In Defense Of Liberal Theology

March 28, 2007

Seems to me that in these two posts I've written a final exam that should earn me at least a few points toward my degree.

I'm glad to help. Thanks for the insights above. I will ponder these and post a reply later as time permits.

March 29, 2007

Seems to me that in these two posts I've written a final exam that should earn me at least a few points toward my degree.

I'm glad to help. Thanks for the insights above. I will ponder these and post a reply later as time permits.

Sorry, that was supposed to be a joke--I guess it was a bit lame--I won't get any academic credits for writing that. Writing out my thoughts and summarizing what I learned helps solidify it and I enjoy doing it. I do look forward to reading your ponderings.

March 29, 2007

Yes, language points to things, but the power of language shapes how we see that thing and gives it form and dimension and substance. It is practically impossible to separate language from the experience of something.

<snip>

When in our humanity we sense something through whatever means, we then incorporate it into our conscious mind through the lenses of language systems. That is how we have evolved.

Yes, I agree. But..... language does not make something exist. As many on this board have pointed out ... just because there is language about a pink unicorn doesn't make the pink unicorn real.

For me... God is.......

I recognize that statement as a personal belief and know that many here would disagree. I don't bring my beliefs up as a point of discussion. But, you're asking about the liberal viewpoint. I can only speak for myself - but to me there is a difference between God and the language I use about God.

And that is a very important thing for me to say and recognize. Because I recognize a difference between God and the language I use about God I can put the language in its place. I can recognize that other people use different languages in talking about God and the language they use is as valid as the language I use.

Is it possible that when humanity finds itself, that in fact it does find God??

Oh.... I absolutely believe that when humanity finds itself, it finds God.

That when we come to the end of that pursuit, the God we thought we were seeing was in fact just a reflection of our own faces staring back at us from the void?

When we connect with the universe, what are we connecting with? Perhaps ourselves?

The only thing I'd say here, is that (for me) we are a reflection of God - to me God is the source. All that exists is a reflection of the source - we are part of that reflection. When we find God we find ourselves because our source (our core) is God. As I mentioned before (for me) we are participants in a living and aware universe - we are part of that living and awareness - we manifest it and bring it forth .......

Ruby:

I am trying to think about the conversations we had around "Word of God." For the Lutherans, Jesus is the Word of God as described in John 1, i.e. In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Greek word is Logos. In the beginning was Logos.... English has no true equivilent for the term Logos. I don't fully understand the meaning of Logos, but I get the impression it's fuller, richer, in some way. Terms like "concept" and "message" occur to me. (Obviously, these terms don't capture the meaning, either, or they would have been used.) I think the Lutherans would say Jesus is God's message of love to the world.

Just to be clear, I am talking about Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada. The American counterpart probably sustitutes the word "America" for "Canada." What I say here may not apply to other liberal Christian denominations. The word evangelical as used here does not mean evangelical as in fundamentalism. It is taken from the Greek word for message. They talk about God's message of Love.

I'm from the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America). I truly wish I had time to delve deeply into the idea of LOGOS.

The verses you talk of are the most important verses in the Bible to me. And you are right LOGOS is fuller and richer. A place for you to start might be the Hebrew concept of WISDOM in proverbs. The author was pointing back to this idea of WISDOM when he wrote the 1st passages of John.

For me Jesus is Divine Wisdom made flesh. Divine Wisdom encumpasses so much more than is usually attributed to the term. To me it's an awareness of the need to unfold or blossom, infinite LOVE knowing that it must unfold, must let loose - that the healing and the living happens in the unfolding. Infinite LOVE refusing to remain silent.

And now I must go - I really do wish I had more time for this conversation.

March 29, 2007

Seems to me that in these two posts I've written a final exam that should earn me at least a few points toward my degree.

I'm glad to help. Thanks for the insights above. I will ponder these and post a reply later as time permits.

Sorry, that was supposed to be a joke--I guess it was a bit lame--I won't get any academic credits for writing that. Writing out my thoughts and summarizing what I learned helps solidify it and I enjoy doing it. I do look forward to reading your ponderings.

I understood it was a joke. I had a smiley face in my response. You are very right that the exercise of writing out thoughts like this helps solidify your thinking. That’s what this forum helps me do in many of these discussions. It helps flesh out my thinking.

Like OM, I’m really busy right now so I’ll post a better reply to you as time permits.

Yes, language points to things, but the power of language shapes how we see that thing and gives it form and dimension and substance. It is practically impossible to separate language from the experience of something.

<snip>

When in our humanity we sense something through whatever means, we then incorporate it into our conscious mind through the lenses of language systems. That is how we have evolved.

Yes, I agree. But..... language does not make something exist. As many on this board have pointed out ... just because there is language about a pink unicorn doesn't make the pink unicorn real.

Yes it does. The language about the pink unicorn gives it form and substance in the minds of those that believe in it. Language helps make it a living, breathing reality to those who believe in it. As they talk about the magical unicorn to themselves and others, the language makes it become real.

The better the language, the more real it is, like a well written story where the characters come alive from the pages. It’s about taking an internal feeling, a belief and giving it a face, giving it substance, and giving it life. The unicorn is a living symbol of something real to those who believe in it, something that exists in themselves.

Is it possible that when humanity finds itself, that in fact it does find God??
Oh.... I absolutely believe that when humanity finds itself, it finds God.

Yes of course we do. We are the image of God and He of us.

That when we come to the end of that pursuit, the God we thought we were seeing was in fact just a reflection of our own faces staring back at us from the void?

When we connect with the universe, what are we connecting with? Perhaps ourselves?

The only thing I'd say here, is that (for me) we are a reflection of God - to me God is the source. All that exists is a reflection of the source - we are part of that reflection. When we find God we find ourselves because our source (our core) is God. As I mentioned before (for me) we are participants in a living and aware universe - we are part of that living and awareness - we manifest it and bring it forth .......

I’m not pursuing this to challenge you on your beliefs, but to look at my own in light of this point of view. What I have difficulty with is looking at the natural world and viewing it as consistently reflective of the ideals we aspire towards, our personal sense of beauty and truth we call divine or the essence of God. It seems an externalization of God and us beneath it, in a very dualistic sense common to Western thought.

I can recognize that we perceive things as good – through the filter of our humanity. Our entire sense of reality, of things we value and deify come from us. We can’t know reality outside our bodies. We can’t be objective about anything in the universe. If God is… then the whole understanding of him begins inside us. The whole experience of God is an experience of perception grounded in our biology.

That experience is then given a descriptive language to talk about it, and here’s what I’ve been driving at in part… that language takes that experience and gives it a face and substance that in fact will influence further experiences surrounding it as we process it through our entire being which includes mind and language. You recall my talking about biocultural feedback loops? This is that, in a sense. Something happens, we find ways to understand it through the framework of language, which then becomes part of its essence, part of our experience of it, becoming nearly inseparable from its substance to us.

I’m out of time, but I’ll post this here and try to complete it later, perhaps as we talk about it.

March 29, 2007

Open_Minded said:

I'm from the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America).

Thank you for sharing this. Now I feel like I know you better, that I know better where you are coming from. It gives me a face for you, so to speak.

I truly wish I had time to delve deeply into the idea of LOGOS.

The verses you talk of are the most important verses in the Bible to me. And you are right LOGOS is fuller and richer. A place for you to start might be the Hebrew concept of WISDOM in proverbs. The author was pointing back to this idea of WISDOM when he wrote the 1st passages of John.

For me Jesus is Divine Wisdom made flesh.

This is beautiful. Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't know this. Maybe I wasn't listening when the prof said it or maybe he didn't say it.

Divine Wisdom encumpasses so much more than is usually attributed to the term. To me it's an awareness of the need to unfold or blossom, infinite LOVE knowing that it must unfold, must let loose - that the healing and the living happens in the unfolding. Infinite LOVE refusing to remain silent.

This is a beautiful description and I identify with it fully. I think it is a common human experience and that different people give it different labels so they can speak of it. This adds so much to my understanding of the New Testament, Open_Minded. This is what I like about Evangelical Lutheran theology--it's positive and does not condemn people who disagree or fail to buy into it. And that is what I wanted people to see with this thread.

Antlerman said in Post 7:

I’m to the point where when someone asks me if I believe in God, I’m almost at a loss at how to answer. What is God? God is a word that people use to describe many things. Which of those many things do you mean? Love? Sure, if you want to use the word God to describe that, then yes I too believe in God. Do you mean “God” as having faith that good prevails, as a symbol of shared human aspiration, as a symbol of beauty? Yes, then I believe in “God”. Do you mean “God” as an ancient tribal volcano deity that demands blood sacrifice for humans to not be destroyed by his wrathful nature? Then no, I do not believe in that at all. That symbol is out-dated.

I shared this with a person who identifies as Christian to see how close it is to her understanding. She identifies with it. She said she wouldn't these words: ancient tribal volcano deity that demands blood sacrifice for humans to not be destroyed by his wrathful nature?

