Jump to content

Any Other Fans Of Seth/jane Roberts?


Shawna
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

 

I was wondering if anyone else here has read, or is a current follower of Seth (the spiritual teacher "channeled" by Jane Roberts in the 1980s). If you have no idea what I'm talking about, please click here: http://sethlearningcenter.org/. :) After de-converting from Christianity and looking around for some kind of direction in which to point my newly-amputated spirituality/faith, I found Seth's teachings and it really really helped me to find personal power/confidence and gave me tools to develop my own belief system that was healthier for me. I highly recommend it to anyone who is trying to find a place to start rebuilding a personal belief system. So yeah, I was wondering if anyone else has read any of Seth's books or is a "Seth-ie" like me. :)

 

Shawna

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read some of the Seth material.. fascinating stuff. I haven't been able to read all of it - but his way of explaining the nature of reality was very thought provoking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found Seth's teachings and it really really helped me to find personal power/confidence and gave me tools to develop my own belief system that was healthier for me. I highly recommend it to anyone who is trying to find a place to start rebuilding a personal belief system. So yeah, I was wondering if anyone else has read any of Seth's books or is a "Seth-ie" like me. smile.png

 

Shawna

Haven't read her, at a glance as far as creating reality, there is a definite truth to that. Not in entirety, that there is no objective reality outside what we think; I don't accept that. But we do in fact deeply influence the objective world through how we perceive it internally. What we tell ourselves, has a tremendous influence on our physical body, emotions, mind, and.... actions.

 

As I was going through a very dark and difficult period in my life, the loss of my 3 year old son to a bitter divorce, moving him 2000 miles away out of my life, I struggled with deep depression. Every day was a struggle to not throw in the towel on life. It stuck with me for years, maintaining a simple survival mode, never really feeling alive anymore. My father said to me these wise words which stuck with me and speaks to this. He said, "We create our own environment". This I've learned is very true. What we carry inside of us, what we tell ourselves, how we see the world, enormously effects the very experience of reality for us, as well as actually creates it in others around us through our presence!

 

That said however, I don't see that we are in complete control, "speak the word, and you shall have it!", nonsense. There is an interrelationship. My only suggestion is don't rely too heavily on any one person's thoughts for yourself. They are tool to help you find your own way. Ultimately it is you, that has to find it, not some one else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My father said to me these wise words which stuck with me and speaks to this. He said, "We create our own environment". This I've learned is very true. What we carry inside of us, what we tell ourselves, how we see the world, enormously effects the very experience of reality for us, as well as actually creates it in others around us through our presence!

I know people who simply refuse to go certain places, as they see no point in it. Places such as regrets, or judgments about the quality of prior experiences in life, for example. I understand the sentiment, and I actually try, with mixed results, to keep my mind out of the past. I just don't grok how you can compartmentalize to the degree that these people do, to where they literally don't think about the miserable parts of their lives and have no particular feelings about them and literally, actually start each day anew. I have always been a big-picture type and I always see the present in the context of past experiences and likely future prospects. I cannot help but be aware that certain things are absent, and that my present life bears no resemblance whatsoever to what I've directed it towards and attempted to create for myself. On good days I mostly ignore this and live in the moment; on bad days, when the present moment is stressful, painful or both, the memory of past stress and pain make it feel like an endless continuum. This is not a product so much of my refusal to think happy thoughts as it is a product of a process I've been through.

 

I've noted with interest that people who aggressively amputate the past tend to have lousy situational awareness. They live in the moment, alright, to such an extent that it's disconnected from other moments. Inform them of an approaching event and it has no reality for them and they're apt to forget it. Remind them of a past event and it's like a story they heard once upon a time. They seem to experience reality much more reactively rather than proactively, much more selectively than organically. They tend to have less guilt or worry but can seem scattered and irresponsible too. I haven't quite figured out if this is an overall better adaptation or not ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My father said to me these wise words which stuck with me and speaks to this. He said, "We create our own environment". This I've learned is very true. What we carry inside of us, what we tell ourselves, how we see the world, enormously effects the very experience of reality for us, as well as actually creates it in others around us through our presence!

