 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Hey, Everyone. | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/6/2007 8:19 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom:
D, I think, wants the ‘difference’ or the ‘distinction’ between the two to evaporate as well. I don’t know. But that’s the FEELING I get when he starts speaking Hindi!
Let me speak some more "Hindi" to ya, Tom. Just because I know you love it.
Achintya Bheda Abheda
This is a "middle ground" between Advaita (Monistic) and Dvaita (Dualistic) schools of Hinduism.
-----------------------------
Achintya-Bheda-Abheda is the philosophy of inconceivable one-ness and difference, in relation to the individual soul (jiva) and God (Krishna) within the Gaudiya Vaishnava religious tradition. Achintya means 'inconceivable', bheda translates to 'difference', and abheda translates to 'one-ness'. The philosophy was first taught by the movement's theological founder Chaitanya Mahaprabhu(1486 - 1534) and differentiates the Gaudiya tradition from the other Vaishnava Sampradayas.
Historically within Hinduism there are two conflicting philosophies regarding the relationship between living beings (jiva or atma) and God (Ishvara, Brahman or Bhagavan). Advaita schools assert the monistic view that the individual soul and God are one and the same, whereas Dvaita schools give the dualistic argument that the individual soul and God are eternally separate. The philosophy of Achintya-bheda-abheda includes elements of both viewpoints. The living soul is intrinsically linked with the Supreme Lord, and yet at the same time is not the same as God - the exact nature of this relationship being inconceivable to the human mind.
---------------------------
In this belief, there is a bi-polar relational unity between the "atma" and "Brahman" in a panENtheistic way.
Keeping the poles of differentiation in constructive, unifying tension.
FYI. 
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit of Christ, who is in you, whom you have received from God the Father? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
"And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/6/2007 11:01 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Tommay,
Just for the record, I’m on board with you concerning the **I**, the self, and it being distinct from God. Also, for the record, I’m on board with the idea of our disposition and orientation/posture TOWARD God. Which is why I agree with Jamie Smith that it’s “grace all the way down.” As if whatever I’m doing is some form of worship to God, i.e. driving the car, eating, drinking, watching Greg on CNN, vacuuming, whatever. This is the problem of modernism and it’s deistic tendencies. It (more or less PEOPLE living out of a secularistic understanding of reality) wants to separate the material from the spiritual, a form of gnosticism. The whole point and intent of doing theology is a spiritual one. Its not for head knowledge or for some end in itself. And this seems to be how it is with “unspiritual activities.” I don’t dare divide or separate spiritual activities from the other “secular” ones. But I don’t need to be aware of God’s presence in order to be worshipping God. Whatever I do, I do it for his glory irregardless of my being cognizant that I’m doing so (by the way, thanks for the vivid thoughts on using the bathroom the first thing in the morning, that’ll be stuck in my head like for…forever and a day). 
Now, let’s look at this:
Tom: It only means I don’t have it now. It doesn’t assume I can ONLY have it in heaven. Who knows what measure of conscious awareness of God we can reach in this life? I can’t think of a reason why it should be impossible in this life to get to the point where awareness of God is part of all my awareness.
Brandon: But would that not essentially be coming to the point of loss of identity and essentially in agreement with Dwayne concerning oneness with God? I don’t know how one can be 100% completely aware of God’s presence AT ALL TIMES, without essentially saying, “I (if it can be call that now) am one with God.” Frankly, I don’t quite get what you mean by:
“…get to the point where awareness of God is part of all my awareness.”
How would complete awareness of God (as Dwayne describes it) simply be a “part” of ALL MY AWARENESS? If we don’t know what measure of conscious awareness of God that can be reach in this life, I suppose it could be where we have a loss of identity because the only thing we can be aware of or cognizant of is God.
Maybe the mystics can help us, especially Eckart and I hope this answers your last question Tommay. This is adapted from my blog that I told you guys to read a while back, but it looks like no one did except B (if I remember correctly, shame on you people  ).
According to Richard Kieckhefer, it has become clear among academics, that the Christian mystical tradition has employed various distinct concepts of union with God, and scholars have inquired what sort of union one or another mystic sought. Scholars have asked whether they viewed union with God as a MOMENTARY EXPERIENCE or as an ONGOING WAY OF LIFE, and whether they saw this union as CONTINUOUS AND COMPATIBLE with ordinary religious experience and knowledge or as DISCONTINUOUS AND INCOMPATIBLE.
One of the most basic distinctions is between what may be designated as habitual and ecstatic forms of union-i.e., between a habitual consciousness of God's presence (what you are describing and by what I think Dwayne means by being conscious of God‘s presence at all times), which persists as one carries out one's ordinary activities, and a sudden and ecstatic irruption upon one's life, which occurs briefly and intermittently.
By habitual union, we mean what Paul meant in Gal 2:30. Habitual union IN PRINCIPLE IS ACCESSIBLE TO ALL i.e."God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" Phil 2: 13. This union may be seen either as a preparation for ecstatic union (meaning union that is intense ecstasy but brief) or as an ultimate stage in spiritual development. This ultimate stage of spiritual development can also be known as the "unitive life." It ensues only in the highest stages of mystical development, when the mystic enters a PERMANENT STATE OF BLISS and awareness of God's presence (I liken this to Dwayne’s “conscious of God’s presence at all times“). There are other categories as well.
Estatic union
This is generally viewed as a special favor, given to few; the Christian prototype is Paul's experience of being raised up to the third heaven, where he was OBLIVIOUS TO HIS BODY AND HEARD THINGS THAT CANNOT BE TOLD (2 Cor 12: 1-6). This form of union combines the special intensity of ecstasy with the duration of habitual union. Typically, mystics who speak of the unitive life do so only after explicit reference to preceding ecstatic states; in the absence of such references, according to Kieckhefer, it is safest to assume that a mystic who speaks of constant or ongoing union has the simpler phenomenon of habitual union in mind.
Abstractive Union: precludes consciousness of the spatio-temporal world.
Non-abstractive Union: is compatible with such ordinary consiousness.
Ecstatic union is perhaps thought of most often as abstractive-as an encounter with God so intense that one BRIEFLY LOSES ALL SENSE OF TIME AND OF ONE‘S SURROUNDINGS, until one descends from the heights (this is what I normally think of when Dwayne talks about union with God to the point conscious awareness at all times and loss of distinction) into mundane affairs-while habitual union is more readily conceived as nonabstractive. But these are not the only ways of thinking of this, for it is believed by some that Aquinas lived in a virtually constant but abstractive state of permanent trance (this is really what I see Dwayne as speaking about), while ecstatic but nonabstractive experiences are common in Franciscan "nature mystism,” meaning, that there have been numerous varieties of union or mystical experience were recognized.
Other Distinctions
Speculative Mysticism: is characterized by emphasis on the cognitive element, or consciousness of God
Ecstatic Mysticism: stresses the affective enjoyment of mystical union.
Both of these are attempts to recapture and build upon an initial vision-experience. When speculative mysticism is combined with concern for the active life, the result is a "working union" with God, in which one performs external works through the strength God imparts. According to one scholar, Eckhart’s mysticism may have been sparked by an initial experience of ecstatic union, but thereafter what he sought was a habitual sense of God's efficacy within the soul. There is however little effort to provide systematic textual evidence regarding Eckhart's conception of union with God, so I’ll refrain from any comments on that for now.
Interestingly, is the way in which Eckhart reinterprets the classical image of the contemplative Mary and the active Martha. Eckhart distinguishes three "ways" that the soul has for entry into God. The first is by seeking him “IN ALL CREATURES, with manifold activity and ardent love"-- in short, the traditional active way. The second is "a way without way, free and yet bound, raised up, rapt up beyond oneself and all things, without will or image, although without any essential stability"-in other words, the contemplative way with its quest of ecstatic union. The third is in fact not really a way but the destination to which these ways lead, i.e., the beatific vision.
Noteworthy is that Eckhart sees the contemplative life as imperfect and immature UNTIL IT HAS BLOSSOMED FORTH IN ACTIVITY. Martha and her friends are attentive but not anxious, and THEIR ACTIVE LIFE JOINS THEM AS CLOSELY TO GOD AS ONE CAN BE JOINED SHORT OF THE BEATIFIC VISION. Thus, Christ is represented not as reproaching Martha for her short-sightedness, but as comforting her with the assurance that her younger sister will eventually outgrow her contemplative fascination: "Do not be upset, Martha, she (also) has chosen the best part. This (the contemplative stage) will pass away from her. The highest that can befall creatures will befall her; she will be blessed, like you." For Eckhart THE ACTIVE LIFE-or more specifically THE HABITUAL UNION THAT IS POSSIBLE IN THIS LIFE (meaning not the cognizant awareness at all times but rather posture)-is a higher religious ideal than the contemplative life and ecstatic union.