This discussion proves what I suspected for some time--that the gulf between atheism and Christianity is not very wide or significant. The fundamentalists among the atheists and the Christians would kill each other off if given the opportunity, but the liberals of each group seem to get along just fine.

The biggest difference I see between the Christian and the atheist is the language and the orientation. The Christian believes "God" is outside the self whereas it seems the atheist thinks it all comes from within the self. Correct me if I am wrong, anybody. I'm just sort of feeling my way in this.

March 29, 2007

That when we come to the end of that pursuit, the God we thought we were seeing was in fact just a reflection of our own faces staring back at us from the void?

When we connect with the universe, what are we connecting with? Perhaps ourselves?

The only thing I'd say here, is that (for me) we are a reflection of God - to me God is the source. All that exists is a reflection of the source - we are part of that reflection. When we find God we find ourselves because our source (our core) is God. As I mentioned before (for me) we are participants in a living and aware universe - we are part of that living and awareness - we manifest it and bring it forth .......

I’m not pursuing this to challenge you on your beliefs, but to look at my own in light of this point of view. What I have difficulty with is looking at the natural world and viewing it as consistently reflective of the ideals we aspire towards, our personal sense of beauty and truth we call divine or the essence of God. It seems an externalization of God and us beneath it, in a very dualistic sense common to Western thought.

Like you - this discussion is not about challenging each others beliefs. But, to expand and learn from each other. In that light - I do understand your difficulty. Christianity is typically dualistic. But, there is a dimension of Christianity that is not dualistic. Where God is seen as the "all in all".

Within the contemplative traditions of Christianity - God is recognized as Unity, as ONENESS.... Creation is seen as "IN" God and God as seen as "IN" Creation. But, in another sense God is also the first thought (as it were) of creation - the LOGOS - the WISDOM underlying all of creation. You might want to check out the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

Please do not read this link as a definition of my position. I've learned (over the years) of the danger in theology and do not align myself with any particular theology. Still, theology has it's place and I've learned from it as well.

Speaking personally, for me, God is not external at all. Anymore than thought, or wisdom, or love are external. But, I do recognize that thought and wisdom and love are more than "i" am, that I particpate in thought and wisdom and love, but I do not originate it. In fact (for me) thought and wisdom and love are the seeds of all that is (including little ol' me).

If I do not manifest the wisdom and love and joy and goodness that naturally resides within me, that is not the "fault" of wisdom or love or goodness. It is a choice I make.

And of the universe itself???? Does it manifest wisdom and love and goodness????? Some would say it does - I believe it does. It may not seem to be manifesting wisdom and love and goodness as a tornado is ripping through my house - but what are my values to the universe? Who I am I to say that tornado shouldn't manifest and shouldn't proceed towards my community - does it make the tornado any less beautiful or powerful or awesome that it isn't doing my bidding?

What of disease and suffering???? I've always said I believe in chaos. But, I also belief chaos is part of the whole - part of the ultimate unity of the universe. What else can it be? It can't be separate from the universe - it is part of the whole. Even the atheist scientist would place these things as part of the whole. Again - back to something I've stated earlier - past experience shows me that there isn't much difference between myself and a non-theist. I just believe the universe is a living universe - and that it is manifesting awareness and intention and wisdom and love. It is living - simply for the purpose of living of unfolding and expressing itself. The fact that - as an individual - I see much chaos and suffering in life doesn't undo the living of life either.

I can recognize that we perceive things as good – through the filter of our humanity. Our entire sense of reality, of things we value and deify come from us. We can’t know reality outside our bodies. We can’t be objective about anything in the universe. If God is… then the whole understanding of him begins inside us. The whole experience of God is an experience of perception grounded in our biology.

I agree with this statement.

That experience is then given a descriptive language to talk about it, and here’s what I’ve been driving at in part… that language takes that experience and gives it a face and substance that in fact will influence further experiences surrounding it as we process it through our entire being which includes mind and language. You recall my talking about biocultural feedback loops? This is that, in a sense. Something happens, we find ways to understand it through the framework of language, which then becomes part of its essence, part of our experience of it, becoming nearly inseparable from its substance to us.

I agree with this statement as well. The only thing I would emphasis (and this is very important to me) is that language is not what we are pointing to. It is important to recognize this because the first step for a Christian in accepting other viewpoints as valid is to accept that the language and tradition and ritual of Christianity are merely one organized way to connect with and talk about this that we call, "GOD". If "God" and the language I use about "God" are one and the same, then I've no room for another person's perceptions - valid as they might be.

Hello Ruby:

Open_Minded said:
I'm from the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America).

Thank you for sharing this. Now I feel like I know you better, that I know better where you are coming from. It gives me a face for you, so to speak.

Well don't be too quick to paint that face. I did go to an ELCA college and have been attending ELCA churches for years. I've also had the honor of being run out of one ELCA church.

My background includes strict Catholicsm in childhood, parents leaving Christianity in early teen years. Dinner table discussions about Biblical mythology, Christianity in general, Atheism and Agnositicsm throughout my teen years. Dabbling in New Age and Eastern thoughts in my early adult years and a lot of exposure to Unity School of Christianity. And I've considered myself a contemplative Christian for many years. Like I mentioned earlier to Antlerman - I don't identify with one theology. Though I find myself at home within the ELCA because (in general) I've found it open-minded enough to accept the likes of me.

This is what I like about Evangelical Lutheran theology--it's positive and does not condemn people who disagree or fail to buy into it. And that is what I wanted people to see with this thread.

Yes, you are right. The EL theology tends to leave room for people to grow and change their minds and explore. Last week we had a guest speaker about Christian mysticsm. She is an ELCA seminarian and she was talking about the earliest Christian mystics. One of the things she pointed out is how the early church abused the mystics because they wouldn't "go by the book". Within the ELCA this is not a problem.

When you started this thread it was very exciting for me. I've not written a lot lately on this board - but your thread peaked my interested and I decided to participate in a conversation here again. I thank you for that.

March 29, 2007

Open_Minded, thank you for participating in this conversation. I feel like I am getting to know you as a person rather than just as a word on the screen. I read what you wrote to Antlerman and I could tell by that that you aren't "pure" Lutheran. The schools of thought (for lack of a better word) that you mention having participated in mesh with the things you are saying and I like when things make sense and when I can find the line to connect the dots, so to speak.

You mentioned the contemplative tradition and that Christianity has not always been kind to the people who practiced it. I wonder if that is part of what some people associate with liberal theology and why their descriptions sound like it's scatter-brained, diffuse, and not really real. Contemplation or mystical insights and experiences cannot be contained in a neat package that is sealed, labeled, and put in a slot. It's something that is global, that reflect God on a global perspective if you will.

Atheists can have these experiences, too, and they might use different language to describe it, such as universe.

March 29, 2007

Open_Minded, thank you for participating in this conversation. I feel like I am getting to know you as a person rather than just as a word on the screen. I read what you wrote to Antlerman and I could tell by that that you aren't "pure" Lutheran. The schools of thought (for lack of a better word) that you mention having participated in mesh with the things you are saying and I like when things make sense and when I can find the line to connect the dots, so to speak.

Oh.... Ruby.... don't thank me. You started this conversation and it leaves me full to "talk" with you and Antlerman. You are the one to be thanked.

You mentioned the contemplative tradition and that Christianity has not always been kind to the people who practiced it. I wonder if that is part of what some people associate with liberal theology and why their descriptions sound like it's scatter-brained, diffuse, and not really real. Contemplation or mystical insights and experiences cannot be contained in a neat package that is sealed, labeled, and put in a slot. It's something that is global, that reflect God on a global perspective if you will.

Atheists can have these experiences, too, and they might use different language to describe it, such as universe.

Yes... some of my favorite inter-faith discussions have been with non-theistic Buddhists. I use the term non-theistic because they sort of take the position you do.... "who knows .... who cares".

But, when we talk about actual experience - I'm amazed at how close we are to each other in experience - once we get past the barriers of language and culture.

Anyway - the ALL in ALL is so infinite - so beyond the scope of human perception that it can be perceived in an infinite number of ways. If some experience it as living and others don't - I find no conflict - we're talking about something so beyond the ability of humans to fully comprehend, after all.

March 29, 2007

Great thread ...

I am reminded of an earlier cherry picking debate ... any one remember this one

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...icker&st=20

March 29, 2007

Great thread ...

I am reminded of an earlier cherry picking debate ... any one remember this one

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...icker&st=20

Yes! I remember that Alice! Wow...nice to read that again.

March 29, 2007

Damn, I wish I had time to post a response. All I had time for was to read. I feel another major thread going on again OM like our earliest meeting here on the site. So many thoughts to flesh out again now with the passing of time. We'll get to it. Just remember to keep copies of your posts in case of server problems again. (others should be aware to always do a copy of the text before hitting post, as it's fairly common place for it to crash at that point - that's saved me many times. Usually I'll just use a word processor instead of direct like this now). Later...

