|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Who do you think he is? Jesus, that is
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Having a personal relationship with God / Jesus has never been part of my tradition, and the more I think about it the happier I am that this isn't the case.
--------------------
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
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
Crashing in very late to this thread....
I believe Jesus is exactly what he is according to the Apostles Creed, and also through the 39 Articles.
A real figure from history (and the present day). Completely human. Completely divine. He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. Etc.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Just out of curiosity, are any of the posters on this thread that have taken the 'my personal relationship with Jesus is one of the most affirming parts of my faith' male? AFAIK Lamb Chopped and Cliffdweller are both women / female. Raptor's Eye? Pomona?
Certainly quite a few of the 'it doesn't really feature strongly in my faith' crew are male.
[ 26. August 2015, 09:41: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
More seriously, though, I see this as a thoroughly modern, Western thought-pattern which infects much of the church. It is easiest to see in the Charismatic protestant churches, but I maintain that it is something which is widely spread and not confined to those churches.
In some ways, I believe it is a weakened version of the "prosperity gospel". If you observe what we (in low evangelical churches of all kinds, charismatic and non-charismatic) actually articulate in our church prayers - they are frequently thanks and supplication for health, employment, safety and wealth-related issues.
The implication of this form of language is quite stark, I believe.
1. If you do the right things God will like you and come "into relationship with you".
2. If you are in "relationship with God" and provided you pray enough (in the right way) then good things will happen to you and bad things will not happen to you.
3. In fact, bad things not happening and good things happening is evidence that a) God loves you and b) you are in right relationship with you.
And this malaise extends so far that the natural end point is to suggest that those who are not wealthy, not in stable employment, not healed when sick and so on are not spiritual enough.
This is all part of the package that is being spread in many low evangelical churches of many different denominational labels - because, I believe, of the thoroughly wrong idea of a "relationship with God".
I don't believe that this language is part of any of the doctrines of the mainline protestant churches, reflects over-individual forms of religion which have developed as a response to secularisation and have very little to do with the faith we're supposed to be believing in.
Go to hell mr cheesy.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
More seriously, though, I see this as a thoroughly modern, Western thought-pattern which infects much of the church. It is easiest to see in the Charismatic protestant churches, but I maintain that it is something which is widely spread and not confined to those churches.
In some ways, I believe it is a weakened version of the "prosperity gospel". If you observe what we (in low evangelical churches of all kinds, charismatic and non-charismatic) actually articulate in our church prayers - they are frequently thanks and supplication for health, employment, safety and wealth-related issues.
The implication of this form of language is quite stark, I believe.
1. If you do the right things God will like you and come "into relationship with you".
2. If you are in "relationship with God" and provided you pray enough (in the right way) then good things will happen to you and bad things will not happen to you.
3. In fact, bad things not happening and good things happening is evidence that a) God loves you and b) you are in right relationship with you.
And this malaise extends so far that the natural end point is to suggest that those who are not wealthy, not in stable employment, not healed when sick and so on are not spiritual enough.
This is all part of the package that is being spread in many low evangelical churches of many different denominational labels - because, I believe, of the thoroughly wrong idea of a "relationship with God".
I don't believe that this language is part of any of the doctrines of the mainline protestant churches, reflects over-individual forms of religion which have developed as a response to secularisation and have very little to do with the faith we're supposed to be believing in.
I share your disdain for prosperity gospel, and think you are spot on in noting the insidious way it works it way into our theology & practice. I think your connection of prosperity gospel with Western individualism is apt-- certainly the two pair well, which only makes the heretical prosperity gospel all the more insidious-- it feels right because it so correlates with a dominant theme of our cultural worldview.
But... prosperity gospel is not correlated only with individualistic cultures. Quite the contrary, it is even more dominant now in Africa than it is in the West (I told my students in Central African seminary it was our worst export), even though African culture is far more communal/less individualistic than Western (particularly American) culture.
And, again, I think you are just wrong in your assessment that "relationship" language is unique to charismatic/evangelical Christianity. It is a theme found in quite a few of the mystics and contemplatives from the liturgical wing of Christianity. Relationship language is found throughout Christianity, including the NT itself which is steeped in familial metaphors-- beginning with the use of "father" as the primary metaphor for God. I suspect you are sensitive to the relationship language found in other Christian traditions simply because it isn't native to your tribe (and yes, we charismatics/evangelicals can push it over the top into the schmaltzy range), but immune to the relationship language in your own tradition simply because it is so familiar-- you don't notice it. A version of confirmation bias.
IMHO you have identified some real concerns with the subversive interplay of individualism and prosperity gospel, but have misidentified the causation.
--------------------
"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
Now that is good.
The relational language of Jesus is metaphoric and indeed allegorical, as was said upstream by your fellow open theist, whose name I forget I'm sorry to say, whom I've frit off.
If God the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Killer are in actual direct full personal relationship with each of us, why do they wipe away all traces of that in our lives? Like actually creating the cosmos in 6 days and pretending that it too 13.7 Gy?
We need to grow up.
--------------------
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 cliffdweller:
I share your disdain for prosperity gospel, and think you are spot on in noting the insidious way it works it way into our theology & practice. I think your connection of prosperity gospel with Western individualism is apt-- certainly the two pair well, which only makes the heretical prosperity gospel all the more insidious-- it feels right because it so correlates with a dominant theme of our cultural worldview.