With regard to the loss of identity, as was stated, the notion of habitual and nonabstractive union with God is of fundamental importance to his spirituality. Eckhart speaks of God's ontological relationship to human existence as necessarily constant, and his presence through grace is, or should be, an ongoing mode of life rather than an extraordinary experience. Eckhart says explicitly that in the spark of the soul God is present "eternally without ceasing." Similarly, he says that the Father begets his Son within the soul "without intermission." This birth "takes place in the soul exactly as in eternity, no less and no more. For there is only one birth, which occurs in the being and ground of the soul." In other words, the birth of the Son in the soul is an extension of the generation of the second person within the Trinity. And Eckhart's references to the "eternal birth" admit at least three further interpretations, all in keeping with his essential outlook: as an act of God, this phenomenon is eternal in the same sense that all God's acts are eternal; as a process that occurs within the spark of the soul, it is eternal in the sense that the spark is exempt from the conditions of space and time; and as a process which, for full impact on the life of the individual, requires moral development, it is "eternal" in an extended sense, that it calls for detachment from temporality or worldly objects. Although Eckhart occasionally speaks of the soul as free from time and place, THERE IS NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT HE IS THINKING OF ECSTATIC REMOVAL FROM ORDINARY EXPERIENCE. In all these passages, Eckhart is clearly referring to an ongoing condition of the soul. He would presumably acknowledge that the AWARENESS of this state can, in special circumstances, take an exceptionally intense form during moments of ecstasy.
In his sermon Et cum factus esset Jesus, Eckhart states that when the birth of the Son occurs, the person affected immediately has his attention drawn to it, just as when lightning strikes all those in the vicinity turn toward it. YET HE IS NOT SPEAKING OF AN ECSTATIC WITHDRAWAL FROM THE WORLD AND A RIVETING OF ATTENTION ON GOD IN HIMSELF. Having attained this union, the soul has fallen "into its nothingness" (nihtes niht), and cannot return to its "created something" without divine help. Eckhart does moderate his formulation sufficiently to avoid the doctrine of mystical pantheism-i.e., THE NOTION THAT THE INDIVIDUAL LITERALLY LOSES HIS SEPARATE IDENTITY. Repeatedly he insists, despite his statements about annihilation of the self, that among spiritual beings it is possible for two individuals to be united in such a way that one is absorbed in the other, while both are preserved. When one pours water into a vessel, the water is inside the vessel only in the sense that the vessel defines the space to which the water is restricted; the water and the vessel do not occupy the same space. In the case of spiritual beings, however, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ONE TO BE WITHIN THE OTHER SO THAT UNION DOES NOT IN FACT REQUIRE THE MIRACULOUS DESTRUCTION OF A SUBSTANCE. Still, Eckhart does seem to imply that in union with God the soul, WHILE RETAINING ITS INDIVIDUALITY, LOSES CONSCIOUSNESS OF THAT INDIVIDUALITY.
God's ontological and moral indwelling within the soul is the premise that underlies Eckhart's notion of a habitual union. But one must go beyond merely the notion that God is present in the soul ontologically and by grace; this much is common to Christian theology generally, and is in no way distinctively mystical. One must, at the very least, show furthermore that Eckhart stressed a HABITUAL CONSCIOUSNESS of God's presence. In one sermon, Eckart says that just as the identity of a king requires his own awareness (as well as other people's) that he is king, so also, the blessedness of an individual requires consciousness of God's presence. God is also present to a stone or a block of wood, but they lack the awareness required for beatitude; if they were as conscious of God's presence in them as the highest angel is, then the stone or wooden block would be as blessed as the angel. It is knowledge of God's presence, rather than this presence per se, that constitutes beatitude, and the degree of blessedness corresponds to the measure of one's consciousness. Yet this consciousness is more of a habitual orientation or disposition of the soul generally than it is an explicit, reflective act of cognition; it is an "inner, insightful turning and striving toward God, and not a constant, regular thinking about him." The latter, he goes on to say, would be too hard for human nature to attain, and even if possible would not be the highest ideal. One should strive not for a God of one's cognition, who will vanish along with one's thoughts, but for a substantial God who stands above all thought and all creature." While Eckhart typically emphasizes consciousness of God's presence within the soul, there are passages in which he calls his hearer or reader to attend to God's indwelling throughout creation in which he urges the reader to "become a person who seeks God in all things, and finds God at all times and in all places and among all persons, in all ways." In today’s evangelical atmosphere, one wonders about such "correlationist stadegies."
Thus, from my understanding of Eckhart, he did not view ecstatic or abstractive union with God as integral to the life of the soul, or even as a goal to be sought or particularly treasured. The state to which he invites his readers is that of habitual and nonabstractive union (this does not mean cognizant awareness at all times); he nowhere says (according to some scholars) that other forms are necessary or even helpful in the attainment of that goal. In his sermon on Mary and Martha he grants the possibility that someone following the contemplative "way" may grow into a more fruitful, active spirituality, but neither there nor elsewhere does he appear to require ecstatic union as a prerequisite for spiritual development. Eckhart made it his business to proclaim throughout his work that his hearers' habitual union with God was every bit as good and holy as the ecstatic union stressed in more traditional contemplative literature. As a mendicant (one who didn't own property) rather than an enclosed monk, Eckhart was dedicated to a life of active service in preaching, teaching, and administration. Instead of glorifying the spirituality of the strictly contemplative orders, he enjoined his reader to discover God in all times and places, in all persons and things. If an individual happened to receive ecstatic favors, they presumably came from God. But Eckhart was less concerned with the extraordinary moments in a person's life than with the substance of that life.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 11/6/2007 10:04:26 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/6/2007 11:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon,
James Loder has a concept he calls "mundane ecstasy." (It's actually similar to the idea of sahaja and jivanmukta. ) He gives a good simple description about mundane ecstasy in "The Transforming Moment" page 223 (Parentheses and emphases mine)
Ecstasy: In general usage, a transcendent, "standing-outside-of" the ordinary limits of reality under the impetus of a benevolent spiritual presence. This usage is intended here, except where the term is combined with "mundane." Then it denotes a "standing-outside-of" simultaneous with a "standing-more-deeply-within" the everyday, or the two-dimensional reality. (ie Self and the Lived World) In mundane ecstasy, therefore, ordinary existence can be perceived four-dimensionally (ie Self, Lived World, Void, and the Holy)
In my mind, it's a reality of enstasy and ecstasy at the same time where one REALLY participates in God's World at all times. As one lives epicletically in the "Present Moment", she allows the Eternal/Being into the Temporal/Becoming of life. (One-Story Universe...right, Bruce? )
My personally held conception of continuous "complete awareness of God" falls along these lines. Just for clarification.
Post Edited (Epiklesis) : 11/6/2007 11:17:10 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/7/2007 12:13 AM (GMT -6) | | He who can see the inward in the outward, to him the inward is more inward than to him who can only see the inward in the inward.
--Henry Suso | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/7/2007 12:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Dallas Willard on the thought life of God's "Children of Light"
Renovation of the Heart, pp. 218-219 (All emphases mine)
Perhaps the first thing that comes to our attention when we get to know their inner life is what they think about, or what is on their mind. Simply stated, they think about God. He is never out of their mind. They love to dwell upon God and upon his greatness and loveliness, as brought to light in Jesus Christ. They adore him in nature, in history, in his Son and in his saints.
One could even say they are "God-intoxicated" (Acts 2:13; Ephesians 5:18 ), though no one has a stronger sense of reality and practicality than they do. Their mind is filled with biblical expressions of God's nature, his actions, and his plans for them in his world. They do not dwell upon evil. It is not a big thing in their thoughts. They are sure of its defeat, but they still deal with it appropriately in specific situations.
Because their mind is centered on God and oriented with reference to him, all other good things are also welcome there: "Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise," their mind ponders those things (Phillipians 4:8). They are positive, realistically so, based upon the nature of God as they understand it.
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit of Christ, who is in you, whom you have received from God the Father? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
"And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/7/2007 12:45 AM (GMT -6) | | "I don’t need to be aware of God’s presence in order to be worshipping God."
Does...not...compute...
Must...skate...away.... 
Post Edited (Epiklesis) : 11/6/2007 11:48:10 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/7/2007 7:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon: But I don’t need to be aware of God’s presence in order to be worshipping God. Whatever I do, I do it for his glory irregardless of my being cognizant that I’m doing so (by the way, thanks for the vivid thoughts on using the bathroom the first thing in the morning, that’ll be stuck in my head like for…forever and a day).