I know people who simply refuse to go certain places, as they see no point in it. Places such as regrets, or judgments about the quality of prior experiences in life, for example.

To be clear, what I struggled with back then is exactly what you are talking about. I saw it is not facing reality, telling myself a lie, or denying it, "compartmentalizing it", a.k.a, burying your head in the sand. This is not the same thing as making a conscious choice on how to perceive something. You still see it, you acknowledge it, you simply realize that there is not only one way, a negative way, to see something or respond to it in that manner.

 

I understand the sentiment, and I actually try, with mixed results, to keep my mind out of the past.

While true we shouldn't dwell in the past, ruminating over it, staring at our naval in some negative feedback loop, we do need to acknowledge it an embrace it with full awareness into the present. It's how you integrate it that matters, that is the make or break deal.

 

I just don't grok how you can compartmentalize to the degree that these people do, to where they literally don't think about the miserable parts of their lives and have no particular feelings about them and literally, actually start each day anew.

Not everyone functions on the same level. You tend to function as I do, and why you are so torn - as I perceive in you. Some people, others, don't care enough to try to sort it out. You do. I do.

 

I have always been a big-picture type and I always see the present in the context of past experiences and likely future prospects.

What you lack Bob is an "eagle's eye" view of things. Not as an idealist, but simply a different set of eyes than what you're used to. wink.png

 

I cannot help but be aware that certain things are absent, and that my present life bears no resemblance whatsoever to what I've directed it towards and attempted to create for myself.

The comment is NOT about wish fulfillment. It is about generating good will, creating a positive space where good emerges. Not your own ideas of what you need or want. If you give love without expectation, you have love, regardless of what others give, or the Universe grants you that you expect through your lens of cultural values. All things are impermanent. Love is not. We look in the wrong place.

 

On good days I mostly ignore this and live in the moment; on bad days, when the present moment is stressful, painful or both, the memory of past stress and pain make it feel like an endless continuum. This is not a product so much of my refusal to think happy thoughts as it is a product of a process I've been through.

My god Bob, you sound like me 20 years ago where I was at then in my life. I understand these thoughts well. I wish I could simply just touch your mind and have you see, but it's a process. It's a process to heal, not a path of defeat. That is not what life is. It is a cycle of growth.

 

I've noted with interest that people who aggressively amputate the past tend to have lousy situational awareness.

Agreed.

 

They live in the moment, alright, to such an extent that it's disconnected from other moments.

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif Yes, that's actually not living in the moment at all. Living in the moment embraces all moments. It is timelessness.

 

Inform them of an approaching event and it has no reality for them and they're apt to forget it. Remind them of a past event and it's like a story they heard once upon a time. They seem to experience reality much more reactively rather than proactively, much more selectively than organically. They tend to have less guilt or worry but can seem scattered and irresponsible too. I haven't quite figured out if this is an overall better adaptation or not ...

Living in the moment, mindfulness, really, is none of this. It is simple being, alive and aware of all things. It is no denial of the past or the future as such things are not reality at all, they are mental constructions. However, to not recognize the past in yourself presently is a disconnection from who you are. That is not being whole. Being in the moment allows us to create the world though simple goodness. It's not about you. You are irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is simple being, alive and aware of all things. It is no denial of the past or the future as such things are not reality at all, they are mental constructions. However, to not recognize the past in yourself presently is a disconnection from who you are. That is not being whole. Being in the moment allows us to create the world though simple goodness. It's not about you. You are irrelevant.

Yes, I am irrelevant -- I figured that out some time ago.

 

I sat literally around a campfire last night (back yard bonfire) with my fiancee and another couple. Between us we had a half dozen failed marriages representing roughly 120 person years of investment. Clearly their lives are not about them either. Near as I can tell, no one's life actually has anything inherently to do with what the person in question cares about, feels, wants, or (god forbid) needs.

 

Given that my life isn't my own, but is just something I find myself in the middle of, I find that a double edged sword. It allows me to quit giving two shits about it, which is both good and bad. I get that life is a cycle of growth but it's not a cycle that interests me and it's not a cycle I signed on for. I'm here now because I have certain obligations to myself and to others but I will be happy to discharge them and return to dust, frankly. I'll leave it to people who actually, for whatever reason, want it.