But... prosperity gospel is not correlated only with individualistic cultures. Quite the contrary, it is even more dominant now in Africa than it is in the West (I told my students in Central African seminary it was our worst export), even though African culture is far more communal/less individualistic than Western (particularly American) culture.
That's true, but a different point: the prosperity gospel serves another purpose in different countries. My point in referring to it was not to imply that the tendency I'm describing to identify oneself with blessings from God and/or a relationship with God uniquely with it, but to try to point out similarities to it.
But I take your point: it is different to the way prosperity gospel is expressed in other parts of the world.
quote:
And, again, I think you are just wrong in your assessment that "relationship" language is unique to charismatic/evangelical Christianity. It is a theme found in quite a few of the mystics and contemplatives from the liturgical wing of Christianity.
I think this would be interesting to discuss - because I don't think others talk of being in a relationship with God in the same way as contemporary Evangelicals. I've already agreed that mystics and others used similar ideas (although I'm still interesting to hear whether any actually used this kind of language - I suspect that George Fox and Wesley did not, for example) but I think there is a difference about the way this is expected to be normative for all Christians today compared to rare examples of it in the past. I've already made these points above.
I am discussing the phenomena in Evangelical and Evangelical Charismatic churches, because these are the churches I am familiar with. I've little knowledge about how this language is used outside.
quote:
Relationship language is found throughout Christianity, including the NT itself which is steeped in familial metaphors-- beginning with the use of "father" as the primary metaphor for God.
Yesss, it is, but I still don't think this has been used for most of the history of Christianity in the way we use it (at least in the churches I know about) today.
Clearly there is a wide disparity between believing in a Creator God who stands aloof from humanity and just observes disinterestedly from a distance, and the God who knows me so well that he knows where I left my keys. I'm saying that too much of the language implies that true Christianity is at one extreme, and I don't think that is right.
quote:
I suspect you are sensitive to the relationship language found in other Christian traditions simply because it isn't native to your tribe (and yes, we charismatics/evangelicals can push it over the top into the schmaltzy range), but immune to the relationship language in your own tradition simply because it is so familiar-- you don't notice it. A version of confirmation bias.
My tradition is the charismatic evangelical tradition, of which I was a paid-up member for more than 25 years.
quote:
IMHO you have identified some real concerns with the subversive interplay of individualism and prosperity gospel, but have misidentified the causation.
I don't understand this conclusion from what you said above. What do you think the causation is then?
Edited to say that I was in Evangelical and Charismatic churches from an early age, but 30 years is a slight exaggeration.
[ 26. August 2015, 13:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's true, but a different point: the prosperity gospel serves another purpose in different countries. My point in referring to it was not to imply that the tendency I'm describing to identify oneself with blessings from God and/or a relationship with God uniquely with it, but to try to point out similarities to it.
But I take your point: it is different to the way prosperity gospel is expressed in other parts of the world.
quote:
IMHO you have identified some real concerns with the subversive interplay of individualism and prosperity gospel, but have misidentified the causation.
I don't understand this conclusion from what you said above. What do you think the causation is then?
The way I'm reading your premise is: The "relationship language" of evangelical/charismatic Christianity has led to the heretical prosperity gospel and narcissism. I am agreeing with your disdain for prosperity gospel and narcissistic Christianity, and agreeing there's a correlation between those things and individualism. What I am disagreeing with is the chain of causation (rather than correlation). You are identifying some key subversive worldviews that are interrelated and interact/ reinforce one another. But they are not unique to the populations you are identifying. One does not cause the other-- they are part of the cultural waters that evangelicalism is swimming in.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am discussing the phenomena in Evangelical and Evangelical Charismatic churches, because these are the churches I am familiar with. I've little knowledge about how this language is used outside.
That's helpful to know, because clearly I an other evangelical/ charismatics was hearing your critique as a hurtful/shaming outsider attack. It's always easier/more appropriate when a critique is coming from within the tribe, calling us to clean up our own act, then when it's coming from outside, judging and blaming. I too have been an evangelical for more than 30 years and share your concern that we have a LOT of c**p we need to clean up.
However, you statement above seems a bit disingenuous. You're NOT just talking about evangelicalism cuz that's what you know. Statements like this show that you are explicitly comparing evangelicalism to other traditions and suggesting that it (evangelicalism) is uniquely problematic:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yesss, it is, but I still don't think this has been used for most of the history of Christianity in the way we use it (at least in the churches I know about) today.
So-- on to discuss that:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think this would be interesting to discuss - because I don't think others talk of being in a relationship with God in the same way as contemporary Evangelicals. I've already agreed that mystics and others used similar ideas (although I'm still interesting to hear whether any actually used this kind of language - I suspect that George Fox and Wesley did not, for example) but I think there is a difference about the way this is expected to be normative for all Christians today compared to rare examples of it in the past. I've already made these points above.
... Yesss, it is, but I still don't think this has been used for most of the history of Christianity in the way we use it (at least in the churches I know about) today.
Your entire argument here is one of language. And yes, evangelicals have unique vocabulary (often mockable unique language)-- as every group does. But it seems like an irrelevant distinction. Virtually every other segment of Christianity (with the exception of deism you alluded to below) has the same emphasis on relationship-- a theme found in the NT. They just phrase it a bit differently. I'm not sure you can extrapolate a whole complex chain of causation from evangelicalism's use of one particular form of relationship language, and not from all the other segments of Christianity that have a similar (and biblical) theme. It seems precisely like what Raptor has suggested-- confirmation bias. You are looking for it in evangelicalism and are sensitive to our particular way of expressing relationship but don't see it elsewhere because you are not looking for it in the ways folks in those traditions would phrase it. It's like saying that English-speakers never fall in love because they rarely use the word "amour".
