Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

36 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/17/2002 10:24 AM (GMT -6)

This is an attempt to articulate why some people (myself included) might have a difficult time distinguishing the strategy to successfully communicate love via openness to feedback from a way of knowing good and evil. I hope that this will be an opportunity for those who find this strategy persuasive and who intend to promote it to clarify your view in order to avoid this confusion. Please be patient with me if the things I say sound overly simplistic or obvious or redundant to other discussions. I am just trying to be very clear and work toward consensus.

The Great Commandment to love God and neighbor is not distinct from the law, but rather a summary of all law. It is drawn from an ancient Jewish creedal statement (known as the Shema, Deut. 6:4–5) and a quote from the middle of the Jewish Holiness Code (Lev. 19:18). Jesus said that “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. 22:40). The Pharisees took it upon themselves to instruct people how to successfully fulfill the law. How are strategies for successfully communicating love qualitatively different from the Pharisees’ strategies for successfully fulfilling the law? I agree that openness to others’ feedback is important for successul communication. But I don’t see how achieving this success via feedback somehow solves the problem of acting out of our knowledge of good and evil.

Bonhoeffer notes that the Pharisees desired their actions “to be seen, to be judged, and, if only in the sight of his own self, to be acknowledged as good” (p. 34). He goes on to say that

quote:
The Pharisee knows the good that he has done. Jesus’s saying is not directed against the boastfulness or the self-satisfaction of the man who has done good; but once again He is striking at the heart of the man who lives in disunion. He forbids the man who does good to know of this good. The new knowledge of the reconciliation which is accomplished in Jesus, the knowledge of the voiding of the disunion, itself entirely voids man’s own knowledge of his own goodness. The knowledge of Jesus is entirely transformed into action, without any reflection upon a man’s self. A man’s own goodness is now concealed from him. It is not merely that he is no longer permitted to know of it at all, and indeed he does no longer know of it. His deed has become entirely unquestioning; he is entirely devoted to his deed and filled with it; his deed is no longer one possibility among many, but the one thing, the important thing, the will of God. (p. 38)

The distinction between seeking feedback to determine the success of a strategy for fulfilling the law (the Great Commandment to love God and neighbor) and seeking to know our own goodness is still unclear to me.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them…” and even goes so far as to say “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (Matt. 6). Our success at fulfilling the law is up to God to decide. When we see Jesus in heaven, everyone will recognize him for who he is (Phil 2:9–11). But until then, even Jesus’ closest disciples did not recognize him after his resurrection. He says that those who fulfill the law will be surprised at their success, because they simultaneously loved Jesus and others without even realizing it.

quote:
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’” (Matt. 25:31ff.)

It seems pretty clear from Bonhoeffer and Jesus that we don’t get to know how good (or bad) we are. It seems like whenever we wonder how successfully we are fulfilling the law, all we need to know is this: Jesus died for my sins. Whenever we wonder how successfully someone else is fulfilling the law, all we need to know is this: Jesus died for their sins. I know this sounds simplistic, but this is how I understand the knowledge that finally frees us to live life in love with God and others. I care about what other people have to say—not because I want to know how successful I am at fulfilling the law, but because forgiveness frees me to love them unconditionally.

Thanks,
Electra

Edited by - Electra on 07/17/2002 11:17:43 PM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 7/17/2002 2:10 PM (GMT -6)

Electra, I was in the middle of a response. I will put this out here, but I will remove it if you want. Thanks.

Electra said:

The distinction between seeking feedback to determine the success of a strategy for fulfilling the law (the Great Commandment to love God and neighbor) and seeking to know our own goodness is still unclear to me.

Semeia:

Seeking feedback in order to better love people has nothing at all to do with “goodness” unless we are not seeking to love, but are seeking to be “good.” The whole idea of getting feedback on our results is NOT to determine how “good” we are – it is simply to seek to obey God’s command in the fullest way possible. I agree that if we seek to show love to people because we want to feel good about ourselves or earn “points” from God or from others, then certainly we would be living out of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Clearly you are not saying that we should not seek to love. Seeking feedback on whether or not we are having a loving impact is completely in the service of seeking to love. We are not seeking feedback in order to measure our “goodness” based on our ability to be loving. We are seeking feedback so that we may, in fact, love.