 

In order to not annoy people around me I have learned to laugh, not at any actual delights, but at absurdity. People generally mistake one for the other, and it works out for them.

 

I have also learned that you can do worse than to just be curious and explore interesting things, however ultimately pointless they all may be. There's an endless supply of them. One half of the other couple we spent time with last night, for instance, is a former small town mayor turned development consultant who is working on a project in an obscure midwestern town involving the marriage of local kitsch with Chinese investors and artists -- you can't make up stuff like that if you tried. I'm doing an internet startup with my son and investigating relocation and possibly a small business in the future for myself and my finacee.

 

I know how to keep on keeping on. There's little else for it. Striving for any particular thing or for actual control of your life, though, is a fool's errand. For instance, my "stepson" is struggling in college and may fail; that one source of drama all by itself is as likely as not to derail whatever I'm trying to accomplish and turn it into something entirely other than what I'm attempting to actually do; I've just learned not to count on anything. This detachment from specific outcomes is, by some people's lights, progress. So it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is simple being, alive and aware of all things. It is no denial of the past or the future as such things are not reality at all, they are mental constructions. However, to not recognize the past in yourself presently is a disconnection from who you are. That is not being whole. Being in the moment allows us to create the world though simple goodness. It's not about you. You are irrelevant.

Yes, I am irrelevant -- I figured that out some time ago.

Actually, in your thinking you do see yourself as more than relevant, and you're damned unhappy with what you excepted and what you got in exchange, and so live with a dissatisfied resignation, feigning happiness for the sake of others. Yet, and yet, you complain about this lot that you claim gives you some modicum of peace and happiness. I don't believe that for a minute. You wouldn't even talk about it if this was your true conclusion.

 

When I say we are irrelevant I mean we, as in our little egos, are not the center of the universe. However, in a true sense of the word we actually are the center of the universe. It is in us. When we shift the focus off the ego and see the greater whole, and recongize the power and light within us and that that, and that alone is the source of our happiness, it pours out of us into the world, and as I said, "we are irrelevant". You are disappointed for a reason, and the fact that life outside you sucks, is irrelevant as well.

 

Given that my life isn't my own, but is just something I find myself in the middle of, I find that a double edged sword.

Of course your life is your own, plus that life is more than just who you call Bob. You should find the way to make it shine, rather than lick your wounds and take a strange comfort in pouring vinegar on it, the way you seem to do. wink.png

 

I get that life is a cycle of growth but it's not a cycle that interests me and it's not a cycle I signed on for. I'm here now because I have certain obligations to myself and to others but I will be happy to discharge them and return to dust, frankly. I'll leave it to people who actually, for whatever reason, want it.

I don't believe you believe this for one second. You say this as a complaint to the universe for letting you down. And yet, you still want.

 

In order to not annoy people around me I have learned to laugh, not at any actual delights, but at absurdity. People generally mistake one for the other, and it works out for them.

And yet, you want more.

 

I know how to keep on keeping on. There's little else for it. Striving for any particular thing or for actual control of your life, though, is a fool's errand.

You know Bob... I want to share something that who knows, might reach through that cynical defense. I was talking to someone recently about during meditative practice to find that space of clarity, of calm, of openness and joy. This pertains to you and your "seeking", and its subsequent, and inevitable failure. I said to her, the saying "Seek and you shall find", has a certain irony to it. The seeking, is in not seeking. The seeking is not about YOU finding something for YOU. The seeking for that is for its own sake. You seek that not for personal experience, but to embrace what is greater than you for its own sake. It's not "God" give me, give me, make me happy, give me joy, blah, blah, blah. It's about embracing Peace for its own sake, and YOU, are along for the ride. You want to be part of that for its own sake, not yours!