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Clearly there is a wide disparity between believing in a Creator God who stands aloof from humanity and just observes disinterestedly from a distance, and the God who knows me so well that he knows where I left my keys. I'm saying that too much of the language implies that true Christianity is at one extreme, and I don't think that is right.
I disagree. I guess I am a True Evangelical because, much as I loathe any reference to "true Christianity", I do think relationship is a key element of "biblical Christianity" (gag: that's pretty much as bad as true Christianity). We evangelicals could certainly stand to be a lot more disciplined in our language to avoid the schmaltzy excess we've come to wallow in (that's what happens when you disdain liturgy) but I think relationship language in general is part & parcel of Christianity in general and evangelicalism in particular. But, along with a bit of discipline, what we really need is better theology so that we don't jump to the conclusion that because God is (like) a loving Father who cares for us individually that means he has to fix all our problems, including finding parking spaces and lost keys.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Well you see I've done a fair amount of reading about philosophy and theology, but that has always been from the perspective of Charismatic and Evangelical Christianity (I've been in both, from various traditions, for a long time until very recently).
I absolutely don't know if it is a problematic thing in other traditions, but I suspect it is not. I am fairly sure that it is not a historical form of language in terms of the influences of Protestantism from the reformation and probably further back.
In a sense, I don't think it really matters if one believes that God helps with keys and car spaces (although I really don't believe he does), to me the real problem is how those in the churches which use this language view others - particularly those who do not have employment, do not get healed from sickness and so on.
I think this is a major problem. I accept that others do not.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
There is zero group reinforcement going on - that's not to say that other groups won't have it. But it's not right or fair to accuse everyone of it.
This is not meant to be rude or confrontational, but I cannot see your statement being correct.
It is fair near impossible for it to be, because this is exactly how humans work.
Anything we do together is inherently reinforced, regardless of whether it is conscious.
Now, the level of this is highly variable, as is whether it is an intentional function v. an artifact of our behaviour.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well you see I've done a fair amount of reading about philosophy and theology, but that has always been from the perspective of Charismatic and Evangelical Christianity (I've been in both, from various traditions, for a long time until very recently).
I absolutely don't know if it is a problematic thing in other traditions, but I suspect it is not. I am fairly sure that it is not a historical form of language in terms of the influences of Protestantism from the reformation and probably further back.
As I think I have shown (perhaps tediously) relationship language has been a part of Christianity at all stages, including as a significant theme in the NT. The precise language you are talking about ("having a relationship w/ Jesus") may not be a part of every tradition, but seeing God as "father", the Spirit as "guide", etc. clearly is, and those are very much relational images. Some of the mystics will go so far as to talk about God "wooing" them (and even vice-versa) in an almost sexual way so I don't think it's just evangelicals who can go over the top with the relationship thing. And yes, the mystics can be every bit as individualistic in their relationship with God as evangelicals. Not all of them, of course, but the same is true of evangelicals. I think your argument is, quite simply, false.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In a sense, I don't think it really matters if one believes that God helps with keys and car spaces (although I really don't believe he does), to me the real problem is how those in the churches which use this language view others - particularly those who do not have employment, do not get healed from sickness and so on.
I think this is a major problem. I accept that others do not.
I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't share your disdain with prosperity gospel-- in large part because of that every problem you have identified. Our objection is the link you are making between "relationship language" and prosperity gospel. I think it is a correlation, not a causation. Will prosperity gospel preachers exploit the "relationship language" to unfold their heretical false gospel? Of course, just as they will twist Scripture. But you're going to find every bit as much relationship language among evangelicals and non-evangelicals who are preaching a far different message.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As I think I have shown (perhaps tediously) relationship language has been a part of Christianity at all stages, including as a significant theme in the NT. The precise language you are talking about ("having a relationship w/ Jesus") may not be a part of every tradition, but seeing God as "father", the Spirit as "guide", etc. clearly is, and those are very much relational images. Some of the mystics will go so far as to talk about God "wooing" them (and even vice-versa) in an almost sexual way so I don't think it's just evangelicals who can go over the top with the relationship thing. And yes, the mystics can be every bit as individualistic in their relationship with God as evangelicals. Not all of them, of course, but the same is true of evangelicals. I think your argument is, quite simply, false.
Sorry, I don't see those two things as remotely the same. As I have expressed in this thread many times. If you think they're the same - fine. I don't. You're not adding anything by just saying the same thing again.
quote:
I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't share your disdain with prosperity gospel-- in large part because of that every problem you have identified. Our objection is the link you are making between "relationship language" and prosperity gospel. I think it is a correlation, not a causation.
Yes, you said that several times without giving any further context for discussion or what it means.
quote:
Will prosperity gospel preachers exploit the "relationship language" to unfold their heretical false gospel? Of course, just as they will twist Scripture. But you're going to find every bit as much relationship language among evangelicals and non-evangelicals who are preaching a far different message.
Are we? Do you know that or are you guessing? Give me some examples of other traditions that use the "relationship with Jesus" language (not, note, the other language you've described above and which I don't accept is the same thing).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
How, mr cheesy, is calling your God "father" not relational? Christianity is a relational religion.