Electra said:

It seems pretty clear from Bonhoeffer and Jesus that we don’t get to know how good (or bad) we are.

Semeia:

I could not agree more. No one is suggesting that anyone knows how good or bad they are in any ultimate sense, or even in any particular situation. We do not have a God’s eye view. I have been preaching that sermon since joining this board. But on the other hand we are certainly all capable of taking in feedback on our behavior that can help us fulfill God’s will. When a person who drinks too much refuses to listen to warnings about the dangers of drinking and driving which results in them getting behind the wheel drunk and running over and killing a child – there is no mystery at all that successful communication (communication that is received that has a positive impact) could have helped God’s commandment be fulfilled. The death of a child in a drunken driving accident is not the fulfillment of God’s command to love.

Now, if we succeed in convincing an alcoholic to get help, for example, (through seeking the best methods of communication that have proven to have the greatest possibility of making a difference in an intervention) do we then get to pat ourselves on the back and say, “I’m good. I am now more worthy before God”? No, not at all. If we fail at our attempts to convince an alcoholic to get help, and they kill someone, do we then have some accurate measure of our lack of goodness? No. The point of evaluating our impact on people has NOTHING at all to do with evaluating our own or someone else’s goodness or lack of goodness. That is not something we can know. The point of evaluating our impact on people is SOLELY in the service of seeking to obey God by fulfilling his commandment to Love God and Love our neighbor. We’re not seeking feedback so that we can more accurately measure how loving we are compared to other people; we are seeking feedback so that we can fulfill God’s commandment to love. We are seeking to measure whether or not we are being loving to a particular person – not as a measure of our own “success”, but rather to detect whether or not love is even happening. If love is not happening then we adjust our approach because we want to make love happen. This is what love does. But in no way do we have any ability to know our own or someone else’s “goodness.”

Electra said:

It seems like whenever we wonder how successfully we are fulfilling the law, all we need to know is this: Jesus died for my sins. Whenever we wonder how successfully someone else is fulfilling the law, all we need to know is this: Jesus died for their sins.

Semeia:

Yes, exactly. We can never know how successfully we are fulfilling the law. Given the Sermon on the Mount we know that we fail constantly, every time we have a lustful thought, an angry thought, a careless thought. What we can be certain of is that we are filled to the brim with sin compared to God’s perfection, and without Jesus’ death on the cross we would be without hope.

Seeking feedback from people in order to have a more loving impact, in order to love more fully and more often and more profoundly, tells us nothing about our overall fulfillment of the law, or even how well we are fulfilling the law in a particular circumstance. Perhaps when we think we are wildly successful God actually hoped for something more. Perhaps when we think we failed we made more of a difference than we knew. In either case that is not what our focus is. Our focus is on God and on the person in front of us. We worry about our communication not because we want to be good in God’s eyes, or in the world’s eyes, but because we want to love and we want to fulfill God’s command – and since God’s command is to love, they are one and the same goal.

Electra said:

I care about what other people have to say—not because I want to know how successful I am at fulfilling the law, but because forgiveness frees me to love them unconditionally.

Semeia:

I think everyone in this conversation would strongly agree with this statement. Perhaps if we go through it and ask some questions we can figure out why there is the appearance of disagreement concerning this statement.

When you say: “I care about what other people have to say” isn’t that saying exactly what we are saying, that you care about your impact on people? Isn’t caring about what other people have to say the same thing as being open to feedback about your impact?

When you say “not because I want to know how successful I am at fulfilling the law” do you mean to say that we are concerned with what people say only or mostly or even slightly in terms of our own “success” at fulfilling the law? Is it possible to seek to fulfill (obey) the law without “measuring” our success in terms of some sliding scale of goodness? If it is not possible, then we are living with a Catch-22, because Jesus tells us to obey God’s commandment, and he also tells us not to judge. If it is not possible to seek to fulfill the law by caring about people, and caring about the impact we have upon them, without judging them or ourselves in some way, then God has set us an impossible command. But your statement presupposes it is possible. What confuses me is why you think that our caring about impact is about judging our success, and your caring about impact is about unconditional love.