 

So "seek and you shall find" is really with the simple, yet incredibly difficult to do, caveat. You don't seek it for yourself. When you do that, then and only then you will be filled. You will know. You will have what you are so bitterly disappointed the universe hasn't delivered. It's not about you. However you are relevant as part of that. Very relevant, and you'll never know it if you think the treasure should be yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say we are irrelevant I mean we, as in our little egos, are not the center of the universe. However, in a true sense of the word we actually are the center of the universe. It is in us. When we shift the focus off the ego and see the greater whole, and recognize the power and light within us and that that, and that alone is the source of our happiness, it pours out of us into the world, and as I said, "we are irrelevant". You are disappointed for a reason, and the fact that life outside you sucks, is irrelevant as well.

I've done a number of things this very day for the greater whole. I recognize the inherent value in that, or trust me, I wouldn't be here to have this conversation with you.

 

At the same time, of late my faith in that value has been shaken. Have I done my children any favors brining them into this world? To what end did I devote myself to the women in my life, one of whom today is a Thorazine zombie, the other dead? I am not so sure about how that sort of thing is supposed to be a source of True Happiness™. I probably am missing something entirely here, no doubt, that usually ends up being the case. We have a friend who is a special ed teacher and she speaks of people who adopt slobbering, poop-throwing horrors cranked out by cocaine mothers and somehow feel self-actuated and fulfilled by it even if success is at best defined as "ten percent less drool and poop". I don't comprehend where they find the faith that this is doing good, compared to just putting them out of their misery. Sometimes doing good amounts in my book to perpetuating evil and suffering. I feel that, while I have meant well, to some extent that is just what I have unwittingly devoted dismaying swaths of my life to. And every time I adjust course I seem to be doing more of it.

 

The seeking is not about YOU finding something for YOU. The seeking for that is for its own sake. You seek that not for personal experience, but to embrace what is greater than you for its own sake. It's not "God" give me, give me, make me happy, give me joy, blah, blah, blah. It's about embracing Peace for its own sake, and YOU, are along for the ride. You want to be part of that for its own sake, not yours!

... It's not about you. However you are relevant as part of that. Very relevant, and you'll never know it if you think the treasure should be yours.

"For its own sake"? Poor choice of words, as if The Greater Good were a being that gave a fig about what you do for it, rather than merely a concept that you and I might not even have the same definition for. Of course what you really mean is that doing the Right Thing has inherent value. And I get that. However, you and I still require certain things -- and I see no reason to pretend that isn't so or to apologize for it being so.

 

Am I "seeking personal experience" and even if I am, is that a Bad Thing? I really would be fairly content if the people I care about were at least stress free and happy and safe. So I don't think I'm really focusing on my personal gratification or asking for anything that's unreasonable or improper. To the extent I am disappointed I suppose it's because I didn't get something I wanted but we're not talking about me wanting a Ferrari collection or something.

 

I guess we go round and round about this and I just need to shut my pie hole. I can't fix my life and I certainly don't expect anyone else to. I have cobbled together something that kinda-sorta works and that is all anyone really does. Sometimes it just gets to me. Less and less, as time goes on, thankfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know how to keep on keeping on. There's little else for it. Striving for any particular thing or for actual control of your life, though, is a fool's errand.

You know Bob... I want to share something that who knows, might reach through that cynical defense. I was talking to someone recently about during meditative practice to find that space of clarity, of calm, of openness and joy. This pertains to you and your "seeking", and its subsequent, and inevitable failure. I said to her, the saying "Seek and you shall find", has a certain irony to it. The seeking, is in not seeking. The seeking is not about YOU finding something for YOU. The seeking for that is for its own sake. You seek that not for personal experience, but to embrace what is greater than you for its own sake. It's not "God" give me, give me, make me happy, give me joy, blah, blah, blah. It's about embracing Peace for its own sake, and YOU, are along for the ride. You want to be part of that for its own sake, not yours!

 

So "seek and you shall find" is really with the simple, yet incredibly difficult to do, caveat. You don't seek it for yourself. When you do that, then and only then you will be filled. You will know. You will have what you are so bitterly disappointed the universe hasn't delivered. It's not about you. However you are relevant as part of that. Very relevant, and you'll never know it if you think the treasure should be yours.

 

Antlerman,

 

Do I hear you saying, "loving ones Ultimate Concern (Tillich) for nothing."