Now, you obviously feel there is a limit to just how "personal" said relationship can be, but the concept itself is built in.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
"Father God" is certainly relational, and is clearly along the spectrum of belief about God I was talking about above. But that isn't the same thing as the "relationship with Jesus".
For example, one can imagine a person who sees their primary relation with God to be submission - such as a Muslim - might well describe the deity as father, without implying that the deity is intricately involved in their daily lives.
Calling the deity Father is not, ISTM, in-and-of-itself an example of daily-constant-ongoing-mutual-communication which is implied by the description of "relationship" used by evangelicals.
The latter is very clearly modelled after a human relationship one has with a close friend or partner.
[ 26. August 2015, 16:21: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For example, one can imagine a person who sees their primary relation with God to be submission - such as a Muslim - might well describe the deity as father
To the best of my knowledge, that is precisely what Muslims won't describe the deity as.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As I think I have shown (perhaps tediously) relationship language has been a part of Christianity at all stages, including as a significant theme in the NT. The precise language you are talking about ("having a relationship w/ Jesus") may not be a part of every tradition, but seeing God as "father", the Spirit as "guide", etc. clearly is, and those are very much relational images. Some of the mystics will go so far as to talk about God "wooing" them (and even vice-versa) in an almost sexual way so I don't think it's just evangelicals who can go over the top with the relationship thing. And yes, the mystics can be every bit as individualistic in their relationship with God as evangelicals. Not all of them, of course, but the same is true of evangelicals. I think your argument is, quite simply, false.
Sorry, I don't see those two things as remotely the same. As I have expressed in this thread many times. If you think they're the same - fine. I don't. You're not adding anything by just saying the same thing again.
Ok, fair 'nuff. But I'm not sure how I can explain that two things are the same-- the task would be to describe how they are different. Could you clarify how you think they are different? How is the image of God as Father, for example, anything other than relationship language? How is the use of that image, e.g. in the parable of the Prodigal Son, significantly different in "relationalism" from the evangelical language of "having a relationship with God"?
I don't have access to my library at moment, perhaps another shippie can find some of the quotes I'm thinking of from Julian of Norwich or other of the mystics from outside the evangelical tradition who speak in very individual terms about their relationship with God?
(cross-posted with E & Mr C's conversation-- but I think the question still stands)
[ 26. August 2015, 17:04: 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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I submit Blaise Pascal:
quote:
The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.
Not of the philosophers and intellectuals.
Certitude, certitude, feeling, joy, peace.
The God of Jesus Christ.
The whole point of that Biblical description of God is, to my mind, that he is a God who seeks a relationship with individuals that he calls by name, and not solely a God who dwells in light inaccessible.
Which is not an endorsement of Jesus-is-my-boyfriend theology.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
By the way, re: "relationship with Jesus", the famous text later has
quote:
This is eternal life, that they know you the one true God
and J.C. whom you have sent.
Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ.
I have separated myself from him. I have run away from him, renounced him, crucified him.
May I never be separated from him.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Ok, fair 'nuff. But I'm not sure how I can explain that two things are the same-- the task would be to describe how they are different. Could you clarify how you think they are different? How is the image of God as Father, for example, anything other than relationship language? How is the use of that image, e.g. in the parable of the Prodigal Son, significantly different in "relationalism" from the evangelical language of "having a relationship with God"?
I think the difference is believing that the Christian life is an ongoing personal two-way relationship with the deity and accepting that certain unusual people have very special and unusual spiritual experiences and/or individual Christians have experiences at very specific periods of their lives.
As I have said before on this thread.
I don't want to get into bible verse tennis with you, but I don't accept that the parables are supposed to be exact representations of God. The point of that parable appears to be God's delight at the returning brother - compared to the unhappiness of the other brother - rather than to suggest that one should desire or achieve a relationship with God that one has with an earthly father.
quote:
I don't have access to my library at moment, perhaps another shippie can find some of the quotes I'm thinking of from Julian of Norwich or other of the mystics from outside the evangelical tradition who speak in very individual terms about their relationship with God?
Yes, I'd also be interested in that. I don't have any access to that kind of material.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
I'm not eager to play a game of No True Scotsman over the definition of relationship language still, since it's relevant:
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned The Dark Night of the Soul and it made me finally pick it up and start reading (didn't get very far, it was late). I was somewhat surprised at first to realise that the book is basically a commentary on a poem and that the beginning of the poem at least is written in very florid, not to say pseudo-erotic, language about the relationship between believer and Jesus.
quote:
Oh, night that guided me, Oh, night more lovely than the dawn,
Oh, night that joined Beloved with lover, Lover transformed in the Beloved!
Upon my flowery breast, Kept wholly for himself alone,
There he stayed sleeping, and I caressed him, And the fanning of the cedars made a breeze.
The breeze blew from the turret As I parted his locks;
With his gentle hand he wounded my neck And caused all my senses to be suspended.
I remained, lost in oblivion; My face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself, Leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies.
I post this because I thought of it earlier in the thread not because it's a direct response to the current discussion as such.