Tom: I understand D’s inability to process this. Worship of God without awareness of God? Doesn’t make sense. But I think you might be talking about our dailiy living out previous commitments we make to live for God, and that this living out of past commitments is a kind of worship, even if we don’t walk around consciously aware of the past commitment. Kind of like marriage. There’s something unique about the vow I took on my wedding day that’s unrepeatable. It marks the beginning of the marriage. I don’t get remarried every day. I made that commitment once and now I live in it. So you might say I don’t need to be aware of my wedding day in order to live a married life.
Don’t know about D, but this is’nt what I’m trying to express. What I’m saying is that unbroken awareness of God’s presence IS the married life and not the past commitment to get married. Never losing that awareness is what I in the past committed to pursue and become. So in that sense I have to be aware of God’s presence in order to be worshipping God. Worship arises out of that awareness. It’s the awareness that inspires and motivates worship. Think of worship as a conversation you’re having with somebody. Can you engage in conversation with somebody and not be aware of their presence? No.
------------------------------
Brandon: But would that not essentially be coming to the point of loss of identity and essentially in agreement with Dwayne concerning oneness with God? I don’t know how one can be 100% completely aware of God’s presence AT ALL TIMES, without essentially saying, “I (if it can be call that now) am one with God.”
Tom: Why? You can be aware of your child’s presence without essentially saying you’re one with your child. Just imagine your child never leaving your presence, ever, and you’re remaining aware of his presence with you. You wouldn’t think you weren’t your own person or that your identity was swallowed up in your child’s would you?
Our conscious selves have a limited capacity to process information, right? We can handle a certain information load, then we start losing concentration and then information. Let’s say you’re in your kitchen. The TV is on and you’re watching a Hockey game. But you’re also making a latte at the same time. Then the phone rings and you begin having a light conversation with somebody. You’re multi-tasking. No prob. You’re aware of the game from where you stand in the kitchen, you note the score, you enjoying the goal that just happened AND you’re attending to pouring a cup of coffee AND you’re talking on the phone with somebody confirming an appointment you have tomorrow at 10 AM.
I’m saying two things:
(1) Christ can be a permanent member of our thought life, a permanent constituent among the contents of our conscious awareness. It’s just multi-tasking. Within the content of all that races around my mind at any given point in time during the day, you can find Christ. He’s there and I’m aware he’s there even though I’m aware of several other things.
(2) What we invariably do is prioritize things when we multi-tasking. So there’s a slightly greater level of engagement you might have with the game on TV, which might explain why you put too much sugar in your coffee. Or you might be pulled into your phone conversation and miss the score even though you’re looking at the TV. We invariably prioritize (Whitehead’s idea of ‘importance’). We can’t help it. We seek to attach importance and value to all we experience and observe. What I think ought to happen is that Christ becomes the CENTER of our conscious life around whom everything else in our heads rotates. So everything gets relativized by Christ’s presence and receives an importance rating in relation to the voice and promptings of the Spirit of Christ who’s at the center.
You think this is impossible or undesirable?
---------------------------------
Brandon: Frankly, I don’t quite get what you mean by: “…get to the point where awareness of God is part of all my awareness.”
Tom: Exactly what I said above about multi-taking and prioritizing. Christ is always there among the member thoughts and contemplations of my conscious mind, and hopefully everything gets increasingly organized around Christ.
Brandon: How would complete awareness of God (as Dwayne describes it) simply be a “part” of ALL MY AWARENESS?
Tom: Well, it wouldn’t negate the individual identities of non-God objects that make up your experience. But like I said above, I think (I’m just venturing out here) that all the contents and commitments and processes of our conscious thought life get prioritized around Christ who is the only continuously present member (along with awareness of my own self) of the constantly changing make-up of our thought life. So Christ directs the traffic. In this sense I think we can be completely aware of God. That is, our thought lives are completely saturated with the awareness of God. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be aware of OTHER things too. Complete awareness of Christ isn’t awareness only of Christ. It’s awareness of “Christ + whatever else is going on” and whatever else is going on gets valued by us in virtue of its relationship to Christ. It either finds a home or is shown the door.
So much for this-worldly thinking where a lot of what enters our thoughts aims to dethrone Christ. In heaven we won’t have that. So I imagine glorification will mean an unimaginable release of capacities to process information and experiences ALL OF WHICH will be compatible with Christ’s being at the center!
Again, I don’t think everything IS Christ, so I don’t imagine Christ will be ALL that constitutes our consciousness in heaven. D thinks differently.
Brandon: If we don’t know what measure of conscious awareness of God that can be reach in this life, I suppose it could be where we have a loss of identity because the only thing we can be aware of or cognizant of is God.
Tom: That’s part of the old conversation with D over self identity and oneness with God. I’m not even in that discussion right now. I’m just talking about being aware of God. We can do that. And we know we can be aware simultaneously of several things and manage them well in our thought life. What’s so difficult then about saying Christ can remain in conscious thought life as the organizing principle of beauty and valuation for all that we think and do and that we never have to have Christ leave our conscious thought in order to give our attention to other things.
I’ll try to read your stuff on Eckart. I have a reeeeeally hard time reading mystics.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/7/2007 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Loder was nothing short of a genius.
From "The Transforming Moment", Chapter 4: Convictional Knowing, pp. 109-111.
All emphases mine.
----------------------
When one's being is gracious recreated by the Holy One, one is free to indwell and compose his World in all of it's particularity, fascination, and beauty. One's eyes are opened to the particularity of goodness and the goodness of being-itself when one's particular being has been embraced and affirmed by Christ Jesus, in whom being-itself became particular. In this "transparency" of faith, as Kierkegaard spoke of it, is exhibited not only by the self toward its ground in Christ but also toward the World as the creation of Christ's intention.
Such an intramundane ecstasy has serious, long-range consequences about which I will say more later. At this point, it should be noted that such an ecstasy is a affront to those personal, social, and cultural systems that are built on a systematic repression of the Void and the Holy. Confrontation of "worlds" is inevitable; hence the power of new being endowed by the indwelling presence of the Holy must reengage the Void concealed in those "worlds" designed to deny it. [Epiklesis' Note: Singleminded love of the Father and love of the "worlds" created by the fallen ego are mutually exclusive!] Christian ecstasy necessarily makes history precisely because it is given to faith for the sake of the World [that] God intends to compose, a World to be manifested through the anguish, tears, and joy of sacrificial love.
There is a second important distinction to be made here between the Christian spiritual process and the way of Zen. As I noted, the contemplative Zen practitioner makes an effort to attain release at the beginning in order that the "world" he or she creates may be engaged and molded "spiritually"; whether it be through a tea ceremony, sword fighting, or archery, the practitioner is seeking freedom and power to gain mastery over the "world" by submission to the Supreme Doctrine. This is, of course, distinctly different from the Christian's Worldly ecstasy in which one see in bold outline the particularity and good ness of the World [that] God intends. Consequently, in the mundane ecstasy of Christian conviction, the ecstatic does not do what he or she, the ecstatic, chooses or sees as good, but what Christ's Spirit intends through his action in the clash of "worlds."
To be sure, the Christian ecstatic is liberated by a new awareness; the "I," as in therapeutic knowing, is set in the position of being free to choose for or against the new World [that] Christ intends. Yet this sort of freedom and power to create depends entirely on discerning the intentionality of Christ. The point is not to discover how to do things "spiritually," but to discover what the Spirit of Christ is doing so as to choose for his [Christ's] World.
Thus the Christian response is less likely to be marked by manifestations of spiritual power than by sacrificial love. But even here, one does not decide ahead of time what is loving and then seek spiritual power for doing that; rather, one seeks the Presence of Christ and receives discernment regarding his [Christ's] intention so that freedom, power, or whatever may be called for will have contours that fit what God is already doing. In Christian terms, one seeks to compose only the World that God is composing.
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit of Christ, who is in you, whom you have received from God the Father? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
"And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." Post Edited (Epiklesis) : 11/7/2007 7:08:56 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/7/2007 8:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: (emphases mine)
What I’m saying is that unbroken awareness of God’s presence IS the married life and not the past commitment to get married. Never losing that awareness is what I in the past committed to pursue and become. So in that sense I have to be aware of God’s presence in order to be worshipping God. Worship arises out of that awareness. It’s the awareness that inspires and motivates worship. Think of worship as a conversation you’re having with somebody. Can you engage in conversation with somebody and not be aware of their presence? No.
Exactly. Chosen, Perpetual Epicletic/Eucharistic life in God's Kairos every "Present Moment" of one's existence.
****************************************************
Tom:
What I think ought to happen is that Christ becomes the CENTER of our conscious life around whom everything else in our heads rotates. So everything gets relativized by Christ’s presence and receives an importance rating in relation to the voice and promptings of the Spirit of Christ who’s at the center.