 

Are you suggesting that we love God unconditionally . . . no matter what . . . for nothing?

 

Tucked away in Frederick Buechner’s book, A Room Called Remember, is a stunningly moving and strikingly powerful testimony that describes what it is like to love God

unconditionally. It is a passage in which Buechner tells about the time he and his wife flew to a hospital on the other side of the country to be with their critically ill daughter. The Buechner’s daughter was in her early twenties, but she weighed less than she had as a child. Her disease [anorexia nervosa] had reduced her to a skeleton. Buechner said that, though he had known her since the day of her birth, if he had passed his own daughter in the corridor he would not have recognized her.

 

Buechner wrote these words about what he felt at his daughter’s side in that awful time:

I had passed beyond grief, beyond terror, all but beyond hope, and it was there, in that wilderness, that for the first time I caught sight of what it must be like to truly love God. It was only a glimpse, but it was like stumbling on fresh water in the desert. ‘Though God was nowhere to be clearly seen or clearly heard . . . I loved God. I loved God because there was nothing else left . . . I loved God not so much in spite of there being nothing in it for me but almost because there was nothing in it for me. For the first time in my life, there in that wilderness, I caught a glimpse of what it must be like to love God truly, for God’s own sake, to love God no matter what. . . I did not love God because I was some sort of saint or hero. I did not love God because I suddenly saw the light or because I hoped by loving God to persuade God to heal the young woman I loved. I loved God because I couldn’t help myself.

 

 

 

Frederick Buechner, A Room Called Remember (San Francisco:

Harper & Row, 1984) 42-43.

 

Does the above reflect some semblance of what you are suggesting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tucked away in Frederick Buechner’s book, A Room Called Remember, is a stunningly moving and strikingly powerful testimony that describes what it is like to love God unconditionally. It is a passage in which Buechner tells about the time he and his wife flew to a hospital on the other side of the country to be with their critically ill daughter. The Buechner’s daughter was in her early twenties, but she weighed less than she had as a child. Her disease [anorexia nervosa] had reduced her to a skeleton. Buechner said that, though he had known her since the day of her birth, if he had passed his own daughter in the corridor he would not have recognized her.

 

Buechner wrote these words about what he felt at his daughter’s side in that awful time:

I saw this passage many years ago and my reaction now is about the same as it was then: Oh. My. God. It's a classic case of someone in an abusive relationship, making excuses for the abuser. And not even a coherent excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I hear you saying, "loving ones Ultimate Concern (Tillich) for nothing."

I'm not familiar with how Tillich meant that, so I cannot say. I know Tillich spoke of God in more nondualist language, so when he says this about "loving God", so to speak, it wouldn't necessarily mean in it the dualist sense as what you next quote here in this post.

 

Are you suggesting that we love God unconditionally . . . no matter what . . . for nothing?

Not in that language.

 

 

Tucked away in Frederick Buechner’s book, A Room Called Remember, is a stunningly moving and strikingly powerful testimony that describes what it is like to love God

unconditionally. It is a passage in which Buechner tells about the time he and his wife flew to a hospital on the other side of the country to be with their critically ill daughter. The Buechner’s daughter was in her early twenties, but she weighed less than she had as a child. Her disease [anorexia nervosa] had reduced her to a skeleton. Buechner said that, though he had known her since the day of her birth, if he had passed his own daughter in the corridor he would not have recognized her.

 

Buechner wrote these words about what he felt at his daughter’s side in that awful time:

I had passed beyond grief, beyond terror, all but beyond hope, and it was there, in that wilderness, that for the first time I caught sight of what it must be like to truly love God. It was only a glimpse, but it was like stumbling on fresh water in the desert. ‘Though God was nowhere to be clearly seen or clearly heard . . . I loved God. I loved God because there was nothing else left . . . I loved God not so much in spite of there being nothing in it for me but almost because there was nothing in it for me. For the first time in my life, there in that wilderness, I caught a glimpse of what it must be like to love God truly, for God’s own sake, to love God no matter what. . . I did not love God because I was some sort of saint or hero. I did not love God because I suddenly saw the light or because I hoped by loving God to persuade God to heal the young woman I loved. I loved God because I couldn’t help myself.