It hadn't occurred to me that someone who would write a book about a time of feeling far from God would start off with such an intense statement of (spiritual) intimacy. Of course if intimacy was the earlier experience then the apparent abandonment would be felt all the keener, so it makes sense.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Sounds a lot like the Song of Songs.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The problem that ensues when people take myth and reify it (make it real and treat it as if it were actual fact) is that they distort it beyond its intent. The bible, creeds, appeal to the saintly and doctors of the church etc, is of limited or no help in understanding what and who Jesus is, seeing as it is composed of selected writings written down by people who didn't actually know him, people who never met him, and were several or many generations removed from him. The appeal to the authority and scripture fails for most of the post-Christian population. As soon as claims for magic and miracles are made, people look to more believable magic, and things that actually give answers. Christianity is losing people when it insists on the incredible as the acid test of a Christian and doesn't allow those who want to understand beauty and truth as mythological ideas, symbolic, not needing and not required to be true to have meaning.
I could just as easily say that Christianity is losing people when it insists that it doesn't matter whether the events in Scripture and the Creeds actually happened. And frankly, if people who are lukewarm leave the church because I insist that the Trinity is an accurate ontological description of God, or that the Incarnation is a real event that has transcendent consequences--that's regrettable, but that's on them, not me.
If the interpretation you've described works for you, then fine. If it doesn't present a problem for the church community you're in, then fine. You're exactly where you need to be.
But the historical fact is that the Christian church was built by those who did believe in the literal physical resurrection of their Lord Jesus, and who in fact believed so strongly that they were willing to die rather than recant. Post-modern oracular pontifications aside, if it weren't for those poor benighted Bronze Age savages "reifying" the beautiful-but-symbolic myths about Jesus, you wouldn't have a church to join.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
I was somewhat surprised at first to realise that the book is basically a commentary on a poem and that the beginning of the poem at least is written in very florid, not to say pseudo-erotic, language about the relationship between believer and Jesus.
We all know how certain discussions tend to recur on the Ship. I can never read something like that poem without hearkening back to a bit that PhilA posted over five years ago (in July of 2010):
quote:
Jesus is not my boyfriend
He's my God and my king
And to him my praise I'll sing
But are we closer than a flea is to a rat?
Gerald is the one I love like that
Oh Gerald is the one that I will snuggle
He's the one I'll sing a love song to
Jesus is the one that I will worship
So let’s not confuse the two
[And that is the second chestnut I have dug up from the SOF Quotes File in the past 24 hours. Note to self: Get a life.]
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
What language shall I borrow
to thank thee dearest Friend,
For this thy dying sorrow,
Thy pity without end?
O make me thine for ever!
And should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never
Outlive my love to thee.
Paulus Gerhardt (from Bernard of Clairvaux)
trs James Wadell Alexander.
The Song Book of The Salvation Army
Jesus, the very thought of thee
With sweetness fills my breast;
But sweeter far thy face to see,
And in thy presence rest.
Attr to Bernard of Clairvaux
Trs Edward Caswall
The Song Book of The Salvation Army
What's your problem?
Don't you ever talk to Jesus?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I remember that nugget too, and it's great. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) But there is a very long tradition of Song of Songs-style mysticism, and that works for some people. In which case, more power to them.
Some of the sources linked to re Pascal suggest he never told anybody much/anything at all about that "night of fire." I can totally see that happening, given the extremely personal nature of that kind of experience.
Even Paul gets a bit shy with his dance around "I knew a man who was caught up to the third heaven... this man... about a man such as that..." It's like he brings it up and then instantly buries it again, and refuses to admit it was himself even though that's what pretty much all the commentators seem to think.
It reminds me of my son trying to talk about his first major crush. He starts, stutters, and gives up. And then changes the subject.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I hope you don't mind me asking, but which Christian denomination, movement or perhaps theologian do you think gets it more or less right when it comes to making Christians think in less personal terms about Jesus? Have any of them impressed you as far as this is concerned?
From what I read, I'm quite impressed by the Sandemanian/Glasites.
More seriously, though, I see this as a thoroughly modern, Western thought-pattern which infects much of the church. It is easiest to see in the Charismatic protestant churches, but I maintain that it is something which is widely spread and not confined to those churches.
Unfortunately, the Sandemanians/Glasites no longer exist. Perhaps that tells us something....
When it comes to the (still existing) MOTR congregations I think you sometimes have to look below the official theology to establish the extent to which a powerful personal connection with Jesus is something that members focus on or want to claim for themselves. It may not be the priority, even if it's present in some way.
For example, many Methodist congregations still sing traditional songs about mystical connections with God, or about being conduits for God's power. But if you asked individual Methodists what such songs meant for them personally, you's surely get a variety of answers, some of which wouldn't necessarily equate with a 'personal Jesus'.
John Wesley's doctrine of sanctification could be argued as a theology that sees the possibility of individuals becoming very tightly bound with God, the result of which would be to diffuse God's holiness directly:('God became man so that man might become God', and hence that men should be 'partakers of the divine nature'.) But Methodists don't hear about sanctification in their sermons or in small group meetings, and most of them wouldn't be able to say anything about it without looking it up. (I couldn't!) IOW, hymns and foundational doctrines may not tell the whole story. Their long-term purpose may not be to dominate the theological development of a church or denomination, but something else.
Your particular evangelical heritage has perhaps made you keen on theological precision and calling a spade a spade, as you said earlier. But not all churches work in this prescriptive fashion. I don't know where you worship now, but it might be helpful for to you to focus on churches that work in a more theologically fluid way, and less on the errors of prescriptive charismatic evangelicalism.