March 29, 2007

Damn, I wish I had time to post a response. All I had time for was to read. I feel another major thread going on again OM like our earliest meeting here on the site. So many thoughts to flesh out again now with the passing of time. We'll get to it. Just remember to keep copies of your posts in case of server problems again. (others should be aware to always do a copy of the text before hitting post, as it's fairly common place for it to crash at that point - that's saved me many times. Usually I'll just use a word processor instead of direct like this now). Later...

After Alice posted that link to the Cherry-picking thread, I clicked on another link in there that O_M had and read that again from this link: Leaving Jesus is not Leaving God!

It's good to go back and read these threads again. They can shed a lot of insight into our thoughts now and some more wonderful ideas can be added here.

Awesome...

March 30, 2007

Damn, I wish I had time to post a response. All I had time for was to read. I feel another major thread going on again OM like our earliest meeting here on the site. So many thoughts to flesh out again now with the passing of time. We'll get to it. Just remember to keep copies of your posts in case of server problems again. (others should be aware to always do a copy of the text before hitting post, as it's fairly common place for it to crash at that point - that's saved me many times. Usually I'll just use a word processor instead of direct like this now). Later...

Hello Antlerman - yes - I too feel the spirit of that first convesation moving in this thread as well.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Alice and NotBlinded - I enjoyed reading back through those threads. It's wonderful to find myself over in a corner chatting with all of you again. Ruby - thanks for throwing the party - I look forward to conversations winding into the wee hours of the morning. Right now, I'm just resting easily in my chair (with a glass of sweet wine) and waiting for Antlerman to toss his thoughts into the ring.

March 30, 2007

The Lutherans begin with the premise that humans are depraved. I don't think all liberal Christians start with that premise. This kind of God, however, exudes irresistible grace that extends to the lowest of the low. I think this means that God loves all people unconditionally and that it is impossible to escape from this grace. Like the psalmist says, God is everywhere, even in hell/sheol. (That's my input; never heard a Lutheran use that verse in this way.)

Perhaps a bit of history will clarify. Martin Luther was a RC priest. I don't know for sure how things are today in the RCC, but in Luther's time (early 1500s) people had to do penence to acquire peace and forgiveness. I am told that Luther did many penences and was unable to find peace. Then he read in the New Testament about grace. Grace is unmerited good, i.e. good that we do not deserve. Thus, though humans are totally depraved, God's grace saves them and penence or works does not save. I'm trying to recall the slogan the Lutherans love throwing around. Something like: We are saved by faith alone through grace alone.

I’m going to try to get to my response to some of the things you said earlier, and see how they tie into the conversation with OM that we’re having.

The idea of humans being depraved and needing salvation is where I find myself at odds with traditional Christian thought. I wonder if this is something that has at its heart a motivation to elevate the role of God in one’s life by creating utter dependency on Him? Perhaps it’s someone’s attempt to combat pride in themselves (the Apostle Paul comes to mind)?

I see mostly negatives coming out of this view. Sure it can set the stage to show just how loving and graceful this God is towards us, but it’s still calling us garbage who don’t deserve to be loved by the God of this universe. How can this possibly have a positive effect on someone, even if we become “saved”? It says two things to me, that God’s love is conditional towards me, and that I have no value in myself in just being who I am, which is a human being.

When someone loves me for who I am, when they find that I have value to them in just being me, then what is inside me as a unique human being flourishes and thrives with life, and from that I give what is uniquely my own light to them, and it becomes carried on to others through them and from my own sense of believing that I have value to the world.

If however, that person expected me to conform to their image and become like them in order to be “right with them”, well…. Needless to say that is artificial. No real light from me there, and no real value to the world. This is why to me “sincerity” is the singularly strongest word I can use. “Insincerity” is the worst word. The whole “I’m unworthy” thing smacks of the disease of an abusive relationship to me, where the individual’s personal light is extinguished in favor of their Lord who rules them and whom they are there to serve?

I fail to see how being in that position in a relationship with a god is any healthier for the individual than when it's with another human? I’ve heard some say because when it's with God it’s acceptable because He has perfect love, but that misses the point! It’s not about how good God is supposed to be, it’s about us being able to love ourselves. If believing God loves you helps you on the road to learning to love yourself, then that’s not necessarily unhealthy. But to then say we must bow before him and give everything we are to him… I just can’t see that as consistent with learning to become who you really are inside. Standing on your own two feet and of complete free will saying "I love you", is of a trillion times more value than saying it with your face bowed low into the dirt beneath their feet.

It’s a sense of learning to love ourselves so that we can give to others that all this should be about. It should be about becoming fully human. It’s the pessimist who sees no light in humans. It’s the pessimist who prays for a world to come, rather than to bring light to this one from their own joy. It's the pessimist who see no value in themselves alone. I don’t see how telling ourselves we are sinners is helpful towards that goal at all.

March 30, 2007

I agree with Open_Minded that they probably don't look as the power of language the way you do. The Lutherans talk about "walking the walk and talking the talk." In other words, "We preach love and grace. Let us make sure we live what we preach."

I think most people don’t talk about it directly, but simply operate with it at the heart of how faith works for them. Whether it’s the literalist or the liberal, they all do it, the difference being how literal those signs are to them. To the literalist, the sign becomes the thing. I find it helpful to recognize the presence and influence of language. It answers the question of why it has where a lot of its power comes from, and how everything really is quite relative. Words shape reality and give meaning to things.

About a 'Kierkegaardian-type existential "leap of faith,"' I personally don't have a very good handle on existential philosophy so I cannot answer this question. Kierkegaard is very commonly mentioned, just as are many other philosophers. Regarding a "leap of faith," yes it seems there is a leap of faith. All the professors talk about faith. There seems to be a point beyond which they will not allow reason to go. Perhaps they are incapable, or perhaps they consider it inappropriate. I cannot determine which it is or whether it is something else.

Here’s where I really want to gain understanding from you if you can shed some light on this. You say there is a point beyond which they will not allow reason to go. That concerns me. What Kierkegaard was saying is that when it comes to the divine, logic cannot touch it and therefore cannot be applied to it. It’s at this point you make a leap into an upper-story experience of faith.

Irrationalism, Aestheticism and Existentialism come out of a response to Positivism which sees that rationality alone is the height of the human experience. Existentialism recognized that humans make choices which are irrational all the time, and that we define ourselves by our choices. It’s this “leap of faith” term ascribed to Kierkegaard which is a choice of irrationality, “God doesn’t make sense, but I will choose to believe it because it has value to me.” This is in direct contrast with the fundamentalist who views God as logical and supportable. Fundamentalism arose in response to this sort of thought in the Church.

What concerns me is to hear say that they reach a point where they will not allow reason to go, or that they may consider it “inappropriate”. The danger inherent in that should be self-evident. There should be nowhere we should feel is off limits. To me “all things are possible” is the main tenant of my faith in human potential. If you set limits, then you have halted growth out of fear. Where would be today if we hadn’t made strides to get around that thinking!

This seems different than that leap of faith that Kierkegaard was getting at, at least as I understand it at this point. I think he meant, when reason can’t get us to understand God, then we just take a leap of faith into believe without reason do to so. Again, this is in contrast with the fundamentalist’s idea of a teleological faith. They hate the term “leap of faith”. But the point is that for someone like myself to have someone say, “There are just some things we’ll never understand”, is tantamount to blasphemy. Yes, I agree that reason alone is not going to speak to everything that makes us human, but that comment is more about refusing to explore your mind and possibility. It kills growth, and to someone like me who likes to use his mind – it’s debilitating, not liberating. I can’t help but believe it isn’t positive for them either because we’re all reasoning beings.

This is where I come back to that fine line between how faith operates and where reason resides. I’m sure there is a balance to found, but how realistic is it for people to find that place? Is this what simple faith is supposed to be?

I’ll try to continue my thoughts on your other comments later.

March 30, 2007

Antlerman said:

Words shape reality and give meaning to things.

I guess I'm just different from everybody else. I seek words to describe the reality of things I experience and encounter. I am, therefore I think--not the other way around. Words do make a feeling or concept more concrete and communicable--I'll grant that.

You say there is a point beyond which they will not allow reason to go....

What concerns me is to hear say that they reach a point where they will not allow reason to go, or that they may consider it "inappropriate".....

Antlerman, let me clarify. I think I said I don't know why they don't go beyond that certain point. Perhaps they cannot. Perhaps they will not. I don't know which it is. Nor do I know how to find out.

In my experience, people don't all have the same ability for abstract thought. This, of course, brings us to the question: Are Christians stupid?

Not necessarily. Also, based on what I see on forums (not just this one) exChristians as a group are not necessarily more intelligent than Christians.