 

 

 

Frederick Buechner, A Room Called Remember (San Francisco:

Harper & Row, 1984) 42-43.

 

Does the above reflect some semblance of what you are suggesting?

No. I am saying we become the compassion that is "God", as that is our own true Nature. Becoming that, how we see and respond to the world is radically transformed. How we see and respond to all things changes radically. I'm talking about not "loving God unconditionally as some person or being that we look to to act for us in the world. I'm talking about becoming God, embracing, realizing that true Nature in ourselves and living it and experiencing all of life in its pains and sorrows and joys through that Nature. It's not about making things all happy as in some myth of Utopia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tucked away in Frederick Buechner’s book, A Room Called Remember, is a stunningly moving and strikingly powerful testimony that describes what it is like to love God unconditionally. It is a passage in which Buechner tells about the time he and his wife flew to a hospital on the other side of the country to be with their critically ill daughter. The Buechner’s daughter was in her early twenties, but she weighed less than she had as a child. Her disease [anorexia nervosa] had reduced her to a skeleton. Buechner said that, though he had known her since the day of her birth, if he had passed his own daughter in the corridor he would not have recognized her.

 

Buechner wrote these words about what he felt at his daughter’s side in that awful time:

I saw this passage many years ago and my reaction now is about the same as it was then: Oh. My. God. It's a classic case of someone in an abusive relationship, making excuses for the abuser. And not even a coherent excuse.

 

Bob,

 

As to how Buechner's passage excuses any "abusiveness," I'll let you be the judge of that. I would not be surprised that any diagnosis you offer will be qualified by your unabridged credentials, expertise and intellect.

 

Out of respect I will refrain from labeling any unspoken/unwritten messages I sense, except for the curriculum vita reference.

 

To be truthful, Bob, most of your "responses" are predictable.

 

But, thanks for taking the time to reply, even though you have seen and heard all this candy store spirituality before!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to how Buechner's passage excuses any "abusiveness," I'll let you be the judge of that. I would not be surprised that any diagnosis you offer will be qualified by your unabridged credentials, expertise and intellect.

It's just my opinion, and I daresay, the opinion of more than a few others. It is beyond me how someone can believe in an omnibenevolent Orchestrator and then love that entity no matter what it does or fails to do to you. He sounds to me like a neglected / ignored wife, clinging to an illusion about her husband's undying affection for her. Forgive me for not finding this inspirational. This is exactly why I do not hold to such worldviews anymore. If such a being does not exist, worshiping it, particularly for doing nothing, is just plain dumb; if it exists, it's immoral and not worthy of worship.

 

Now if one removes this from the Christian perspective and wants to embrace Life Itself for its own sake, come what may, it's possible that this is not a bad adaptation, if you can pull it off. I admit that little is to be gained from impotently railing against What Is because you have different ideas about What Should Be. But to be moved to tears because such an arrangement is inherently beautiful, seems like a bridge too far to me at this point.

 

If you were insulted by my remark, I apologize. I meant no offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just my opinion, and I daresay, the opinion of more than a few others. It is beyond me how someone can believe in an omnibenevolent Orchestrator and then love that entity no matter what it does or fails to do to you.

This raised an interesting question in my mind and I have some thoughts to that.

 

God is interesting. wink.png What I mean is that God is what I will call that Face we put on the infinite, the ineffable qualities of life that transcend our normal mundane, or painful, world. It is an expression of something inside of us, which I am convinced is just that. The same awe and wonder one experiences looking into the cosmos, into deep space, into the face of nature, is identical to what one finds when they look inside their own soul. Whether they can see it clearly, as in using the telescope to peer into that vast emptiness, they sense that 'greater than me' reality inside them and surrounding them. God is a mental construction of that depth of infinite dimension around them and inside them, not quite grasped, yet felt and experienced.

 

So all that to say that why is it people run headlong into such cognitive dissonance about God, accepting Him (anthropomorphic God) as what would otherwise be like an abusive parent? I say because God represents something much more to them that transcends those questions. The God they have is one constructed from mythic structures of the past, and it is the only available language they have to talk about that symbol, which again also represents more than 'how the world works'. God is real to them because it expresses something they experience.