[ 26. August 2015, 18:57: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
This song sums it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OcoDIrbMtY
There's a difference between relating to Christ as a 'real live' Person, as it were and regarding him as some kind of on-tap commodity ...
All language about God is going to be metaphorical - how can it be otherwise? We are dealing with the Ineffable, the indescribable ...
These days I find an apophatic approach helpful - alongside a cataphatic one - but like Fr Weber here I do regard our admittedly imperfect language about the Trinity as reflecting an ontological reality - and not simply being a convenient (if difficult to understand) piece of theological shorthand and sleight of hand ...
We have to be careful here, I think. It's easy to mock and deride the kind of cootchy-cootchy coo lovey-dovey language and recoil from some of the more crass styles of presentation prevalent in some sectors of evangelicalism ... the emotionalism and manipulation ... or indeed the parallel equivalents within the 'popular devotion' of the more Catholic traditions ...
At best, though, I do think that these preserve a central and essential truth - that God Unknown has made himself known ... that we can 'know' God - to the extent that he reveals himself to us as we seek him.
The language/terminology and style of delivery we use to convey or discuss that is a secondary issue, it seems to me.
We can have a warm and rich spirituality with or without resorting to some of this language - and warm fuzzy feelings can be deceptive - it's not about those.
That's why we need a balanced diet and a good solid base of scripture and tradition (or Tradition) and the insights of godly people down the ages.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I wouldn't pretend to be that familiar with the great Mystics - although I've read Julian of Norwich two or three times and snippets from other 14th century Mystics as well as some small bits and pieces by St John of the Cross and St Theresa of Avila.
The thing that strikes me about them is that whilst they do use 'homely' and often quite 'personal' language, they don't do so in a lovey-dovey, schmaltzy kind of way - and the more personal elements are balanced out by a strong sense of God's transcendence.
Sure, let's quote some of these things but they are best looked at 'in toto' and in the context of the whole thrust of their arguments and accounts. If we simply go on the soundbites we end up with an unbalanced picture.
I'd also add the caveat that a kind of florid, intense form of religious poetry characterised some of the 16th century Counter-Reformation writings ... so we need to bear literary style in mind too.
There are all sorts of things going on with any of this - cultural expectations, background, education, personal taste, personality type ...
I can be moved and intrigued by certain Baroque or Counter-Reformation era religious paintings, for instance - but I find Byzantine style iconography more 'satisfying' - for instance.
I enjoy the Metaphysical Poetry of a Donne or Herbert, whilst Victorian religious poetry often leaves me cold ...
It's the whole 'wheels within wheels' thing ... different facets, different prisms ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Sounds a lot like the Song of Songs.
Indeed. But no-one's ever suggested to me to read Song of Songs when I mentioned feeling like God's on holiday!
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This song sums it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OcoDIrbMtY
Have to say I prefer the original
Cash's version of Hurt on the other hand gives me chills...
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
cliffdweller, the Prodigal Son is primus inter pares the best single narrative of any form in the Bible. How does it demonstrate that I am actually having a full, interpersonal, really experienced, direct, person to person, two-way relationship with a person of persons external to myself? Any more than Lazarus and Dives reflects what ultimately happens to the sheep and the goats? Or Genesis 1-2 reflects what happened over two hundred thousand years of human evolution?
Scratch that. It is the best of the best.
I call on Jesus as 'mate' occasionally. He knows EXACTLY what I mean, how I feel. I feel it now just writing it. Yearning, broken, desperate. I have seen Him ruffle my old ram's head. I was saved from killing myself with exposure by bursting out laughing out loud and I asked Him if that was Him.
That was ALL me. And I thank Him for His sublime provision of His stepping in to reality through the Bible. For His story in my story with all its beautiful relational IMAGERY.
We're ALL idolaters. And that's OK.
--------------------
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
I hope Holy Smoke doesn't mind me importing this quote from Hell but it makes all sorts of sense - and so do mousethief's comments on it.
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
It's not so bad if you leave the 'personal' bit out, and just say that you have a 'relationship with God/Jesus'. I think nearly all Christians would claim to have relationship with the divine.
Of course, it's not quite the same thing as a personal relationship with God and/or Jesus, but I think it's good enough for most of us. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
My relationship with God is now tenuous/bored/distant where it used to be passionate (on my part) His part is unchanging imo - and could be anything, we don't really know - but my part of the relationship has changed beyond recognition. It is by no means personal and I doubt if his part ever was, it was very much wishful thinking and psychological stuff going on in me. Hopefully it did no harm to me or others.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok Paul. Yes, I remember the original but perhaps I'm an old fogey and prefer the Johnny Cash cover.
I agree with you on Hurt. Knocks me sideways.
On the relational thing ... well, it seems to me that God is always 'personal' - in the sense of being a Person not some kind of electric current or 'faith-force' - as in 'May the Force be with you ...'
The Trinity expresses that. 'God is in Himself a sweet society,' as Wesley put it, or so I'm told.
As we are creaturely creatures it strikes me that any 'conversion' experience or shift in perception or thinking is going to involve experiential or 'psychological' elements - that's just how we're wired.
So, any sense of awareness of the divine or the numinous is likely to be accompanied by some kind of 'effects' or 'religious affections' as they'd have called it back in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The presence or absence of such 'conscious' affections does not, in and of itself, tell us a great deal. It's a bit like the old T S Eliot thing, 'We had the experience but missed the meaning.'