Different Kinds of Intelligence

And then there are different kinds of intelligence. I don't know your Myers-Briggs type but the way you express yourself, the phrases that are identical to my own self-expression, makes me think you are probably INFP like me.

I've spent considerable time online with INFPs. It seems the things we value, the things we consider of paramount importance, are so subtle, practically ethreal, that the average person simply cannot go where we go. This, however, borders on arrogance. To balance it out, there are people who love nothing more than working with their hands, things like housekeeping, yardwork, accounting, construction work, etc. To them, this is what matters. Building homes for people, preparing food to nourish bodies, sewing comforters and clothing to clothe the naked. For them, these are the epitome of "service to the Lord." For them, this has spiritual value on a level where I cannot go. Like the Apostle Paul said, each has his/her own gift.

Truth or Family?

There are INFPs who are Christian, but there are also a lot who aren't. I have been part of a discussion where it was thought INFPs automatically live the way Jesus taught. I cannot help but think Jesus must have been INFP. However, other types have thought Jesus was their type. There is practically nothing in the NT to give a conclusive profile of Jesus. Thus the ease with which each type can label him as their own type. Or their opposite if they glom onto the less desirable parts of him, such as condemming family.

On the other hand, is it negative for Jesus to say we need to put truth higher than family? I have taken much consolation from that verse. Why? It was a consolation for me to realize that Jesus' mother and siblings did not understand him either, and that he, too, had to go his own way regardless of family approval. It is true that for four decades I did what I could to please my family, but the day came when I realized this was a futile effort. They would never be happy with me as I am.

Human Depravity: True of False?

Back to the thoughts you raised about the depravity of humanity and the need for a saviour. Antlerman, THAT--and THAT alone--is what kept me from exploring Lutheranism. Humans are inherently good. All the self-help books I read explained what mental attitudes to take to improve oneself. All the maladies were explained in terms of deficiencies in the emotional environment. Besides, if sin=doing something we know is wrong, then humans are not sinners. I have yet to find a person who intentionally does evil for no reason at all. It can always be explained in terms of vulnerabilties and deficiencies of some sort. Or psychogpathology. To me, this says that deep down humans are inherently good, if love can connect with that goodness.

My own personal life experience and my observation of another person verify that. When I gave up trying to be good and focused only on doing what I needed to do to be happy, I began to notice that I was getting positive feedback from the people around me. Oh sure, there was also extremely negative feedback from family and others who simply disagreed with my life decisions. But the feedback from the new community I was building for myself was positive. That is when I realized that being me is what counts. That this will automatically bring forth the "fruits of the Spirit."

There is another aspect to this. There are young people who rebel in general and just want to do crazy stuff for its own sake, or to see what they can get away with, or to see how people will react. This has been noted as a normal stage of human development. When left to themselves, it seems these people eventually come to their senses and realize that there is more to life. Or that they are on the path of destruction and that this is not really who they want to be. So they reform.

The very fact that humans--and young people at that--can come to this realization of their own selves in their own time tells me that there is something truly good about the human being. Sometimes, I am of the impression that young people whose parents feel a need to control and contain them have a much harder time "coming to their senses." The situation is too complicated. They have the need to break free and explore who they are and what they want in life. But the parents restrict this exploration, withhold love, use punitive actions, or whatever.

New Birth

I also believe that, esp. for people who were raised Christian, or who "were rescued" via converting to Christianity, this religious awakening can take place at approximately the same time in life as the person would automatically realize that "this isn't who I really want to be." I believe when these two coincide very closely that the individual is probably a convert for life. They have concrete evidence that Jesus saves, or makes them better, or however they put it.

Personal Experience

I had a "new birth," too. It happened precisely at the point where I confirmed and put in place a plan to leave the Old Order Mennonite church. I walked away from the phone after talking with a neighbour who promised to take me to a modern Mennonite church the following Sunday. Suddenly, I was filled with a peace and joy and freedom far beyond anything I had ever experienced, or even knew was possible for human experience. For all intents and purposes it was the new birth. I felt like a new person. There was no going back. This feeling stayed with me for several months--at least from mid-August to Christmas. During that time I was subjected to levels of persecution that were new to me.

The backlash from family, former friends, relatives, and the community in general was severe. I have compared notes with others who left the OOM church. I have yet to find a person who got as many "flak letters" for leaving the church as I did inside a two or three week period . Somewhere along the line I stopped counting. The best analogy I can come up with is that the entire community had conspired to control me. When they found out that I had not only escaped but led them around the light for fourteen months, they simply exploded with rage.

By "leading them around the light" I mean that I went to school for fourteen months before they found out. And they found out only because I chose to tell them. Keeping hidden was becoming a problem because my sister with whom I shared a home at the time was being questioned about what I am doing--what I work. There was too much unaccounted time. In that community there are, supposedly, no secrets. Everyone's business is to know everyone's business. Religion preaches this.

Brothers' Keepers

God told Cain that he is his brother's keeper. Ezekiel says the watchers on the walls of Zion are responsible to warn those inside the city if the enemy is approaching, and if they don't they must pay with their own life. Jesus said to approach your brother if he offends you. All of this nurtures the human tendency to control and mind other people's business. In a tightly-knit closed community this can very easily be used to abuse and control on inhumane levels. I had managed to defy this close watch. I had managed to travel eight miles through the open countryside in an open buggy from my home to my school without being caught. Perhaps this is what enraged people.

That is what I mean about leading them around the light and the ensuing persecution. Through it all I understood why they felt as they did. That, and the new inner peace, joy, and liberty I experienced, was the only thing that kept me sane. I UNDERSTOOD. Also, the people in my new community were very supportive. Back to the concept of new birth and its hold on people who experience it at the same time as they "come to their senses" as young people.

Role of the New Birth

The gut-level experience of my new birth experience was of such power that had I not insisted on intellectual integrity, I would have converted to the church I attended the following Sunday. I did accept membership after a while, not because they were so good but because I felt an urgency to belong to a church. And their theology was similar enough to what I had been raised in.

Because of my inability to see the value of Jesus' death and because of my confidence that humans are inherently good and therefore not in need of a saviour, I did not become a fervent convert. People (Christians) tried telling me that maybe God is not as I was taught, that God may be in other churches, etc. The ladies who made these suggestions were very gentle about it. At last, through recommended readings for a paper I was writing, I came across a scholarly description of what had happened to me. It is the euphoria of being set free from an oppressive lifestyle.

I think it can also be the euphoria of young people finally coming to their senses. Or perhaps they have been trying to break free from destructive cycles but were unable to do so until they publicly confessed their sinfulness and committed themselves to the church. They had rejected parental authority but now they saw that they needed authority to live the way they wanted to live (since they finally "came to their senses").

This is the only way I can understand the stubbornness of Christians to consider any alternative belief system to what they have chosen for themselves. They chose it because it is what helped them clean up their lives. They did not arrive at it via seeking for truth because they weren't seeking. They were living on the level of instinct more than anything else. However, for those of us who for the sake of personal integrity consciously seek truth, belief is not a choice.

The Role of Instinct

A word about living instinctively. I hate to think that humans live this way, but the many times humans resort to use of that term, or resort to terms like "I can't explain it--I just KNOW that God exists"--suggests to me that instinct plays a larger role than I like to think. And then there are all the gut-level reactions to life situations. The first number of years away from the OOM community I kept battling with the question: Did I make the right decision? Are my profs right or are my people right? If my people are right I will burn in hell. If the profs are right, I made the right decision.

However, there was a time prior to the articulated questions where I could not even articulate my feelings. The questions bashed at my head and I had to shut them out of my mind to keep from going insane. There was a conviction inside of me that was so deep and so fundamental as to be archtypical. This conviction was that I made the ONLY decision that is right, and I must TRUST that it is right. The alternative would have meant death. So physical and gut-level was the conviction. Let's suppose my conviction had led me to conclude that the first church I tried after OOM is what I am meant to do for life. Nothing could have shaken me. Nothing.

Leap of Faith

Back to the question about a leap of faith. I think that was my "leap of faith." I can only say that it makes intellectual sense to do that which one feels so strongly inside of oneself.

QUESTION: Let's presume that the human is inherently good; that fundamentalist religion "came to the rescue" of the person; and that humans do not all have the capacity for indepth abstract thought and analysis. Does that person feel on the same deep gut-level that fundamentalist religion is the one and only way to go?

Is it possible that a person feels on that same gut level that annihilating a certain population is God's will? Of course! God commanded it in the Bible.

So we have people who are gut-level opposites when it comes to right living.

Morals

Who decides morals? Based on my observation of humanity and a large variety of cultures, I agree with those authors, none of whom I can name off the top of my head, who say morals are culturally dictated. I also agree with those who say there are universal values. Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not commit murder. Keep the peace. Do not commit sacrilege. Honour/respect your elders/all humans.

The cultural definition comes in when we discuss the details of HOW these morals should be lived out. For some, murder means killing someone of your own tribe. For others it means not to kill even in war to defend the homeland.