Isn't this simply what Jesus/YHWH has been saying all along?
"Love the Lord your God with ALL your heart, soul, mind, and strength"
"Seek FIRST the Kingdom of God and all his righteousness..."
How about "Thou shalt have no other gods (OR PRIORITIES) before Me."
We are simply talking about the purity of heart which is the UNIFICATION and HEALING of the nous to will one thing: God. God is not only the Center and Source of our life...but, through sanctifying grace through faith, God can be the TOTALITY of our "lives"
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit of Christ, who is in you, whom you have received from God the Father? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
"And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." Post Edited (Epiklesis) : 11/7/2007 7:24:50 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/7/2007 8:57 AM (GMT -6) | | | More Loder. In his book (with W. Jim Neidhardt), The Knight's Move: The Relational Logic of the Spirit in Theology and Science, there is a section called "The Spiritual Recentering of Human Development." Here, he discusses his model of spirtual growth. All parentheses and emphases are mine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This model further suggests that human development, currently being studied almost exclusively at the level of ego function and formation, is to be reinterpreted as centering not on the ego (Note: The self-understandings of "Tom", "Dwayne", "Brandon" are EGO-FORMATIONS...mental constructs that our brains have garnered because of our EMBODIED experiences between the "Self" and "Lived World"! This is extremely important to understand!) but on intensification as a bipolarity that extends between the ego and the Absolute Unity of Being. This bipolarity may be seen as the spiritual axis for human development, which intersects the arc of ego-development as one of it's polarities, and Absolute Unity at the center, as the other. Ego development (Erikson, Piaget, Kohlberg, etc) may be seen as circumnambulation around the center, the Absolute Unity of Being, but left to itself ego development is inextricably rooted in negation and eventual death. (Note: The mental formation of the ego CANNOT maintain it's self-relational integrity by itself. It needs a transcendent ground to do that. SK was RIGHT!) Spiritual development consists in increased access between the ego and the Divine center, not in ego development per se. Thus, the immature ego of the child may have greater access to the Center and be more spiritually mature than an adult ego with less access. (Note: Remember AKIANE, the artist child of God?) However, the adult ego may be more articulate with less access than the child and so effectively confuse the issue, making it appear incorrectly that ego development is definitive of spiritual development.
Although it cannot be fully spelled out here, this model suggests that the classic fourfold pattern of spiritual development is parallel to the phases of intensification. This pattern moves from awakening to purgation to illumination to unification, and at each stage access to the Divine center is enhanced as ego anxiety and strategies of defense subside. Thus, if the Christological nature of the model pertains as described above, then spiritual development may be conceived as a way of life in which one increasingly appropriates the bipolar coherence of Christ into one's own nature. It should be evident that this in no way represents ego inflation or egoistic striving: it is precisely the opposite; but the "I" who says "I, not I, but Christ" is not lost, only recentered from the ego ("Tom", "Dwayne", Brandon", etc) to the One who holds in his nature the full and complete account of the mutual indwelling of the Divine and the human. (Note: Christ becomes the true "subject" of all one's experience!!)
-------------------------------------------------
In the same book, from the section is "The Self's Experiential Appropriation of Trinitarian Life", pp.299-300 (All parentheses Loder's)
Let us now summarize the experiential appropriation of trinitarian life by way of the same three levels Torrance used to describe the emergence fo the doctrine of the Trinity. First, the spontaneous creative work of consciousness which is both autobiographical (involving the "I" ) and symbolically constructed (not merely awareness as shared with lower animals) is, as we have suggested, implicitly but not sufficiently perichoretic. It is already the bearer of despair. Second, intentional efforts to created a new frame of knowledge vis-a-vis any given situation or problem, as in Einstein's productive thought, approaches ever more profoundly, but still insufficiently, the perichoretic potential in the mind and self of the knower. Even great creative efforts do not elude despair. Third, for Kierkegaard, is the decisive level in which the Divine Presence is able, in turn, to indwell the self via the Holy Spirit. That is, the Holy Spirit generates an open-ended reality that replicates in human nature the Divine nature of the Trinity. Here the image indwells its Original and, at the same time, and because of that indwelling, becomes a reflection of it. The transparently grounded self is thus sustained as such by the Divine nature and at the same time is transcended by it as Original transcends image.
Note that the Perichoretic reality that demonstrates itself in the Epicletic "leap" of faith!
---------------------------
Hmmm...
Almost sounds like...
Achintya-Bheda-Abheda: "inconceivable oneness and difference" between Brahman and Atma
Interesting, isn't it?
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit of Christ, who is in you, whom you have received from God the Father? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
"And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." Post Edited (Epiklesis) : 11/7/2007 8:10:11 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/7/2007 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Loder: The point is not to discover how to do things "spiritually," but to discover what the Spirit of Christ is doing so as to choose for his [Christ's] World.
Tom: Exactly. To perceive some things as spiritual and others as anything else is the mistake. Rather, see it all as a uniform theater of existing and being in which the only question is whether we pusue arrangements and states under the direction of Christ is under our own direction.
Loder: Thus the Christian response is less likely to be marked by manifestations of spiritual power than by sacrificial love.
Tom: Aw, now that's sad. Here Loder makes the very mistake he warns against in my immeidately preceding quote of him. Here he dichotimizes between manifestations of spiritual power and sacrificial love as if sacrificial love isn't a manifestation of spiritual power. What else is it?
I know I know. If I speaking in the tongues of...and heal...and exercise all these gifts and HAVE NOT LOVE (thus, Paul distinguishes between the two), I am nothing. OK, if that's what Loder has in mind, fine.
Loder: But even here, one does not decide ahead of time what is loving and then seek spiritual power for doing that; rather, one seeks the Presence of Christ and receives discernment regarding his [Christ's] intention so that freedom, power, or whatever may be called for will have contours that fit what God is already doing.
Tom: Precisely. That's what I had in mind!
Loder: In Christian terms, one seeks to compose only the World that God is composing.
Tom: Perfectomundo.
T
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/7/2007 1:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Interesting stuff Tom. I'll post when I get back from work today. I'm still not seeing it. I think some things we are saying the same thing but a different way.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted Yesterday 10:59 PM (GMT -6) | |
Aabout the skating Robot. Love it. I laughed so hard I don't believe I was cognizant of God's presence for just a couple of seconds there. Oh but wait. I think when I was laughing so hard? I was doing what I was created to do! In reflection, I think God was there in that moment as fully as he would be if I was "fully" aware of his presence, just that I'm wasn't as cognizant of his presence at that time. Yes. God enjoyed seeing me laugh and enjoyed seeing me participate in the world in this unique way. Talk about having a stronger sense of reality. Yeah, it's like becoming so much more like Christ that I become more and more human! TRULY human. But you know? I think because I didn't recognize this AT THE TIME I did? I was probably not "centered on God" for JUST THAT MOMENT. But seriously, why should I not have a Pauline experience of being lifted up to the third heaven, but not just a one time experience, but live like Aquinas in a trance like state. Why not live in COMPLETE ecstatic abstractive union at all times? For me it's because this is God's world and it is good and I can't help but think that he wants me to enjoy IT as an act of worship to him (inspite of all the evil around me, oh I'm sorry, was I laughing with friends at the local Starbucks while some kid I don't know was being used for sex or slavery in another part of the world? While Zozia was having her eyes gouged out?).
Tommay, you are responding directly to what I’m trying to get at.
Tom: I understand D’s inability to process this. Worship of God without awareness of God? Doesn’t make sense.
Brandon: OK. How about this? Let’s just say I go to an amusement park with my child. We get so enraptured with all the fun we are having that we lose all sense of time and space for a few fleeting moments on a tea-cup ride. I just live in that moment as if everything else stands still. Things seem to “slow down.” Why can’t this be very worshipful activity even though the only thing I’m cognizant of at this moment is my child and me and this particular scene? Why can’t eating and drinking be worshipful? I tend to believe that when we do something, by virtue of the fact that we were created to do these things, we are ipso facto worshiping God. I tend to believe, that though sinners who have not had an experiential relationship with God are still worshipping God regardless of whether they are cognizant of this fact or not. They may not be worshipping God in “fullness and truth,” but by virtue of the fact that they are doing what they do best via fulfilling their human destinies they are to some degree worshipping God because God created them for this.
Tom: But I think you might be talking about our daily living out previous commitments we make to live for God, and that this living out of past commitments is a kind of worship, even if we don’t walk around consciously aware of the past commitment. Kind of like marriage. There’s something unique about the vow I took on my wedding day that’s unrepeatable. It marks the beginning of the marriage. I don’t get remarried every day. I made that commitment once and now I live in it. So you might say I don’t need to be aware of my wedding day in order to live a married life.