Some forms of spirituality are more prone to evoke 'feelings' than others - and not only charismatic styles of worship - but also popular forms of RC piety or the kind of language we encounter in Wesleyan hymns or Salvationist songs.
There's nothing 'wrong' with that - the problems only start when:
- We focus over-much on the 'affections' and overdose on a kind of icky and sentimental approach.
- We consider such experiences or feelings to be normative and prescriptive and become suspicious of anyone who doesn't share them.
- We are guided and 'led' by these impulses and feelings rather than less dramatic or exotic 'means of grace'.
I suspect what we are seeing at the moment is something of a reaction to the overly personal, overly individualistic 'Me and Jesus' approach popularised by revivalist or popular evangelical spirituality.
FWIW my take would be that there's nothing wrong with the latter, provided it's contextualised within the broader 'grand tradition' and grounded with a certain amount of asceticism, a real-world grounding (ie. involvement in the wider society in some way) and the classic spiritual disciplines.
But that's an aside.
--------------------
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
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
This thread has caused me to think! That in itself is a welcome change.
For myself I start from the position that God is Spirit. (not a spirit). I go on to work on the basis that God is personal -- as opposed to being a person. Those two starting points shift the emphasis in the language we use which is always analogous.
I am committed. Committed to Jesus as the Way; the Truth and the Life. In being committed to His way and His truth I know that to be experiental -- and it is highly personal. It is also relational in that the Way and the Truth was focussed in a real life person and that makes all the difference.
Confused? Only seemingly. My committment is relational but in a way beyond anythng expressed in terms of Jesus as my friend. I experience the latter insofar as the Church is the Body of Christ in the world and I encounter Jesus as friend in the friendships I have with others.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
For myself I start from the position that God is Spirit. (not a spirit). I go on to work on the basis that God is personal -- as opposed to being a person. Those two starting points shift the emphasis in the language we use which is always analogous.
Can you explain these distinctions, please? Thanks
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
This thread has caused me to think! That in itself is a welcome change.
****
Confused? Only seemingly. My committment is relational but in a way beyond anythng expressed in terms of Jesus as my friend. I experience the latter insofar as the Church is the Body of Christ in the world and I encounter Jesus as friend in the friendships I have with others.
Why is it necessary, I wonder, for you to have the thought of a person, however wise he might have been, to be a part of relationships with humans? Why not simply leave out the religious idea and give all the credit to humans where it belongs?
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Istm that we have great difficulty in opening our minds to the possibilities of God, as God is greater than our imaginations.
Of course, some people limit any concept of God only to the imagination rather than accepting that there is a God at all.
But of those who do believe in the existence of God, some limit God to the transcendent and can't see God's immanence, and vice versa. Each might deny the validity of the other, while both are the truth.
God naturally meets us through our senses, but that doesn't mean that the senses have stimulated themselves.
--------------------
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
You miss out those who fully accept God's transcendence and immanence who do not believe that God can be sensed in any way whatsoever without Him engaging in an epiphany, which is unbelievably rare.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's the apophatic / cataphatic tension again.
In answer to SusanDoris, though, I can't see how acknowledging a sense of the divine or the existence of God takes any 'credit' away from human beings.
It can sound trite but there is a train of Christian thought that says that to be Christian is to be fully human, fully alive - and that on account of the Incarnation.
Arguably no Christian tradition - save perhaps for extreme forms of hyper-Calvinism - see human beings as mere ciphers or sock-puppets.
To be fully Christian (or perhaps fully theist in any other sense) is to be fully human and to acknowledge the instrinsic worh and value of human beings.
Although we've often fallen short of that ideal, there's plenty of evidence that non-theistic philosophies don't always have a good track record in valuing humanity in all its facets.
Which isn't to deflect just criticism from those times when Christians have held truncated views of human value and acted accordingly.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: In answer to SusanDoris, though, I can't see how acknowledging a sense of the divine or the existence of God takes any 'credit' away from human beings.
They're not in competition with each other.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As we are creaturely creatures it strikes me that any 'conversion' experience or shift in perception or thinking is going to involve experiential or 'psychological' elements - that's just how we're wired.
So, any sense of awareness of the divine or the numinous is likely to be accompanied by some kind of 'effects' or 'religious affections' as they'd have called it back in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The presence or absence of such 'conscious' affections does not, in and of itself, tell us a great deal. It's a bit like the old T S Eliot thing, 'We had the experience but missed the meaning.'
Some forms of spirituality are more prone to evoke 'feelings' than others - and not only charismatic styles of worship - but also popular forms of RC piety or the kind of language we encounter in Wesleyan hymns or Salvationist songs.
There's nothing 'wrong' with that - the problems only start when:
- We focus over-much on the 'affections' and overdose on a kind of icky and sentimental approach.
- We consider such experiences or feelings to be normative and prescriptive and become suspicious of anyone who doesn't share them.
- We are guided and 'led' by these impulses and feelings rather than less dramatic or exotic 'means of grace'.
I suspect what we are seeing at the moment is something of a reaction to the overly personal, overly individualistic 'Me and Jesus' approach popularised by revivalist or popular evangelical spirituality.
FWIW my take would be that there's nothing wrong with the latter, provided it's contextualised within the broader 'grand tradition' and grounded with a certain amount of asceticism, a real-world grounding (ie. involvement in the wider society in some way) and the classic spiritual disciplines.