March 30, 2007

What Kierkegaard was saying is that when it comes to the divine, logic cannot touch it and therefore cannot be applied to it. It's at this point you make a leap into an upper-story experience of faith....

...I think he meant, when reason can't get us to understand God, then we just take a leap of faith into believe without reason do to so...

...But the point is that for someone like myself to have someone say, "There are just some things we'll never understand", is tantamount to blasphemy....

Blasphemny. So it's blasphemy when they make those statements. I didn't know what it was. What I did know was that it makes me want to puke if I have to hear it one more time. So far I have managed to contain myself but at considerable cost. I don't know how far others can go intellectually into abstract thought but I do notice that there are questions that no Christian will touch. Those who do think on those issues are either no longer Christian or they are on their way out. The Big Question for me has been: How did Jesus death work?

They will search heaven and earth and possibly hell and all the sacred literature before they will actually look at that question. Maybe I just haven't read the right people, and I did not understand all the stuff I was required to read. It occurred to me that possibly I just missed it. Then I remembered that they say Christianity is the religion for slaves and children. That sealed it for me. A religion for the unlearned does not draw on concepts too deep and mysterious for the average person to understand.

Yesterday I read a commentary on Galatians that may shed some light on this question. People of the ancient world did not think like we do. We are children of the Enlightenment; they were not. However, they were just like us in that they sought to understand the universe. They drew on philosophy and the observable universe. They were so accurate in some of their observations that we make astronomical judgments based on some of these ancient observations, esp. observations of phenomena that occur only every thousand years or so.

A post or thread may eventually come out of my thoughts around this commentary on Galatians but I need to give it more thought. If that author is correct, and I understand his work is based on other similar works, then our fundies totally misunderstand the entire meaning of the New Testament. It was written deep inside the ancient mindset millennia before the so-called Enlightenment. We came onto the scene so many centuries after the Enlightenment that we cannot think like they did. Yet we (some of us humans) want to lay claims about understanding the NT--and that without more than priliminary education in reading and writing. *shakes her head* I don't understand why Luther, an educated monk, thought that ordinary people could possibly understand the Bible. I wonder if perhaps he did not know what scholars know today about ancient beliefs.

Then again, I am being educated by even more highly educated teachers. They have given me a different view of God and the Bible. But they come nowhere close to explaining the Bible as that commentator explained Galatian religion.

I'll try to continue my thoughts on your other comments later.

I should just shut up so you can say your bit. I have to go for an appointment in a few minutes. I suspect some of us could do this kind of discussion full time and not run out of things to day. I must say I am surprised and delighted at the direction this thread has taken.

March 30, 2007

Those who do think on those issues are either no longer Christian or they are on their way out. The Big Question for me has been: How did Jesus death work?

They will search heaven and earth and possibly hell and all the sacred literature before they will actually look at that question.

Hello again, Ruby:

You've touched on a very important aspect of my own journey. A year - or so - ago (when Antlerman and I were first becoming acquainted) this question came up. Following are bits and portions of our conversation:

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&showtopic=5588&view=findpost&p=126800

But, it is and I could never reconcile a God of Love needing a blood sacrifice to compensate for all the "sins" in the world.

But as I studied other world religions I began to see that every tradition recognizes human suffering in one way or another. Buddhism, for example, has the ‘Four Noble Truths’ – (1) There is pain and suffering in the world. (2) Attachment causes suffering. (3) The suffering will cease when a person can rid him/her self of all desires. (4) The extinguishing of all desires.

And as I began to read writings from the liberal end of Christianity, as well as writings from Christian contemplatives I began to see that there was another way to view the cross and the resurrection. The cross can be looked at as a dying to one's "false self" and the resurrection as new life within as the "true self" rises up from within. Over time Easter has become a very important time of year for me, lent is a time of spiritual/meditative disciplines. I think, in general, humans have ritualized and moved to religions and dogma because of some inate need to have patterns in their life and world. The religious holidays, if released from literal interpretation, can take on great significance to a contemplative. They are times of renewal and refreshing of common disciplines.

See... when one really embarks on a meditative journey, there are other disciplines as well as daily meditation. The belief that pain comes from physical attachments, the idea of a "false self" can be found in all meditative traditions. In earlier centuries these beliefs led to excesses in releasing oneself from physical attachments and ridding oneself of the "false self". But, overall the human meditative traditions have matured enough to recognize the legitimacy of "attachment" without going to the extremes seen in earlier centuries.

Anyway the lenten season and Easter are times of returning to and analyzing ones efforts throughout the year to be less attached, less involved with the emotional swings that come with viewing reality through the "false self".

One other thing here, for me it is very important to read sacred literature in context. The current study we are doing on the Aramaic approach to Jesus is very interesting. Words in Aramaic take on whole depths of meanings not found in Greek and the western languages.

Also, as you said, symbols can take on different meanings at different times to the very same person. As I matured and really began to comprehend the Oneness of everything the suffering of Jesus took on another meaning. It's very difficult to explain, but I'm going to give it a shot. If we are all truly interconnected, and I believe we are, then on some level we can experience each other's pains and joys. On some level we can also carry each other's pains and joys. Some individuals are in tune with this better than others. Looking at Jesus as the Word made Flesh - the Wisdom of God infleshed then vicarious suffering can take on a whole depth of meaning. Does... this make any sense????

I'm not sure I picked the right symbolism to start with Antlerman, I could have gone with something easier, like Christmas and the birth of Light. But, truly, the literalism that stood in my way the most was literalism around the cross, hell and salvation.

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=127441

Very early I had to make a decision for myself whether Jesus really did live, really did die on the cross, etc... Since I had studied - in depth - the archealogical history of the New Testament I've known for years that an objective person could look at the New Testament stories and go many ways. They could be written off as an oral tradition of stories, not fact. They could be accepted as literal - and one could write off the archealogy. Or they could be viewed as an oral tradition around a concrete figure in history named Jesus.

I chose the third option. In my mind Jesus did live and he did die on the cross. That made it almost harder Antlerman, because then I couldn't write off the cross as a myth - I had to deal with it up front. In the end - I landed back where I had as a teenager. If people in the 1st century after Christ chose to interpret the cross as a blood sacrifice - that is their choice. In this century it does not have to be my choice. Again context is so very important - Jesus died on a cross at a time in history where people regularly made blood sacrifices to their gods. It would only make sense that his followers would see his death as the ultimate blood sacrifice.

Over time the cross has taken on more depth to me. As I said earlier - I really do believe there is an interconnectedness at the core of creation. And I have come to believe that we are all interconnected; that we participate in each others Isness, or Being. This means we can be aware, on very subtle levels, of the joy in creation as well as the suffering in creation. We don't get to choose the joy in creation and leave the suffering. They are two sides to the experience of interconnectedness. In the end I've come to see the cross experience as a vicarious suffering experience. And my study of other world traditions and inter-faith dialogs have taught me that Christianity is not the only religion to acknowledge vicarious suffering.

From the Buddhist tradition there is the Bodhisattva Ideal. .....

One example of vicarious suffering in our own age is the suffering of Ghandi. One only has to study his life and his suffering on behalf of peace to really see the power of such intentional suffering. He participated in interspirituality on a level that most people could not go. Here is a man who was as well versed in Christianity as Hinduism. He was born into and chose Hinduism as his path, but studied and admired Christianity. He used the Sermon on the Mount as the ground for much of his thinking on non-violent resistance.

Beyond that - for my own needs I have determined that the salvation of Christ is not in the shedding of blood but in the shedding of truth
. And that is where I stand. Others in my own congregation feel differently and we could have long indepth discussions about it. But in the end we respect each other - because we know each other on a deep enough level to not let something like this get in the way of our journey in Christ together. And this is a treasure to me - because I've been run out of at least one church for my beliefs.

You may also want to look at the following post in the same thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=128579

Human Depravity: True of False?

Back to the thoughts you raised about the depravity of humanity and the need for a saviour. Antlerman, THAT--and THAT alone--is what kept me from exploring Lutheranism. Humans are inherently good. All the self-help books I read explained what mental attitudes to take to improve oneself. All the maladies were explained in terms of deficiencies in the emotional environment. Besides, if sin=doing something we know is wrong, then humans are not sinners. I have yet to find a person who intentionally does evil for no reason at all. It can always be explained in terms of vulnerabilties and deficiencies of some sort. Or psychogpathology. To me, this says that deep down humans are inherently good, if love can connect with that goodness.

Ruby, most ELCA lutherans that I know do not look at original sin in the way Luther did 500 years ago. Most ELCA lutherans view original sin as an answer to the human frailties and foibles. I don't know one person in my congregation who would look at humanity and say that we are "evil at the heart". In fact most people in my congregation would agree with you that humans are inherently good.