Don’t know about D, but this is’nt what I’m trying to express. What I’m saying is that unbroken awareness of God’s presence IS the married life and not the past commitment to get married. Never losing that awareness is what I in the past committed to pursue and become. So in that sense I have to be aware of God’s presence in order to be worshipping God. Worship arises out of that awareness. It’s the awareness that inspires and motivates worship. Think of worship as a conversation you’re having with somebody. Can you engage in conversation with somebody and not be aware of their presence? No.
Brandon: Right. I agree that you cannot have a conversation with somebody and not be aware of their presence, but that seems to narrow by what I mean by worship. Again, I tend to believe that even if a sinner is a mechanical engineer and he is doing what he does best and enjoys it and it’s “his thing” in life? He is worshipping God by virtue of the fact that he is “taking his rightful place in this world.”
Tom: Why? You can be aware of your child’s presence without essentially saying you’re one with your child. Just imagine your child never leaving your presence, ever, and you’re remaining aware of his presence with you. You wouldn’t think you weren’t your own person or that your identity was swallowed up in your child’s would you?
Our conscious selves have a limited capacity to process information, right? We can handle a certain information load, then we start losing concentration and then information. Let’s say you’re in your kitchen. The TV is on and you’re watching a Hockey game. But you’re also making a latte at the same time. Then the phone rings and you begin having a light conversation with somebody. You’re multi-tasking. No prob. You’re aware of the game from where you stand in the kitchen, you note the score, you enjoying the goal that just happened AND you’re attending to pouring a cup of coffee AND you’re talking on the phone with somebody confirming an appointment you have tomorrow at 10 AM.
I’m saying two things:
(1) Christ can be a permanent member of our thought life, a permanent constituent among the contents of our conscious awareness. It’s just multi-tasking. Within the content of all that races around my mind at any given point in time during the day, you can find Christ. He’s there and I’m aware he’s there even though I’m aware of several other things.
(2) What we invariably do is prioritize things when we multi-tasking. So there’s a slightly greater level of engagement you might have with the game on TV, which might explain why you put too much sugar in your coffee. Or you might be pulled into your phone conversation and miss the score even though you’re looking at the TV. We invariably prioritize (Whitehead’s idea of ‘importance’). We can’t help it. We seek to attach importance and value to all we experience and observe. What I think ought to happen is that Christ becomes the CENTER of our conscious life around whom everything else in our heads rotates. So everything gets relativized by Christ’s presence and receives an importance rating in relation to the voice and promptings of the Spirit of Christ who’s at the center.
You think this is impossible or undesirable?
And
Well, it wouldn’t negate the individual identities of non-God objects that make up your experience. But like I said above, I think (I’m just venturing out here) that all the contents and commitments and processes of our conscious thought life get prioritized around Christ who is the only continuously present member (along with awareness of my own self) of the constantly changing make-up of our thought life. So Christ directs the traffic. In this sense I think we can be completely aware of God. That is, our thought lives are completely saturated with the awareness of God. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be aware of OTHER things too. Complete awareness of Christ isn’t awareness only of Christ. It’s awareness of “Christ + whatever else is going on” and whatever else is going on gets valued by us in virtue of its relationship to Christ. It either finds a home or is shown the door.
Brandon: And that is my problem. Again, I ask, what would be the problem of wanting a level of awareness of God such that God is in, through, under, around my consciousness and being, and I’m in God such as to experience such unification with God as Dwayne seems to speak of with regard to theosis? A third heaven where we are OBLIVIOUS to our surroundings type of union? See, I think you are simply repeating your position, but you really haven’t shown me WHY complete full awareness is not something that should be desirable in this way? And that seems to me to be what Dwayne is saying about distinction and identity loss. I mean you use the example of being in your child’s presence and not losing distinction from them. But this seems to me to be what Dwayne is NOT saying at least as far as theosis is concerned. Why would you want to be in a position where you are aware of other things? Would it not be better to be aware of one and only one thing--God? To me that is what saturated and intoxicated essentially means. For example, say it was just you and your wife in which both of you are sitting by the fireplace, no kids around, glass of wine, soft romantic smooth jazz (Austin Powers-“Yeah baaaby”) and for that moment everything stands still. All that exists is that moment when this connection between the both of you is to such a degree as to sense a oneness at the deepest level possible. It seems that the multi-tasking state example is of a lesser quality of a relationship (simple awareness of Christ as opposed to not necessarily “only” as that “only” sounds negative, but “ALL” awareness, i.e. loss of distinction and identity) given the theosis that Dwayne is talking about.
Basically I’m agreeing with you against Dwayne. I agree that we can have “Christ + whatever else is going on” which is to say that “whatever else is going on” is very important in the life of the Christian which is to say that “whatever else is going on” if it means anything, it means that we are not totally absorbed and intoxicated and cognizant of God at all times. God wants us as created creatures to participate in THIS world. Not to be totally absorbed in a “third heaven experience,” “mountain top experience” in which we are not aware of anything else (EVEN OURSELVES i.e. identity loss) as distinct from God.
I think of the Transfiguration and of Moses when he received the 10 Commandments. In Matt 17 it says:
1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!” 6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their faces and were greatly afraid. 7 But Jesus came and touched them and said, “Arise, and do not be afraid.” 8 When they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only. 9 Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead.” 10 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” 11 Jesus answered and said to them, “Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.
In both instances, Matt 17 and the Moses on Mt. Sinai, apparently it was not God’s intentions for them to stay on the mountain. There were other important things to be done. Yes, centered around the Kingdom, but that is what I mean by “posture” or “oriented.” Not a cognizant full awareness at all points in time.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 11/8/2007 10:08:10 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted Today 5:40 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Brandon: I think God was there in that moment as fully as he would be if I was "fully" aware of his presence, just that I wasn't as cognizant of his presence at that time.
Tom: Of course GOD is as present with you whether YOU are cognizant of it or not. THAT is just the point. Since he IS, why wouldn't our being aware of this serve us better than our not being aware of it?
Brandon: But you know? I think because I didn't recognize this AT THE TIME I did? I was probably not "centered on God" for JUST THAT MOMENT. But seriously, why should I not have a Pauline experience of being lifted up to the third heaven, but not just a one time experience, but live like Aquinas in a trance like state. Why not live in COMPLETE ecstatic abstractive union at all times?
Tom: How about complete non-abstract union at all times? Again, for me “complete awareness of X” doesn’t mean “awareness ONLY of X,” it just means "always aware of X whatever else we might also be aware of."
--------------------------------
Tom: I understand D’s inability to process this. Worship of God without awareness of God? Doesn’t make sense.
Brandon: OK. How about this? Let’s just say I go to an amusement park with my child. We get so enraptured with all the fun we are having that we lose all sense of time and space for a few fleeting moments on a tea-cup ride. I just live in that moment as if everything else stands still. Things seem to “slow down.” Why can’t this be very worshipful activity even though the only thing I’m cognizant of at this moment is my child and me and this particular scene?
Tom: I wouldn’t decry any effort on your part to offer any manner of worship to God on any level. The more the better, on whatever level. My only point is that there’s a sense in which the perception within which you operate in the enjoyment of that moment isn’t complete if it only contains you and your child. The fact is, God is there in the tea cup as well, enjoying the moment. He’s REALLY there, right? Then a perception (and following the perception, the enjoyment) of the moment that excludes awareness of God’s presence there WITH you is incomplete. I’m not saying you can’t perceive of yourself as enjoying it because you know God’s been good to you and he wants to you to enjoy creation. That’s not a BAD connection to make. But it’s like telling yourself, for example, that you’re there enjoying it because Tom bought you and your son tickets to go enjoy yourselves for the day. I’m thought of IN THE THIRD PERSON so to speak, as having something to do with the enjoyment of the moment but not AS PRESENT enjoying the moment with you.
So suppose one of your other kids was REALLY there as well (you and two of your kids). And suppose further that in your enjoyment of the moment you only have one of your children in mind, are aware of only one of them. You know you have another child--somewhere. You’re not ignorant of this fact. But you don’t consciously perceive that child’s presence in the tea cup even though he's really there and would like to be a part of your enjoyment of the moment. In this case wouldn’t you agree there's MORE to perceive and enjoy?
That’s what I have in mind. The literal presence of Christ, really sustaining and engaging and seeking to be a part of all we are and do is REALLY there in the tea cup wanting to be perceived as a partner in the moment and through that awareness to make the moment all it can be. If you can be aware of and enjoy a tea cup ride that includes you and two of your children (that’s three persons), why can’t you enjoy a tea cup ride that includes you and one of your children and Christ (that’s still just three persons, you can handle that!)? I’m not assigning fault or blame or rebuke to ANY successful perception of goodness and love in the world on ANY level. I just want to aim for higher levels of perception and enjoyment, that's all.