When you say, “but because forgiveness frees me to love them unconditionally” I could not agree more. This is exactly what we are all saying. And loving someone unconditionally means caring about what they say. It means caring about the impact we have on them, because after all Jesus died for their sins, as he died for ours, and they have unsurpassable worth in God’s eyes. Because we are so full of sin, and so blinded by our sin, and so imperfect in our fallen nature, even when we have the best intention, and seek with all our heart to hear God’s word, and seek to love, we often fail. But because we love we seek to learn from our mistakes, and we dust ourselves off, and we try again. We do this because our goal is to obey God and to love. Our success or lack of success cannot be measured in any ultimate sense, but we can use every gift of sensitivity, discernment, openness to the spirit, learning, humor, patience, and knowledge in pursuit of the goal of love. What we cannot do is make a moral assessment of good or evil related to our actions. Only God has the omniscience to judge.

Is that helpful? Progress?

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/17/2002 6:31 PM (GMT -6)

I think these questions get at the source of my confusion:

Semeia

Is it possible to seek to fulfill (obey) the law without “measuring” our success in terms of some sliding scale of goodness? If it is not possible, then we are living with a Catch-22, because Jesus tells us to obey God’s commandment, and he also tells us not to judge. If it is not possible to seek to fulfill the law by caring about people, and caring about the impact we have upon them, without judging them or ourselves in some way, then God has set us an impossible command.

Electra

This is something I’m in process on. I know some of my Lutheran professors would say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to to seek to fulfill (obey) the law without “measuring” our success in terms of some sliding scale of goodness. And we ARE living in a Catch-22—the law really does condemn us as sinners as soon as we try to fulfill it (see Paul’s discussion on the command against coveting). Kierkegaard calls this Catch-22 “the absurd.” To infinitely resign yourself to God—to sacrifice your one, your only, your beloved—even though God gave it to you in the first place—and to simultaneously expect to receive it back again. To walk in this reality. What if we fully relinquished—died—to our ability to fulfill the Law—even the Ten Commandments—even the Greatest Commandment of all—even though God gave it to us for our own good? Could we simultaneously expect God to make a way to fulfill the law—to Love—for us and through us? How much do we trust God?

These questions are rhetorical and I am wrestling with them myself. Which is why I withdrew my “attempt at clarity and consensus”!

Oh well, maybe someone out there can straighten me out.

Thanks for your patient response.
Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 7/17/2002 8:45 PM (GMT -6)

Electra,

This helps me a lot. It is very clarifying.

In disunity with God we are in a catch-22; in unity this dilemma dissolves. (I write that in the hopes that tomorrow I will still remember what it means...)

I look forward to exploring this with you when I am more coherent.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 7/18/2002 5:24 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
it is IMPOSSIBLE to to seek to fulfill (obey) the law without “measuring” our success in terms of some sliding scale of goodness.

THIS is my problem so far with B. Exactly. Thanks, Electra, for saying it another way. I'm also in big-time process on this stuff. [And continued thanks to Semeia and Icon for the dialogue!].

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/18/2002 6:05 AM (GMT -6)

(Greetings from a "lurker.")

I was facinated by what Brett quoted; so I wnet up to see the context.

From Electra's post:

quote:
To infinitely resign yourself to God—to sacrifice your one, your only, your beloved—even though God gave it to you in the first place—and to simultaneously expect to receive it back again. . . . Could we simultaneously expect God to make a way to fulfill the law—to Love—for us and through us? How much do we trust God?

This sounds very much like the Eucharist liturgy. It sounds exactly like Christianity ITSELF. Am I reading correctly. It seems to me that what is in Electra's post IS Christianity; and without it there is no salvation.

quote:

(From the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom)

THREE KEYS TO KEEP IN MIND: (1) CHRIST IS THE OFFERER AND THE OFFERING; (2) THE OFFERING HAS BEEN ONCE AND FOR ALL MADE--WE ONLY PARTICIPATE IN IT; AND (3) WE BRING OURSELVES AND THE WHOLE WORLD--MAN AS MICROCOSM AND MEDIATOR--THOUGH FALLEN WE COME IN CHRIST OUR ONE MEDIATOR.