For me, the idea of "original sin" is nothing more than Augustinian theology. I don't feel a need to "buy into it" and I don't feel pressure from those around me - at my church to accept it as valid. Evangelical Lutherans may have come from a back ground of severe austerity and a view of humanity as depraved. But, as my pastor says, when you read Luther remember the time and place he came from. Keep his writings in context. In the 21st century we are not expected to read Luther's theology any more literally than we are expected to read the Bible.

March 31, 2007

Wow... I've been busy with life for the past week, but I'm impressed with where this thread has gone. I might have more to add to it this weekend, but in the meantime, thanks to CC and Antlerman for responses and feedback!

March 31, 2007

Antlerman said:

Words shape reality and give meaning to things.

I guess I'm just different from everybody else. I seek words to describe the reality of things I experience and encounter. I am, therefore I think--not the other way around. Words do make a feeling or concept more concrete and communicable--I'll grant that.

Don’t kill me… I’m going to disagree slightly with you that you’re different in this regard. Forgive me for laboring over this point, but it has far more impact and relevance than we may readily recognize. It almost seems invisible because it’s so much a part of what defines reality for us in every instance of our lives. Think of it in terms of something like electrostatic force which holds us up against gravity and stops us from passing straight through matter. It seems the foundation of reality for us which we barely recognize.

You say words describe the reality of things you encounter. Let me put it another way. Words describe what you observe. Words describe what you experience. The words you choose to describe what you observe and experience both expresses and defines its reality to you. No two people can experience the exact same thing about anything. Each observer brings unique variables that alter how that thing is perceived. The words we use become a framework of understanding and approximations of what we experience and observe. Those frameworks define the reality of those things to us as individuals.

All that said, those structures of language when used in cultures are like notes of music. You strike one tone and there are harmonics that resonate from the fundamental tone. In music, you have a fundamental A-440 tone, and layers of notes ascending above it that the human ear does not consciously hear, yet its impact is felt and “heard” as natural, giving it substance and meaning.

It’s the same things with words. There are subtle harmonics that resonate and give depth and dimension to conversation, to ideas about things that communicate meaning and substance. This is so because you have the diversity of individuals all using these words to describe their unique perceptions, applying it many subtle variations. This is why in science they use mathematics, because it has a greater ability to strip away the all the culturally infused meanings in language, which is undesirable in the pursuit of the sciences.

Then when you start piling together the subtleties of language into a deliberate fashion, you have poetry. You create metaphors and mythologies, which likewise describe observation and experience is a certain structure, all of which define reality for the user of the language.

Now to religion. I love the episode of Star Trek that has Picard on a planet with an alien whose entire culture speaks a language of metaphor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok Imagine where we spoke to each other in nothing but metaphor? We say “Juliet on the Balcony” to describe romance; “Napoleon at Waterloo” to describe defeat; etc. Now how about “Jesus on the Cross” to describe humility, or God’s love, or forgiveness? How about Doubting Thomas? How about Noah’s Ark; the Word become Flesh; the Virgin Mary; Moses and the Exodus?

What is it that people are really hearing? Do they recognize the subtle harmonics in the music of spoken language that is providing a framework, a reality if you will, for them to relate to the experience of living?

I smile to look at John 1 in the light of the philosophy of language. “In the beginning was the Word… and all things were created by Him”. I agree.

You say there is a point beyond which they will not allow reason to go....

What concerns me is to hear say that they reach a point where they will not allow reason to go, or that they may consider it "inappropriate".....

Antlerman, let me clarify. I think I said I don't know why they don't go beyond that certain point. Perhaps they cannot. Perhaps they will not. I don't know which it is. Nor do I know how to find out.

In my experience, people don't all have the same ability for abstract thought. This, of course, brings us to the question: Are Christians stupid?

Not necessarily. Also, based on what I see on forums (not just this one) exChristians as a group are not necessarily more intelligent than Christians.

Different Kinds of Intelligence

And then there are different kinds of intelligence. I don't know your Myers-Briggs type but the way you express yourself, the phrases that are identical to my own self-expression, makes me think you are probably INFP like me.

I don’t know much about the Myers-Briggs testing, but I suspect I am probably as you describe. I think you are correct in your very well stated points about the diversity of personality types. It contributes a great deal to my trying to understand how people perceive religion in their lives. I think I spend a lot of time within my own circles and don’t get out much, so to speak. I forget how the average person doesn’t sit and think about these things all day. Maybe I should attend a church to get a refresher course in that?

That is when I realized that being me is what counts. That this will automatically bring forth the "fruits of the Spirit."

Honestly, this is what I mean about sincerity being the most important thing in being human. I always say that my salvation began when I left religion. In becoming true to myself, in being sincere, I suddenly found myself being much more of what a Christian is supposed to be than when I was one! There’s nothing like the difference of being told to be good, versus being allowed to be.

New Birth

I also believe that, esp. for people who were raised Christian, or who "were rescued" via converting to Christianity, this religious awakening can take place at approximately the same time in life as the person would automatically realize that "this isn't who I really want to be." I believe when these two coincide very closely that the individual is probably a convert for life. They have concrete evidence that Jesus saves, or makes them better, or however they put it.

I just wanted to quote this because it deserves special recognition. This helps a great deal to understand this phenomenon of being “Born Again”.

It actually helps me look at my own “this isn’t who I really want to be” point in my life. My encounter with “God” was at that point in my life, except it did not occur in the context of a religious environment, and was independent of any real prior religious influence. It was an existential experience that opened the universe to me at the ripe age of 18, and forever changed the direction of my life to this day. It was afterwards, that in seeking to understand this experience of Life that I turned to religion for answers.

Of course that turned out to be wanting, and I outgrew it. But the point is, that in light of what you say above, the experience did not come out of some Billy Graham type altar call conversion, my experience with religion did not have its face imprinted on me in that New Birth. I was alone, and the experience was connected to me alone. I guess what became imprinted on me, if you will, was the Universe itself.

Personal Experience

I had a "new birth," too. It happened precisely at the point where I confirmed and put in place a plan to leave the Old Order Mennonite church. I walked away from the phone after talking with a neighbour who promised to take me to a modern Mennonite church the following Sunday. Suddenly, I was filled with a peace and joy and freedom far beyond anything I had ever experienced, or even knew was possible for human experience. For all intents and purposes it was the new birth.

For me the heavens opened abruptly and the world was filled with Light. Colors were vivid and alive. I felt pure joy, something I had never experienced, gushing out of the deepest parts of my being that seemed to have no limits. It emanated from within me, and surrounded me in every atom of the Universe. The world was full of light, joy, peace, and profound and limitless Love. I felt no condemnation or shame, and felt unending knowledge and compassion. Things I did not know existed. They were coming from inside of me and from everywhere in the universe around me.

It was only later I was told this was God, and consequently sought to greater understand and know this experience. I later pursued Bible College to go into the ministry, but instead of finding God, I found Theology! My deconversion was more a reluctant acceptance that my hopes would not be found in their knowledge. There is nothing they offered that was even remotely of the same substance as this. They offered a box for the Universe and a god that looked like man.

March 31, 2007

OK - jumping back in here....

Antlerman - I agree with you (to an extent). Language is extremely powerful - it does influence and define our perceptions of reality....

But - this concept can be taken to extremes - just like anything else.

You wrote....

You say words describe the reality of things you encounter. Let me put it another way. Words describe what you observe. Words describe what you experience. The words you choose to describe what you observe and experience both expresses and defines its reality to you. No two people can experience the exact same thing about anything. Each observer brings unique variables that alter how that thing is perceived. The words we use become a framework of understanding and approximations of what we experience and observe. Those frameworks define the reality of those things to us as individuals.

And earlier in the thread

Yes, I agree. But..... language does not make something exist. As many on this board have pointed out ... just because there is language about a pink unicorn doesn't make the pink unicorn real.
Yes it does. The language about the pink unicorn gives it form and substance in the minds of those that believe in it. Language helps make it a living, breathing reality to those who believe in it. As they talk about the magical unicorn to themselves and others, the language makes it become real.

The better the language, the more real it is, like a well written story where the characters come alive from the pages. It’s about taking an internal feeling, a belief and giving it a face, giving it substance, and giving it life. The unicorn is a living symbol of something real to those who believe in it, something that exists in themselves.

In general I don't disagree with your thought processes about language and its impact on our perceptions. But - the key is we are perceiving something.

I mean - in regards to religion and spirituality - humantiy is seeking something and it is perceiving something. We are part of some reality and we are seeking ultimate reality. We are - that is the quest of humanity. Ultimately the quest is for an understanding of this ultimate reality - and ultimately there are some basics that can be agreed upon.

Whether scientist or theologian or philosopher - we do recognize that ultimately reality is ONENESS. And that (at some level) reality is an interconnected wholeness. So... we use different language - and maybe that language shapes ultimate reality within us individually - but ultimately we are all on the same quest.