-------------------------------
Brandon: Why can’t eating and drinking be worshipful?
Tom: They can and must be. I just imagine that actions performed within a perception that includes God as personally present along with all the other REAL members that constitute the objects of our experience—the food, the wine, the candle lights, the aroma, etc.—is a truer picture of reality. It has to be truer if it’s the case the God really IS personally present at the table. See? And I think that truer pictures of reality (truer perceptions of reality) mean more beauty and enjoyment, because beauty and its enjoyment come from perceiving the world accurately.
Brandon: I tend to believe that when we do something, by virtue of the fact that we were created to do these things, we are ipso facto worshiping God.
Tom: True. But that’s—what’s the word?—kinda analytical. But “by virtue of the fact” might suggest an absentee landlord sort of deism that says, “Don’t know where God is right now, but hey, he sure did leave us a great world to enjoy. Hope to share all this enjoyment with him someday when I get to heaven so I can thank him personally.” It misses the deeper truth which is that by virtue of the fact that God is everywhere present and seeking beauty on personal level right now, we don’t have to tell God about our “moments” after the fact. We can share EVERY enjoyment with him IN THE MOMENT. That’s why he created, not to watch us enjoy our moments but through our perceiving him as part OF the moment (along with everybody else in the moment) to render every moment the greatest possible enjoyment it can be.
Brandon: I tend to believe, that though sinners who have not had an experiential relationship with God are still worshipping God regardless of whether they are cognizant of this fact or not. They may not be worshipping God in “fullness and truth,” but by virtue of the fact that they are doing what they do best via fulfilling their human destinies they are to some degree worshipping God because God created them for this.
Tom: I could get with a form of this too. When anybody aims themselves in the right direction, even if they don’t arrive, they’ve done something that’s better than aiming themselves entirely in the wrong direction. I wouldn’t call it “worship” because I think the word is worth saving for that level of perceived engagement with the world that has in some respects “arrived” (in the sense that it occurs within a redeemed relationship).
-----------------------------
Tom: Think of worship as a conversation you’re having with somebody. Can you engage in conversation with somebody and not be aware of their presence? No.
Brandon: Right. I agree that you cannot have a conversation with somebody and not be aware of their presence, but that seems to narrow by what I mean by worship. Again, I tend to believe that even if a sinner is a mechanical engineer and he is doing what he does best and enjoys it and it’s “his thing” in life? He is worshipping God by virtue of the fact that he is “taking his rightful place in this world.”
Tom: But Brandon, wouldn’t you agree that however much ‘better’ such ‘worship’ is than no worship at all, it’s not what it ought to or can be and there’s enough perception and enjoyment of God left OUT of it for us to say, “There’s more.” That’s all I’m saying. There’s more. Enjoying the moment with my son—end of perception—is not ‘nothing’. It’s certainly something. But enjoying that moment with my son and my heavenly father—the fuller, truer perception—is something more. If that something more is attainable, truer to the facts, and yields greater intensity of enjoyment, why not pursue it?
-----------------------
Tom: That is, our thought lives are completely saturated with the awareness of God. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be aware of OTHER things too. Complete awareness of Christ isn’t awareness only of Christ. It’s awareness of “Christ + whatever else is going on” and whatever else is going on gets valued by us in virtue of its relationship to Christ. It either finds a home or is shown the door.
Brandon: And that is my problem. Again, I ask, what would be the problem of wanting a level of awareness of God such that God is in, through, under, around my consciousness and being, and I’m in God such as to experience such unification with God as Dwayne seems to speak of with regard to theosis? A third heaven where we are OBLIVIOUS to our surroundings type of union? See, I think you are simply repeating your position, but you really haven’t shown me WHY complete full awareness is not something that should be desirable in this way?
Tom: What do you mean by “complete full awareness”? I think you still have in mind (as you say below) somebody who’s cognizant ONLY of God and “oblivious” to all else. I do NOT mean this.
Brandon: And that seems to me to be what Dwayne is saying about distinction and identity loss. I mean you use the example of being in your child’s presence and not losing distinction from them. But this seems to me to be what Dwayne is NOT saying at least as far as theosis is concerned.
Tom: D and I disagree.
Brandon: Why would you want to be in a position where you are aware of other things?
Tom: Because there ARE other things. “Otherness” is real and to miss it is to falsely perceive, and the greatest beauty and enjoyment requires accurately perceiving reality. There is a unity to all things which needs to be perceived as well, but not at the expense of diversity (and visa versa). I don’t think any of us knows exactly what the truth is on this. We’re just scratching the surface. But a lot of what D says, the language used to express the unity side of things (as created by God through Christ and sustained in him) comes too close to erasing the distinctions for me. The best I can do is hold both in tension and try to perceive a fundamental unity to all things (and just saying it is about as far as I can understand it) but which does not turn the distinctions into shadows or maya. To perceive an “other” where there is a real other ought to be liberating, not enslaving.
So the whole idea of an awareness of God that is oblivious to other real distinctions (something I do not aspire to) is not as true a worship as a more accurate perception of reality would inspire.
Brandon: Would it not be better to be aware of one and only one thing--God?
Tom: No, not if there are other non-God objects to perceive and enjoy with God.
Brandon: Basically I’m agreeing with you against Dwayne. I agree that we can have “Christ + whatever else is going on”…
Tom: But in your example of the tea cup ride with your child you were NOT aware of God’s personal participation in the moment. It was just you and your child. I’m talking about an awareness of God at all times. None of this third-person “by virtue of the fact that…” recognition of God. Rather an awareness of God’s presence with you in the tea cup on the same level as your awareness of your son.
Brandon: In both instances, Matt 17 and the Moses on Mt. Sinai, apparently it was not God’s intentions for them to stay on the mountain. There were other important things to be done. Yes, centered around the Kingdom, but that is what I mean by “posture” or “oriented.” Not a cognizant full awareness at all points in time.
Tom: How is it you think we do better at what we’re designed to be and do when we’re “not cognizant” or “fully aware” of the truth of God's real presence and engagement of our immediate experience? The truth is that God is really, personally as present and meaningfully engaged in every moment of our living as any OTHER person or object present to us and which we refuse to ignore, yet you won’t recognize (i.e., on the same level of awareness) God as equally present because you think that immediately turns us into mountain-top ecstatics who will become oblivious to all else. Yes? No?
There’s an awareness of God as present on par (on the same end of our awareness continuum) with our awareness of others present in our world which won’t make us oblivious to all else but which will, I think, better tune us into all else and plant our feet more securely and practically in the real world than will failing to make this conscious connection to Christ’s presence.
Better?
Tom
Post Edited (PLANIS) : 11/9/2007 9:30:13 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted Today 6:07 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted Today 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted Today 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted Today 1:42 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Tommaaaay! Dude, you and I are SOOOO on the same page contra Dwayne.
Tom: How about complete non-abstract union at all times? Again, for me “complete awareness of X” doesn’t mean “awareness ONLY of X.”
Brandon: Don’t get me wrong, I think you can have awareness of other things without having those things being the ONLY things you are cognizant of. But if we are talking about (correctly I think) Dwayne’s understanding of “cognizant of God at all times” and theosis, this seems to me to mean that there is nothing else that one could be cognizant of. If you are cognizant of God at all times , intoxicated, saturated, then you can’t be cognizant of yourself, the **I** never mind anything else that exists. In which case there would be identity loss and loss of distinction. You and I don’t accept identity loss and loss of distinction. The fact that YOU are cognizant OF God or anything outside of you means that there is something outside of the self, outside of you for YOU to be cognizant and aware of. You can’t have loss of identity and then say, “I am cognizant of,” there WOULD be no **I** to meaningfully speak of! All you end up with is saying, “God is cognizant of Godself.” And that seems to me to be essentially what Dwayne is saying. God and the self are one. I don’t buy that.
