something that is fiction and then give it truth status then you block yourself from any real truth or insight.
I don't see it this way. I think there are levels to the truth, and true insights often go through various levels of useful-but-not-objectively-true delusions.
I'd go even further and say that every insight we have is just an approximation of the truth to one level or another - that none of us is capable of seeing pure truth without any limitations or misleading appearances. Abstraction is useful, but only when it remains grounded, however remotely, in something concrete because pure abstraction becomes invisible. And yet that very concreteness limits the the universality of the abstraction.
Delusion vs. truth is a valuable distinction, but they are both on a continuum. Any insight or belief we have can be simultaneously true in some regard and false in other regards. The challenge is distinguishing between the two and giving up on the latter without losing the former.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jamat.
The one in the manger. And to every yes/no answer I gave, you can add 'and <the opposite>'. And spin them round if you like. We can then get in to the qualifications.
You believe in created fictions.
SusanDoris.
Ah HAH! indeed. No, there's no way Jamat can change his narrative's epistemology and God bless him in that. You too.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
As soon as you tell yourself something that is fiction and then give it truth status then you block yourself from any real truth or insight.
I don't see it this way. I think there are levels to the truth, and true insights often go through various levels of useful-but-not-objectively-true delusions.
Objectivity is over-rated - we are humans, we cannot help being influenced/misled by our perceptions.
quote:
I guess I believe that there is objective truth and that it is discoverable but not via self deception either calculated or inadvertent. I do not question that self delusion can be sincere. You just want something so badly to be true you tell yourself it is. With 'God' discussions this does, of course, cut both ways.
I think the delusion is more than just the act of will. It is honestly believing the things our minds and perceptions tell us are true.
Mr Cheesy. Fair enough. Objectivity is something I'd define as a reality beyond perception; in spite of it if you like but mileage varies greatly, no doubt.
Susan Doris: I think you'll have to put me down as a crazy, God believer. I think it would have been about 40 years ago I kind of woke up to something beyond myself and having had a catholic boarding school education I saw it as separate to the religious observances or sacramental kind of thing that was in my background. I realise that several here have grown away from that kind of experiential thing but not me.
I think my guiding principle is Jesus' word that you will know the truth and it will set you free. Link that to his assertion, Ï am the truth, and the dots are connected. I kind of hear a big vacuum in the experiences of others though.
Thanks for your interest and I'm glad your technology is obviously up and running again and also appreciate dialogue of Mr Cheesy and Martin 60.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Susan Doris: I think you'll have to put me down as a crazy, God believer. I think it would have been about 40 years ago I kind of woke up to something beyond myself and having had a catholic boarding school education I saw it as separate to the religious observances or sacramental kind of thing that was in my background.
Would you agree, though, that the more precise way to describe what you 'woke up' to was something you believed without evidence was 'beyond yourself'? Has not the progress in Science along with the technologies we use, plus the continuing absence of gods, not convinced you to ascribe all of it to evolved humans?!! quote:
I realise that several here have grown away from that kind of experiential thing but not me.
I think my guiding principle is Jesus' word that you will know the truth and it will set you free. Link that to his assertion, Ï am the truth, and the dots are connected. I kind of hear a big vacuum in the experiences of others though.
Thanks for your interest and I'm glad your technology is obviously up and running again and also appreciate dialogue of Mr Cheesy and Martin 60.
Yes, discussions here are so interesting and technology is so clever. I am thinking I'll have a go with one of those tablet things , but i will need to have assistive software onit and that needs consideration because of the cost; also consideration of what 'apps' could then be used.
Oldies like me are really getting the hang of the new jargon! I was in a café yesterday and three oldies' entire conversation was on 'apps', and downloads, etc.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The idea of something beyond yourself has haunted me. It gets very sticky, at any rate, for me, because I start to dissolve 'me' into that stuff that is beyond 'me'. Well, you end up with an amorphous amorphousness, with no boundaries.
I know this is almost a classic presentation of the self/other dissolving, or whatever you want to call it, but now, at my age, I just let it wax and wane, as it will. I don't have to give it a name. It's alive!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Has not the progress in Science along with the technologies we use, plus the continuing absence of gods, not convinced you to ascribe all of it to evolved humans?!!
I am intrigued that you genuinely think that somebody accepting evolution, and other unfolding discoveries of science ought to then jettison any notion of spirituality, or the divine, because of 'lack of proof'. The spiritual/metaphysical realm doesn't actually NEED proof - or, more accurately, the kind of proof that science (obviously) is based on.
God is not 'absent' to me. My faith has sustained me in bereavement, etc. I can understand in a way why people turn atheist, but atheism holds little attraction for me as a worldview.
The idea that science automatically rules out faith is to me a false dichotomy peculiar to our fractured Western culture.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