This has been a very important part of my own path - recognizing that the quest is universal and whatever language I use personally - has its limitations. That it can only go so far. That ultimately I must be willing to view ultimate reality through different language and traditions. I must be willing to view ultimate reality through the language of science and math as well as the language of Christianity. I must be willing to view ultimate realitiy through the language of other world religions as well as through the language of Christianity. That - in the end - to honor this universal quest, I must be willing to be universal myself.

And what amazes me - consistently - is the parallels between the different languages and traditions. Those parallels point to something - something which transcends the language itself - something very real and valid. Following is a post from another thread where I touched upon this dynamic.

I know what you mean. Throughout my adult years I have taken great joy in finding the commonalities between the world's religions. It is an exercise which reminds me that we all have something in common - that we are all searching for the same ONENESS.

Following is something that I found years ago. I keep this in my purse - it reminds me daily that we humans have more in common than we do differences.

___________________________________

This poem was written by By: Padmasambhava - He Lived iin the 8th Century. He also regarded as the author of the Tibetan Book of the Dead. I don't believe this poem is in the Tibetan Book of the Dead. I found it in another book and it was attributed to Padmasambhava with a notation that he wrote the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Anyway the poem follows:

Astounding,
I tell you the self-creating clear Light

has always been!

Astounding! It is parentless pure

Consciousness!

Astounding! Primal Wisdom

has no creator!

Astounding! It has never known birth &

could never die!

Astounding! It is obvious everywhere but

with no one there to see it.

Astounding, I tell you! It has been lost in illusion

but no harm has touched it!

Astounding! It is enlightenment itself, yet

no good has come to it!

Astounding!
It exists in everyone, but has

been overlooked!

Astounding! Yet we go on looking for

something other!

Astounding! It is the only thing that is ours yet we look for it elsewhere!

Astounding! Astounding!

Anyway I saw a lot of parallels with the first chapter of John (IF ONE DOES NOT READ JOHN LITERALLY - OF COURSE)

Word made flesh passages - John 1:1-14

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.
What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light but he came to testify to the light.
The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world
.

He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him
.
He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him
. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth.

Anyway - it's this type of thing that motivates me in my search for understanding between the world's religions. We really all are searching for the same ONENESS (for lack of a better term). We just have different languages and traditions to express it.

Yes - language does influence our individual perceptions. And yes - we must recognize the power of language to shape and define what we are perceiving. But, ultimately, we must also recognize that transcending language - humanity is seeking something which is NOT language - that ultimate reality exists within and of itself. It would exist if humanity didn't exist. It would exist if humanity had never discovered language to convey the perception of ultimate reality.

March 31, 2007

...But the point is that for someone like myself to have someone say, "There are just some things we'll never understand", is tantamount to blasphemy....

Blasphemny. So it's blasphemy when they make those statements. I didn't know what it was. What I did know was that it makes me want to puke if I have to hear it one more time. So far I have managed to contain myself but at considerable cost. I don't know how far others can go intellectually into abstract thought but I do notice that there are questions that no Christian will touch. Those who do think on those issues are either no longer Christian or they are on their way out. The Big Question for me has been: How did Jesus death work?

That word came to me when I was thinking about it in the light of saying that “all things are possible” was a sacred truth to me. Saying “all things are possible” compared to “There are just some things we’ll never understand”, is the difference between shooting a gun in the air to start the runners on their race, and shooting the runners in their feet instead. I suppose to be gracious, it could be their way to offer a word of comfort to seeing you struggling with questions, but it’s probably more about placating themselves from the discomfort those types of questions give them. Oh well… I’m feeling a little cynical at the moment.

Then I remembered that they say Christianity is the religion for slaves and children. That sealed it for me. A religion for the unlearned does not draw on concepts too deep and mysterious for the average person to understand.

Is that entirely true? Doesn’t the first chapter of John draw off the language of Philo’s Logos and the Jewish concept of the Memra of God in an attempt to bridge the gap between the Greco-Roman world and the Jews? Those are some fairly esoteric concepts, but then again I recall reading that the chapter was a much later addition to the Gospel. I’m not sure about that.

If the origin of Christianity was just one of the mystery religions of the day which then became blended into popular Judaism you would think there was a little of something for everyone. Didn’t the mystery religions draw from all strata of society? I’m not sure the answer to that.

Perhaps because there is some headier concepts in it, along with the more visceral talk of the slave class, that accounts for the “mystery” of it? It’s a mystery because it isn’t consistent but we’re to believe it somehow is? (Like I said, I’m feeling cynical at the moment).

Yesterday I read a commentary on Galatians that may shed some light on this question. People of the ancient world did not think like we do. We are children of the Enlightenment; they were not. However, they were just like us in that they sought to understand the universe. They drew on philosophy and the observable universe. They were so accurate in some of their observations that we make astronomical judgments based on some of these ancient observations, esp. observations of phenomena that occur only every thousand years or so.

This is such and incredibly salient point that so many people overlook. “We are children of the Enlightenment; they were not.” Our world views are shaped by the language we use, which comes out of the French Enlightenment in no small measure. We are exposed to it in art, the media, and popular culture everywhere in the West. It shapes how we relate to the world and to ourselves.

This comes back to the mystery religions and concepts such as the Logos, this mysterious Agent that bridged the gap between the heavenly counterparts of things on earth, and the natural world. In earth there were wars; in heaven you had their counterparts. Many of these concepts are nearly impossible for us to wrap our minds around because of how our “vocabulary” doesn’t account for these ideas, much like Westerners find it hard to conceptualize the world of quantum mechanics, but the Hopi tribe of Native Americans do not because their language is much less linear in reference to time than ours. (Now do you understand why the emphasis I put on language)?

A post or thread may eventually come out of my thoughts around this commentary on Galatians but I need to give it more thought. If that author is correct, and I understand his work is based on other similar works, then our fundies totally misunderstand the entire meaning of the New Testament. It was written deep inside the ancient mindset millennia before the so-called Enlightenment. We came onto the scene so many centuries after the Enlightenment that we cannot think like they did. Yet we (some of us humans) want to lay claims about understanding the NT--and that without more than priliminary education in reading and writing. *shakes her head* I don't understand why Luther, an educated monk, thought that ordinary people could possibly understand the Bible. I wonder if perhaps he did not know what scholars know today about ancient beliefs.

You are entirely right. This is why I muse how ironic it is that fundamentalists lay claim to the original beliefs of Christianity! It’s absurd to claim that. It’s not possible to know that for them unless they were a part of that culture and understood all the subtleties of their world views and language use, without which one misstep can send them way down a road of incorrect assumptions to the point you have whole theologies built around an error. Of course they try to gloss over this by saying the Holy Spirit guides them into truth. My counter to that then is simple, “Then why use the Bible”?

I should just shut up so you can say your bit. I have to go for an appointment in a few minutes. I suspect some of us could do this kind of discussion full time and not run out of things to day. I must say I am surprised and delighted at the direction this thread has taken.

You can share all you wish. It’s welcome and enlightening.

March 31, 2007

It was only later I was told this was God, and consequently sought to greater understand and know this experience. I later pursued Bible College to go into the ministry, but instead of finding God, I found Theology! My deconversion was more a reluctant acceptance that my hopes would not be found in their knowledge. There is nothing they offered that was even remotely of the same substance as this. They offered a box for the Universe and a god that looked like man.

Antlerman, thans for sharing your "new birth" experience. My own sent me into a spiritual tail-spin that took about seven years to get out of. I think I'm out by now. If now completely, your story will help completing the process. Just knowing that other unbelievers have had the same experience is helpful to know. On one hand, it was evidence to me that God is real; on the other hand I was consciously turning my back on all that was holy. If God is all-knowing then God rules by motivations rather than by actual deeds. At least, this is what I was taught and it meshes with reality as I understand it. Thus, for God to "reveal himself" at the very moment at which I had put concrete plans into place to turn my back on God was extremely confusing. It was as though God gave his approval for my apostacy. And that made absolutely no sense.

I also want to comment on theology, Bible college, etc. I don't know how you were raised but I was raised in a Christian home where religious training was top of the agenda. In looking back, it seems that by the time I was twenty I knew practically everything the average Old Order Mennonite knew about the faith and "what we believed." By the time I was forty I knew the Bible inside out, backwards and forwards. At least in comparison with the average layperson, I did. I couldn't quote long passages but I knew what was in the Bible and I had a good handle on what it could mean. I'll never forget the day I impressed Dad.

I forget the topic of discussion. Whatever it was, I brought out Romans 12--or whatever that passage is where Paul talks about eating meat that was sacrificed to idols. Paul says it doesn't matter what we eat so long as it does not cause another to stumble. I took that as a analogy for some of the issues in our own church at the time. Dress codes and regulations for very many details of everyday life. It seemed that in applying that passage from Paul it made sense to believe that actually living up to the regulations was not so important to God but that if we caused another to stumble in the faith due to our shoddy keeping of the regulations it was sin. I'm not sure if this was the topic of the discussion with Dad but whatever it was, he said, "You must have read that somewhere! You could not have known it of yourself!"