Just for the record? You know what got me to thinking about this YEARS ago? Depression. Because my depression at times was not simply, “I’m feeling blue for two weeks or longer.” My depression was at such depths as to say that I became “disassociated from reality.” It is the minds way of shielding it from more pain and harm. A mode of protection called “shell shock.” Some people have symptoms in which they stand outside of their bodies. Others, like myself, cannot differentiate between reality and what is not real. For example, my mind would tell itself that the desk that I’m typing at right now was not real. I couldn’t shake that no matter how hard I tried. Imagine going through your day looking at your flesh and blood (children) and thinking they’re not real? I still have slight symptoms of this, but they are not nearly as bad as when I’m in the depths of my episodes of depression i.e. the other day when I was driving the tunnel bus into Detroit and a custom officer flagged me to go so that he could then walk to his booth, I thought to myself, “This bus must be real and I must really believe its real or else why not let this figment of my imagination walk in front of my bus which is also a figment of my imagination and when I supposedly drive, (because driving itself is a figment of my imagination), into this “illusion” called a U.S. Customs officer he won’t really get hurt or die or anything because he really isn’t real.” Needless to say, that thought wasn’t very intense and I was able to “shake it off” rather quickly, but there seem to be times, to this day, that those fleeting thoughts still come into my thinking. Truth be told, one of the things (besides meds--yay! Thank God for Prozac) that got me through these times (which without meds would last for MONTHS) was the belief that Jesus REALLY existed. That Jesus was the ONE ABIDING thing. That this matrix of sorts could not vanquish the REAL. When he said, “If you seek me you WILL FIND ME” I could hold on to that promise. Nothing can separate me from the love of God in Christ. Not heights or depths or principalities or powers or depressions, or illusions or matrixes (which is in part why I liked the movie, "The Matrix." I lived in that sort of reality at times). NOTHING. He said that when we call on him he would make himself REAL to us. Can I prove it? No. But you and I “know” Christ is real and exists because we have experienced him. And if he is real, he makes everything else real and I mean REALLY REAL, because he is not only Jesus my savior but Jesus my creator. He is God incarnated. Incarnation means that the material, outside of God is good. Praise God.
---------------------------------------
Tom: I wouldn’t decry any effort on your part to offer any manner of worship to God on any level. The more the better, on whatever level. My only point is that there’s a sense in which the perception within which you operate in the enjoyment of that moment isn’t complete if it only contains you and your child. The fact is, God is there in the tea cup as well, enjoying the moment. He’s REALLY there, right? Then a perception (and following the perception, the enjoyment) of the moment that excludes awareness of God’s presence there WITH you is incomplete. I’m not saying you can’t perceive of yourself as enjoying it because you know God’s been good to you and he wants to you to enjoy creation. That’s not a BAD connection to make. But it’s like telling yourself, for example, that you’re there enjoying it because Tom bought you and your son tickets to go enjoy yourselves for the day. I’m thought of IN THE THIRD PERSON so to speak, as having something to do with the enjoyment of the moment but not AS PRESENT enjoying the moment with you.
Brandon: Right. I recognize that God is really there. He exists before us and us before him whether we cognizant of this or not. Whether we are aware of it or not. And I agree that not recognizing his presence makes the whole experience incomplete. One is not “worshipping in fullness and truth.” No problem there. What I’m asking is (mostly contra Dwayne) why should we settle for awareness when we can be oblivious to all else and be cognizant of God and only God? I think of it like this:
Say you are driving your car. Your eyes are on the car in front of you. Yes, you are aware of the other cars going by and behind you and two and three in front of the car in front of you, though you do not directly see them. You are aware of holding the steering wheel but not DIRECTLY. You are aware of the peripheral, but ONLY INDIRECTLY. Only until you consciously and intentionally think of your holding of the steering wheel and looking right at it are you directly or more closely connected (poor choice of word) to what you are doing. As you say, you then prioritize, what is in front of you takes back seat, what is on the sides take back seat, the cars two or three cars ahead, are in the back seat, the cars behind you take back seat, everything takes a back seat except for what you are intentionally conscious of. Yes you are aware of those things, but you are having more “direct contact” with the steering wheel. Actually, even your foot on the gas is second to that which you are intentionally conscious of. Now you may be watching the road in front of you but your mind is somewhere else. In that case, you are having more direct contact with wherever your mind is. In the case of you and your babe by the fireside you are having “direct contact.” Ultimately, you can’t have “direct contact” with your wife as you cannot get into the interior life of the other. But why settle for “awareness” of Christ when you can experience more direct contact via theosis and loss of identity and distinction? It seems to me that we should be oriented, centered, postured ready to have as much direct contact with Christ that is possible.
----------------------------------------
Tom: So suppose one of your other kids was REALLY there as well (you and two of your kids), OK? And suppose further that in your enjoyment of the moment you only have one of your children in mind. You know you have another child--somewhere. You’re not ignorant of this fact. But you don’t consciously perceive that child’s presence in the tea cup even though he's really there and would like to be a part of your enjoyment of the moment. Wouldn’t you think there was MORE to perceive and enjoy then?
That’s what I have in mind. The literal presence of Christ, really sustaining and engaging and seeking to be a part of all we are and do is REALLY there in the cup wanting to be perceived as a partner in the moment. If you can be aware of and enjoy a tea cup ride that includes you and two of your children (that’s three persons), why can’t you enjoy a tea cup ride that includes you and one of your children and Christ (that’s still just three persons)? I’m not assigning fault or blame or rebuke to ANY successful perception of goodness and love in the world on ANY level. I just want to aim for higher levels of perception and enjoyment.
Brandon: Right. I agree. But you just don’t want awareness, but intentional, conscious, direct contact with your son at all times according to Dwayne. This would obliviate any identity and distinction which is what Dwayne is shooting for.
------------------------------------------
Tom: They can and must be. I just imagine that actions performed within a perception that includes God as personally present along with all the other REAL members that constitute the objects of our experience—the food, the wine, the candle lights, the aroma, etc.—is a truer picture of reality. It has to be truer if it’s the case the God really IS personally present at the table. See? And I think that truer pictures of reality (truer perceptions of reality) mean more beauty and enjoyment, because beauty and its enjoyment come from perceiving the world accurately.
Brandon: Yes, I agree. God IS present. That’s not what I have a problem with. The problem I’m talking about is with cognition. It is an incomplete experience for any human being to not be aware of God’s presence plus other things. But when I read, “cognizant of God’s presence at all times” (Dwayne’s thing) that cancels out the other good things that God has created that I’m made to enjoy. See, to the extent that I have enjoyment without awareness of God’s presence is grace to me. My life would definitely be fuller and more complete RECOGNIZING where these good things come from on a daily basis.
--------------------------------------------
Tom: True. But that’s—what’s the word?—kinda analytical. But “by virtue of the fact” might suggest an absentee landlord sort of deism that says, “Don’t know where God is right now, but hey, he sure did leave us a great world to enjoy. Hope to share all this enjoyment with him someday when I get to heaven so I can thank him personally.” It misses the deeper truth which is that by virtue of the fact that God is everywhere present and seeking beauty on personal level right now, we don’t have to tell God about our “moments” after the fact. We can share EVERY enjoyment with him IN THE MOMENT. That’s why he created, not to watch us enjoy our moments but through our perceiving him as part OF the moment (along with everybody else in the moment) to render every moment the greatest possible enjoyment it can be.
Brandon: For the non-Christian, it would be deistic. For the Christian it shouldn’t be though many times it is and this is practical atheism as Fee calls it. Listen, I enjoy writing, but not every letter I type is enjoyable or am I cognizant of God’s presence. I enjoy sitting down when I’m tired of standing, but I don’t think too much of thanking God for the relief (though at times I have). I enjoy taking a dump (that’s for your bathroom analogy) but I don’t necessarily thank God for it (though sometimes I’ve have thanked God that my bodily functions are working properly). To me it seems that this can quickly give place to guilt and works oriented religion. “Oh, I forgot to thank God here. Oh I forgot to enquire of the Lord about buying this thing. Oh, I killed that bug (Greg’s thing on his blog), Oh I have to thank God for every breath I breathe and I didn't thank him for it.” On the whole I’m in agreement with this. We should be ready, postured, oriented, centered to give God thanks and praise for these things, but if we don’t God isn’t terribly upset by it any more than he is not upset that I am not intentionally conscious of his presence at all points in time, but of course that’s my assumption.
--------------------------------------------
Tom: I could get with a form of this too. When anybody aims themselves in the right direction, even if they don’t arrive, they’ve done something that’s better than aiming themselves entirely in the wrong direction. I wouldn’t call it “worship” because I think the word is worth saving for that level of perceived engagement with the world that has in some respects “arrived” (in the sense that it occurs within a redeemed relationship).
Brandon: Yeah, I think worship may be too strong of a word, but I suppose that’s because of the usual connotations attached to it. Regardless, the fact that I see more justice in the world, that I perceive as “one taking their rightful place in God’s good creation” i.e. women being treated as equals in regards to dignity and respect and them NOT accepting as normal a position (or box) that someone else has put them into is all God. It’s God’s grace. For me its not necessarily a question of perceiving God at all times but perceiving God where you think he is not.
--------------------------------------------
Tom: But Brandon, wouldn’t you agree that however much ‘better’ such ‘worship’ is than no worship at all, it’s not what it ought to or can be and there’s enough perception and enjoyment of God left OUT of it for us to say, “There’s more.” That’s all I’m saying. There’s more. Enjoying the moment with my son—end of perception—is not ‘nothing’. It’s certainly something. But enjoying that moment with my son and my heavenly father—the fuller, truer perception—is something more. If that something more is attainable, truer to the facts, and yields greater intensity of enjoyment, why not pursue it?