But that's an aside.
Well done, and helpful
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I would add as well that there's nothing wrong with this more experiential type of spirituality as long as it's
-not used as a source of not used as a source of new doctrine
Wesley's famous addition of "experience" as a source of authority along side Scripture, tradition, and reason was very nuanced. Experience is a way of confirming the spiritual truths-- the things we've learned thru the other 3 sources of authority. And in such it can be enormously helpful. If something we learn about thru Scripture, tradition or reason is true then we should indeed expect to see signs of that truth impacting the world as we experience it. And by taking note of those experiences our faith is deepened and empowered in meaningful ways that help us know God and live out our faith in practical ways. That's heady stuff. But precisely because it's heady stuff, we can be tempted to skip the more boring but essential step of deriving doctrine from Scripture, reason, and tradition and jump right to extrapolating wild-eyed doctrines from the experience itself. That rarely ends well.
--------------------
"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
There's nothing wrong with it providing one realises it's me and me. That all I'm experiencing is me reacting to stories and other physical external stimuli. Numinous are us.
And in answer to SusanDoris, we can't take credit for the Incarnation.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I hope Holy Smoke doesn't mind me importing this quote from Hell...
No, that's quite OK. I don't think my relationship with God has changed much recently, but I definitely don't do orthodox Christology, and I don't get much of the stuff which follows from that. Actually, if anything, I tend to sympathise more with the idea of Jesus as mediator between us and God, but not as 'God' himself (I'm sure there is a name for this particular heresy). But since I'm not particularly bothered about trying to fit my faith into some sort of orthodox straitjacket, at the moment I'm not really inclined to try to analyze things too much, but rather just try to 'do' it.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There's nothing wrong with it providing one realises it's me and me. That all I'm experiencing is me reacting to stories and other physical external stimuli. Numinous are us.
This is not the case, you are talking yourself into it. If God is a subjective projection of our longings he is not God, we are. If in fact you default to that then you dismiss countless historical faith stories as self delusion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There's nothing wrong with it providing one realises it's me and me. That all I'm experiencing is me reacting to stories and other physical external stimuli. Numinous are us.
This is not the case, you are talking yourself into it. If God is a subjective projection of our longings he is not God, we are. If in fact you default to that then you dismiss countless historical faith stories as self delusion.
I have my own faith story and I question that it may have been self delusion, why should I not question others'?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What, the Biblically normative ones that demonstrate how God interacts with you and me?
Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Moses. Have I missed anyone out in the first 2500 years of human existence?
Then the judges, the prophets. NOT David of course. I mean the former AREN'T such examples, they are mythic hierophanies for the mythic 9 that segue in to 'the prophetic'.
Whereas David NEVER had a direct interaction with God. It is easy to see the personal psychological at work. The sole soul. He was like us. He reified God. Worshipped that image. That ikon.
The only one in 3000 years. Pivotal in the progressive revelation.
God's infinitely more numerous encounters with people was when He murdered them. I miss out on the beautiful oxymoron of those historical faith stories, true.
There is NOTHING [self] delusional about these stories, unless you think that the people who made them up believed them. In good faith.
When we come to the time of Jesus we have NOTHING but hierophanies. We don't even know if Jesus had a mind meld with the Father. I VERY much doubt it. Push me and I will completely reject it. That's not 100% human. Jesus' realisation that He was making it up is apparent just before He died.
So, less than a hundred people in 4000 years. NONE of whom had a demonstrable mind meld with God. Absolutely none. See? You pushed me.
The Love who thinks me and the entire cosmos autonomous is NOT subjective. He's objective. The ultimate object. The only object. The Object. I can't not talk myself into that. Is that a delusion?
Or is it the earnest, the scintilla, of the GIFT of faith from which all should follow? Stripped away of ALL delusion? All subjectivity. (HAH!)
As for you, my friend Jamat, God bless you and keep you where you are, projecting on me, sure, that's OK.
[ 29. August 2015, 07:15: 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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Martin, any chance you can unpack what you mean there in less poetic terms?
Are you saying that Jesus' apparent connection to the divine was a delusion? Or that we should not seek to have a relationship with the divine modelled on his?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
his is not the case, you are talking yourself into it. If God is a subjective projection of our longings he is not God, we are. If in fact you default to that then you dismiss countless historical faith stories as self delusion.
Yes, but at the same time no.
Yes, I think that what we are doing whilst using this kind of idea (the one that suggests we can/should have a relationship with the divine in the same way that we can with a close human being) is a self delusion and that it does discount "countless historical faith stories".
That to me is not a particularly big deal given that we all do this all the time. Presumably you are discounting UFOlogist's faith claims and experiences as delusion - and most likely many Christian ones too.
But also no - in the sense that I don't see all delusions as a bad thing, but an attempt to wrestle with lived experiences and understandings of theology in the context of the times.
To me, Christianity is primarily a religion of the weak and exploited, so lived experiences which emphasise divine-origin inner strength to overcome the powers make perfect sense.
The problem, I think, is when this experience is considered to be the normal Christian life (an aside - anyone else read Watchman Nee? Just me?) and then exported into other situations. When a me-first religion is expressed in a me-first society, that becomes an explosive mixture.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jesus was fully divine. And His connection to the divine was fully human. He made it up like all of us. So of course we should be in relationship with the divine as much as WE can.
Less poetic enough for ya?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