Of course I had known it of myself but I wasn't going to get into a fight with Dad by making the claim. He was impressed and found no fault with something I had figured out on my own. Managing to measure up to Dad's expectations was not something that happened every day, nor every year. So what was I saying--oh now I remember. I want to comment on Bible college, etc.

Okay, I entered seminary knowing the Bible inside out and what it meant from cover to cover. In this Lutheran seminary I was presented with a whole new way of looking at God and the Bible. On the internet I have encountered others who are in school learning theology. I would classify them as fundamentalists in fundamentalist schools. My MA thesis focuses on fundamentalism, which has led me to explore and read the faith statements of many different churches and schools. Okay, I think it was the other way around. I found myself seeking out faith statements for churches and schools and coming to some conclusions about what is fundamentalism. This led me to focus on fundamentalism for my thesis. Either way, I've spent considerable time these past several years thinking about fundamentalism. And I suspect the Bible college you found yourself in was fundamentalist.

Where I found myself was not fundamentalist. They helped me get out of the box of fundamentalism. My OT teacher had a way of getting inside the minds of the people in the OT, and explain what God meant to them. It was like bringing life to a dead branch. The OT people were real people with a specific real life understanding of and relationship with their god. So much of the OT sounds to me like condemnation. By the time she got done explaining things I saw that it is possible to see the OT as a message of hope and love. For me, it was such a new way of looking at things that I didn't really get the vision, but I know it exists.

When I told her what an impact her course had on me she asked if this was good or bad. I was amazed at the question. It was an undeniably positive experience for me. She then explained that some people have found it painful or disturbing. I saw some of this in the classroom. A few people raised the issue in class about finding this explanation of the Bible to be challenging the core of their faith. One man said his superior (I forget the name of the office the "superior" held but it was a person who had authority) had recommended he take this program at this school. Yet the things he was learning in school disagreed so strongly with what his church stood for. He was of East Asian stock. We had several people from East Asian societies in our classes that first year I was in seminary. I don't know what happened to them but I don't see them anymore.

When I compare my experience at this seminary with the rules and regulations in schools like Dallas Theological Seminary, or the Westminster or Heidlburg Confessions of Faith that this kind of school adheres to, I know that Bible colleges and seminaries are not all the same. I consider anyone fundamentalist who talks about an inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God. So far, I'm fine with "inspired" but "inerrant" and/or "infallible" grab me like the hooks of authoritarian religion where there is no room for personal interpretation or expression. If this is where you found yourself, Antlerman, I understand why you found yourself inside a box with Theology rather than learning about God.

Rudolph Otto wrote a book about mid-20th century with the title Idea of the Holy. I looked it up in my school library system. Here's the "card" on it:

Title:

The idea of the holy; an inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea of the divine and its relation to the rational. Translated by John W. Harvey. Author: Otto, Rudolph, 1869-1937. Publisher: New York, Oxford University Press, 1958. Description: 232 p. Subject(s): Religion.

Psychology, Religious.

It was Harvey's description of what Otto meant by "the numinous" that helped me connect with something for which I had no name. If you have time and inclination to do some reading, I would suggest this book (providing it resonates with you). I would also suggest exploration of mysticism. In that area you might find things that help explain what you experienced. I think maybe the name is William James, a classical writer in the field; I have not actually read his works but I have come across many references to his name and brief quotes from his writing. James W. Fowler's Stages of Faith was also helpful for me to understand some basic difference between myself and other professing Christians. I also read a few books by James Praagh, a popular medium of today. I don't experience what he does but it shows me that there are experiences that humans can encounter that are not common to all people. This article has also helped me gain important insight. In fact, this article was very influential in my deconvertion.

Here I posted some material you can look into if you are interested. The seminary did NOT teach these things. I was entirely on my own here and I learned with whom I could safely discuss these ideas and with whom I was better off keeping my thoughts to myself.

March 31, 2007

OK - jumping back in here....

Antlerman - I agree with you (to an extent). Language is extremely powerful - it does influence and define our perceptions of reality....

But - this concept can be taken to extremes - just like anything else.

Yes, I know the Sapir-Whorpf hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_Hypothesis can be taken to extremes, like anything else, and there is debate as to how far it goes. I’ve never suggested that everything is total illusion, but I do lean towards seeing that our concepts of reality are inextricably tied to and influenced by the language of our culture, to the point it can limit or open our abilities to conceptualize in certain ways. Ways of thinking are tied to language.

You wrote....

Yes, I agree. But..... language does not make something exist. As many on this board have pointed out ... just because there is language about a pink unicorn doesn't make the pink unicorn real.
Yes it does. The language about the pink unicorn gives it form and substance in the minds of those that believe in it. Language helps make it a living, breathing reality to those who believe in it. As they talk about the magical unicorn to themselves and others, the language makes it become real.

The better the language, the more real it is, like a well written story where the characters come alive from the pages. It’s about taking an internal feeling, a belief and giving it a face, giving it substance, and giving it life. The unicorn is a living symbol of something real to those who believe in it, something that exists in themselves.

In general I don't disagree with your thought processes about language and its impact on our perceptions. But - the key is we are perceiving something.

Yes, but what are we perceiving? Something tangible, some external reality?

To give an example of something that came to mind. When I was between 3 and 5 years old, I believed in Santa Clause. Santa was absolutely real to me. So much so that it changed my actions to accommodate him. Those actions of trying to see him, leaving him milk and cookies, writing him letters, talking about him, talking about his workshop, his reindeer, his elves, all reinforced the reality of him in my life. He became real to me, and for all intents and purposes like anything else tangible in my life, he was real.

What was I believing in? What was I perceiving to be real outside myself? A story told to me? Something more comes with that, reinforcement of language, ritual, and custom. Those were all external manifestations of something internal – hope. Hope became externalized and embodied in a symbol. Santa was real.

I’m not concluded on anything about some external Principle, or Univeral Energy we may call God, but I don’t rule out that it likewise isn’t a manifest of our humanity; the commonality coming by virtue of common humanity.

“What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god!”

Are we the God we seek? Are we putting a face on him as outside ourselves because we are terrified at the prospect that there is nothing higher than us? Has he become real to us because of a projection of ourselves as something beyond us, like a phantom arm?

Just some thoughts, no conclusions.

I mean - in regards to religion and spirituality - humantiy is seeking something and it is perceiving something.

I agree we’re seeking something. And we are responding to something we perceive, but that something is intangible, not like some force you can measure. Yes…. I do recall our conversations about how science should study a trend analysis of mystic experience for evidence of patterns. I think that any pursuit of knowledge and understanding is the height of human’s honor to the universe. We want to know, and that’s why drives us. We want to feel something; we want to experience something – in our humanity. We want to understand Life.

Is that a pull from something external, or a push from something internal that we externalize for a way to perceive it?

We are part of some reality and we are seeking ultimate reality. We are - that is the quest of humanity. Ultimately the quest is for an understanding of this ultimate reality - and ultimately there are some basics that can be agreed upon.

What if we find it isn’t the ultimate reality? But only one step to a new reality?

Astounding,

I tell you the self-creating clear Light

has always been!

Astounding! It is parentless pure

Consciousness!

Astounding! Primal Wisdom

has no creator!

Astounding! It has never known birth &

could never die!

Astounding! It is obvious everywhere but

with no one there to see it.

Astounding, I tell you! It has been lost in illusion

but no harm has touched it!

Astounding! It is enlightenment itself, yet

no good has come to it!

Astounding!

It exists in everyone, but has

been overlooked!

Astounding! Yet we go on looking for

something other!

Astounding! It is the only thing that is ours yet we look for it elsewhere!

Astounding! Astounding!

I like this poem. But what is IT?

Again, I appreciate seeing IT as external to us, or that we are in IT and IT in us, but isn’t everything that is real a perception of US?

Does IT exist as we perceive or experience it, to the worm? To the Gorilla? Or do we project our experience of the Universe to other life as being tied together with us in this currently percieved ultimate reality to us?

Is there an ultimate reality, or series of new consciousnesses? As the Universe may be just one of a never ended series of universes. Just questions, and no answers?

What an interesting day.

March 31, 2007

For a short statement concerning my opinion of liberal theology:

Are they picking cherries? Who gives a shit? If they decide to follow a religion in a tolerant and open-minded way, I'm not going to demand they alter it further to comply more closely with my own beliefs. Love, empathy and kindness are virtues no matter where they're coming from.

In Defense Of Liberal Theology

Recommended Posts

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

R. S. Martin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Open_Minded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

R. S. Martin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Open_Minded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

R. S. Martin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Open_Minded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Alice

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NotBlinded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NotBlinded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Open_Minded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

R. S. Martin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

R. S. Martin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Open_Minded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

godlessgrrl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Open_Minded

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

R. S. Martin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

The Sage Nabooru

Link to comment