Brandon: Here we go again. Yes. I agree. All I’m saying is the other way around. You can’t have total enjoyment as a created being by being only and only intentionally conscious of God’s presence at all points in time. That’s the direction Dwayne is leaning into. Sure, he’ll talk about how much more we are aware of reality in its truest picture, but so what? I agree with that. But I get a different message from him especially with the language of “cognizant at all times” talk. Ultimately this means there is a distinction between creation and creator and hence no loss of identity.
-------------------------------------------
Tom: What do you mean by “complete full awareness”? I think you still have in mind (as you say below) somebody who’s cognizant ONLY of God and “oblivious” to all else. I do NOT mean this.
Brandon: Right. That is exactly what I mean. Complete awareness of X means only awareness of X, because it is the only thing you are intoxicated with and saturated by. I find this untenable pertaining to our relationship with God without loss of identity and distinction. Outside of this, what you end up with is awareness of God realizing he is say, in the room with you along with other things which is the normative Christian way to live outside of “third heaven” type experiences in which case you would be oblivious to your surroundings, even yourself and only God.
-------------------------------------------
Brandon: And that seems to me to be what Dwayne is saying about distinction and identity loss. I mean you use the example of being in your child’s presence and not losing distinction from them. But this seems to me to be what Dwayne is NOT saying at least as far as theosis is concerned.
Tom: D and I disagree.
Brandon: Me too.
--------------------------------------------
Tom: Because there ARE other things. “Otherness” is real and to miss it is to falsely perceive, and the greatest beauty and enjoyment requires accurately perceiving reality. There is a unity to all things which needs to be perceived as well, but not at the expense of diversity (and visa versa). I don’t think any of us knows exactly what the truth is on this. We’re just scratching the surface. But a lot of what D says, the language used to express the unity side of things (as created by God through Christ and sustained in him) comes too close to erasing the distinctions for me. The best I can do is hold both in tension and try to perceive a fundamental unity to all things (and just saying it is about as far as I can understand it) but which does not turn the distinctions into shadows or maya. To perceive an “other” where there is a real other ought to be liberating, not enslaving.
So the whole idea of an awareness of God that is oblivious to other real distinctions (something I do not aspire to) is not as true a worship as a more accurate perception of reality would inspire.
Brandon: Bingo! Big kisses to ya.  This would essentially be gnosticism. I hope you see that I’m really agreeing with you here.
--------------------------------------------
Brandon: Would it not be better to be aware of one and only one thing--God?
Tom: No, not if there are other non-God objects to perceive and enjoy with God.
Brandon: Right. I agree with you. But my question seems to be what Dwayne is saying irrespective of how much he supposedly wants to give worth to creation.
---------------------------------------------
Tom: But in your example of the tea cup ride with your child you were NOT aware of God’s personal participation in the moment. It was just you and your child. I’m talking about an awareness of God at all times. None of this third-person “by virtue of the fact that…” recognition of God. Rather an awareness of God’s presence with you in the tea cup on the same level as your awareness of your son.
Brandon: The highlighted part seems to be what Dwayne is saying with “complete awareness of X means ONLY awareness of X.” Also, I’m not talking of “third-person recognition of God.” To me though, it seems as if “third-person recognition” is more akin to simple awareness of God that you are speaking of when you speak of being centered around Christ. I’m on the tea-cup ride and though I’m aware of the other person in it, it is not as complete of a recognition as it would be if I was intentionally conscious at all points in time in which I’m oblivious to all else. Think of it like this.
It really isn’t much of a relationship with someone in your household if all you are doing is having an awareness of them but not having intentional direct contact with them.
---------------------------------------------
Tom: How is it you think we do better at what we’re designed to be and do when we’re “not cognizant” or “fully aware” of the truth of God's real presence and engagement of our immediate experience?
Brandon: What I’m saying is that I believe that to the extent that we are aligning ourselves to the design for which God created us for we are living truer to reality. I don’t think that’s better (its incomplete), but I do think that this is grace. God actively involved in “secular” realms. God actively involved in the lives of non-Christians. This isn’t deism. It isn’t like God made us humans and then sat back and watched the show. He really is present and active in those “non-religious areas.”
---------------------------------------------
Tom: The truth is that God is really, personally as present and meaningfully engaged in every moment of our living as any OTHER person or object present to us and which we refuse to ignore, yet you won’t recognize (i.e., on the same level of awareness) God as equally present because you think that immediately turns us into mountain-top ecstatics who will become oblivious to all else. Yes? No?
Brandon: God is there. Period. He is actively involved. I do recognize God as equally present, but I’m not equally aware of his presence at all points in times. Just like I’m aware of the radio that is on while I type this, but then I’m practically oblivious to the business card on the table that is equally present. Your brain can only handle so much. It seems to me that you can be directly aware of something (intentionally conscious) but that everything else becomes awareness at different levels i.e. I’m more aware of some things over others in my immediate surroundings.
---------------------------------------------
Tom: There’s an awareness of God as present on par (on the same end of our awareness continuum) with our awareness of others present in our world which won’t make us oblivious to all else but which will, I think, better tune us into all else and plant our feet more securely and practically in the real world than will failing to make this conscious connection to Christ’s presence.
Better?
Brandon: So Schaefferian. Feet planted in thin air. I agree. Right. But that’s because I recognize that God is there and I attempt to involve him in every aspect of my existence (though not very successfully). I attempt to not fail at making this connection with Christ, but I agree that we are planted more securely the more conscious we are of Christ’s presence in our lives.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 11/9/2007 1:16:49 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Today 2:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: What do you mean by “complete full awareness”? I think you still have in mind (as you say below) somebody who’s cognizant ONLY of God and “oblivious” to all else. I do NOT mean this.
Brandon: Right. That is exactly what I mean. Complete awareness of X means only awareness of X, because it is the only thing you are intoxicated with and saturated by. I find this untenable pertaining to our relationship with God without loss of identity and distinction. Outside of this, what you end up with is awareness of God realizing he is say, in the room with you along with other things. This is the normative Christian way to live outside of “third heaven” type experiences in which case you would be oblivious to your surroundings, even yourself and only God.
Let me explain my belief more, Brandon. I believe that the created order is one big theophany. Better stated, Creation is a theophanic web of relationality continuously composed of and sustained by God's Uncreated Energies (which are differentiated but not separate from God's Essence)
Further, I believe that, via perpetual epicletic living in the Holy Spirit, God will reveal the the "logoi" in Creation to us, allowing us to see to and through Creation as a transparent glass beholding the Face of the Holy One.
From "The Orthodox Way" by Bishop Kallistos Ware, page 119
"Secondly, the contemplation of nature means that we see all things, persons and moments as signs and sacraments of God. In our spiritual vision we are not only to see each thing in sharp relief, standing out in all the brilliance of it's specific being, but we are also to see each thing as transparent: in and through each created thing we are to discern the Creator. Discovering the uniqueness of each thing, we discover also how each points beyond itself to him who made it. So we learn, in Henry Suso's words, to see the inward in the outward: "He who can see the inward in the outward, to him the inward is more inward than to him who can only see the inward in the inward."
and page 120...
Natural contemplation signifies finding God not only in all things but equally in all persons. When reverencing the holy ikons in church or at home, we are to reflect that each man and woman is a living ikon of God. "Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt. 25:40). In order to find God, we do not have to leave the world, to isolate ourselves from our fellow humans, and to plunge into some kind of mystical void. On the contrary, Christ is looking at us through the eyes of all those whom we meet. Once we recognize his universal presence, all our acts of practical service to other become acts of prayer.
Tom said this...
There’s an awareness of God as present on par (on the same end of our awareness continuum) with our awareness of others present in our world which won’t make us oblivious to all else but which will, I think, better tune us into all else and plant our feet more securely and practically in the real world than will failing to make this conscious connection to Christ’s presence.
This is very much my personal understanding as well, Brandon. Mundane ecstasy. Just for clarity, again.
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit of Christ, who is in you, whom you have received from God the Father? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
"And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." Post Edited (Epiklesis) : 11/9/2007 1:38:12 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Today 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | The Church must...I repeat..MUST...reclaim this practice!!
HESYCHASM
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit of Christ, who is in you, whom you have received from God the Father? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
"And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Today 4:56 PM (GMT -6) | | | Dr. Boyd is on point!
The "Trinification" of Creation. Yeah.
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit of Christ, who is in you, whom you have received from God the Father? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
"And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you." | | Back to Top | | |
| 1167 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:44 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|