 

What the difficulty is comes into ones various theologies about that God. It's not that God doesn't exist, since God in its essence is how humans talk about something they experience. It's about notions about God and expectations around that idea. A young child's expectation of his parents and the world is considerable different than when they have their eyes opened as an adult. Cynicism becomes the failure to integrate higher perspective into this.

 

 

Now if one removes this from the Christian perspective and wants to embrace Life Itself for its own sake, come what may, it's possible that this is not a bad adaptation, if you can pull it off. I admit that little is to be gained from impotently railing against What Is because you have different ideas about What Should Be. But to be moved to tears because such an arrangement is inherently beautiful, seems like a bridge too far to me at this point.

It is inherently neutral, and if you are filled with love and compassion, it doesn't make it all pretty and happy, it makes it livable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it people run headlong into such cognitive dissonance about God, accepting Him (anthropomorphic God) as what would otherwise be like an abusive parent? I say because God represents something much more to them that transcends those questions.

Makes perfect sense as an alternative explanation for that author's love-fest for god -- my thought was that he wanted so badly to prop up his particular vision of god that he was experiencing an almost psychotic break from reality in that area. But it could also be that he was responding to something within himself that he had a connection to that was very different and that, perhaps, he had no words for or he was just conflating the two.

It's not that God doesn't exist, since God in its essence is how humans talk about something they experience.

It would be a mistake to think that everyone has an experience of god. I have come to see that I have not. For a long time I assumed everyone was playing along like I was but I now see that some, perhaps most, have some sense of the divine that I apparently lack.

 

It is inherently neutral, and if you are filled with love and compassion, it doesn't make it all pretty and happy, it makes it livable.

I caught you just as you were editing and changing "menstrual" to "neutral". Thank you for that. It was a relief, believe me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to how Buechner's passage excuses any "abusiveness," I'll let you be the judge of that. I would not be surprised that any diagnosis you offer will be qualified by your unabridged credentials, expertise and intellect.

It's just my opinion, and I daresay, the opinion of more than a few others. It is beyond me how someone can believe in an omnibenevolent Orchestrator and then love that entity no matter what it does or fails to do to you. He sounds to me like a neglected / ignored wife, clinging to an illusion about her husband's undying affection for her. Forgive me for not finding this inspirational. This is exactly why I do not hold to such worldviews anymore. If such a being does not exist, worshiping it, particularly for doing nothing, is just plain dumb; if it exists, it's immoral and not worthy of worship.

 

Now if one removes this from the Christian perspective and wants to embrace Life Itself for its own sake, come what may, it's possible that this is not a bad adaptation, if you can pull it off. I admit that little is to be gained from impotently railing against What Is because you have different ideas about What Should Be. But to be moved to tears because such an arrangement is inherently beautiful, seems like a bridge too far to me at this point.

 

If you were insulted by my remark, I apologize. I meant no offense.

 

Come on Bob, insulted, give me a break!

 

No apology necessary. If you do insult me (which I doubt you could) I'll tell you flat out how and why I feel insulted.

 

I think maybe you missed the point of my post to Antlerman-- my question.

 

It had nothing to do with trying to inspire anyone. Buechner's passage happen to be my best "shot" (and maybe a poor one) but it at least gave Antlerman some reference point from which to work. That's all!

 

We both know that Buechner gets lost in the "candy aisle" of the spiritual. I can see how your glucose level could rise when I referenced him. He does get more than a tad too "sweet." A better reference exists, I'm sure. Maybe you could refer to a better one?

 

Remember Bob, this reference was not to inspire nor serve cause to "debone" Buechner!

 

As I stated earlier, I hold my option in check as to the subterraneous nature of your above comments.

 

Antlerman's response reflects what I was after.

 

His perspective offers "boundaries with elasticity," distinctive and clear, yet inclusive and resilient, less rigid that most.

 

His willingness to "verbalize" his position without rancor is welcoming.

 

Disclaimer: This was not a paid advertisement!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.