** O Lord God Almighty, who alone art holy: who dost accept the sacrifice of praise from those who call upon thee with their whole heart: Accept also the prayer of us sinners, and bear it to thy holy Altar, and enable us to offer unto thee gifts and spiritual sacrifices for our sins and for the errors of the people; And make us worthy to find grace in thy sight, that our sacrifice may be acceptable unto thee; and that the good spirit of thy grace may rest upon us and upon these gifts here offered, and upon all thy people:
** Through the compassions of thine Only-Begotten Son, with whom thou art blessed, together with thine all-holy and good and life-giving Spirit: now and ever, and unto ages of ages.
* Amen.
** Peace be to all.
* And to thy spirit.
** Let us love one another, that with one accord we may confess:
* Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the Trinity, one in Essence and undivided.

** Let us stand aright; let us stand with fear; let us attend, that we may offer the Holy Oblation in peace.
* A mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise.
** The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
* And with thy spirit.
** Let us lift up our hearts.
* We lift them up unto the Lord.
** Let us give thanks unto the Lord.
* It is meet and right to worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit: the Trinity, one in Essence, and undivided.

It is meet and right to hymn thee, to bless thee, to praise thee, to give thanks unto thee, and to worship thee in every place of thy dominion: for thou art God ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, ever existing and eternally the same, thou and thine Only-begotten Son and thy Holy Spirit. Thou it was who didst bring us from non-existence into being, and when we had fallen away didst raise us up again, and didst not cease to do all things until thou hadst brought us back to heaven, and hadst endowed us with thy kingdom which is to come. For all these things we give thanks unto thee, and to thine Only-begotten Son, and thy Holy Spirit; for all things of which we know, and of which we know not, and for all the benefits bestowed upon us, both manifest and unseen. And we give thanks unto thee also for this ministry which thou dost vouchsafe to receive at our hands, even though there stand beside thee thousands of Archangels and ten thousands of Angels, the Cherubim and the Seraphim, six-winged, many eyed, soaring aloft, borne on their pinions,

That to those who shall partake thereof they may be unto cleansing of soul, unto the remission of sins, unto the communion of thy Holy Spirit, unto the fulfilment of the kingdom of Heaven, unto boldness toward thee, and not unto judgement nor unto condemnation

...we offer unto thee this reasonable service, for the whole world...

For the precious Gifts which have been offered and sanctified, let us pray to the Lord. . . . That our God, who loveth mankind, receiving them upon his holy, heavenly, and ideal Altar for an odor of spiritual fragrance, will send down upon us in return his divine grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit, let us pray to the Lord.

Asking for the unity of the Faith, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, let us commend ourselves and each other, and all our life unto Christ our God.

Unto thee we commend our whole life and our hope, O Master who lovest mankind; and we beseech thee, and pray thee, and supplicate thee: make us worthy to partake of the heavenly and terrible Mysteries of this sacred and spiritual table, with a pure conscience: unto remission of sins, unto forgiveness of transgressions, unto communion of the Holy Spirit, unto boldness towards thee, and not unto judgement nor unto condemnation.

O Master, do thou thyself distribute these gifts here spread forth, unto all of us for good, according to the individual need of each....

Let us attend! Holy Things are for the holy.

One is Holy, One is Lord: Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.

The fulness of the Cup of the Faith, of the Holy Spirit.

With fear of God, and faith and love, draw near.

We have seen the true light, we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshipping the undivided Trinity: for He hath saved us.

Always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.

O Lord, who blessest those who bless thee, and sanctifiest those who put their trust in thee: save thy people and bless thine inheritance...

Glory to thee, O Christ our God and our hope, glory to thee.

"Always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages."

Edited by - (o) on 07/18/2002 11:21:00 AM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/18/2002 7:48 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia: In disunity with God we are in a catch-22; in unity this dilemma dissolves. (I write that in the hopes that tomorrow I will still remember what it means...)

Electra: Yes, disunity is a catch-22. It is a curse. If we eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we will surely die. We need to find a way to talk about being loved and loving that constantly recalls union with God (the cross) rather than intensifying disunion (law). The only way we get to fulfill the law is by infinitely resigning all of our efforts to that end.

Semeia: I look forward to exploring this with you when I am more coherent.

Electra: Me too. This should be interesting—a coherent discussion of the absurd!

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/18/2002 5:35 PM (GMT -6)

Electra

The only way we get to fulfill the law is by infinitely resigning all of our efforts to that end.

Iconoclast

Good point. We must first totally die to ourselves by infinitely resigning all of our efforts to fulfill the law. Then we must accept Jesus as our savior and abide in Him and He in us. This then finally fulfills the law. For Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law – it is fulfilled in Him. Thus when He is in us and we are in Him then the law is fulfilled in us also. Union with God is achieved. The Son loves the Father and the Father loves the Son. So too, we love the Father with the love of the Son and we are loved by the Father with the love that He has for the Son. The law is fulfilled.

Thus, we no longer need to fulfill the law by trying to do it. Instead we are now finally free to seek to fully express God's command to love one another. For us to try and fulfill the law by trying to do it is to deny that it has already been fulfilled in us. It is to deny Christ within us – that He loves us, lives in us, and has already fulfilled the law in us. It is to once again try to live out of ourselves from our own knowledge of good and evil.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 7/18/2002 8:32 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Electra

The only way we get to fulfill the law is by infinitely resigning all of our efforts to that end.

Iconoclast

Good point. We must first totally die to ourselves by infinitely resigning all of our efforts to fulfill the law. Then we must accept Jesus as our savior and abide in Him and He in us. This then finally fulfills the law. For Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law – it is fulfilled in Him. Thus when He is in us and we are in Him then the law is fulfilled in us also. Union with God is achieved. The Son loves the Father and the Father loves the Son. So too, we love the Father with the love of the Son and we are loved by the Father with the love that He has for the Son. The law is fulfilled.

Thus, we no longer need to fulfill the law by trying to do it. Instead we are now finally free to seek to fully express God's command to love one another. For us to try and fulfill the law by trying to do it is to deny that it has already been fulfilled in us. It is to deny Christ within us – that He loves us, lives in us, and has already fulfilled the law in us. It is to once again try to live out of ourselves from our own knowledge of good and evil.

thanks,
Iconoclast

You’ve probably said this several (dozens?) times before in other threads but I need to be reminded of it, and plus I just really like hearing it.

I am addicted to this passage in Kierkegaard:

quote:
“And what does all this mean?” It means that each individual in quiet inwardness before God is to humble himself under what it means in the strictest sense to be a Christian, is to confess honestly before God where he is so that he still might worthily accept the grace that is offered to every imperfect person—that is to everyone. And then nothing further; then, as for the rest, let him do his work and rejoice in it, love his wife and rejoice in her, joyfully bring up his children, love his fellow beings, rejoice in life. If anything more is required of him, God will surely let him understand and in that case will also help him further, for in the terrible language of the Law it indeed sounds so terrible, because it seems as if it were the individual himself who by his own power is to hold to Christ, rather than, in the language of love, that it is Christ who holds on to him.

This quote emphasizes the freedom of union with Christ, but with freedom comes responsibility. The burden of fulfilling the law on our own is unbearably heavy and we kick against the goads. But in Christ, who has fulfilled the law for us, we receive a burden that is light and a yoke that is easy: forgiveness. This yoke is what finally makes us able to do what we were created to do: works of love.

Thanks for answering my question, Iconoclast.

Electra

~·• kyrie eleison ·~•~· christe eleison ·~•~· kyrie eleison •·~

Edited by - Electra on 07/19/2002 02:30:27 AM

Edited by - Electra on 07/19/2002 02:51:43 AM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/18/2002 9:24 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia

Is it possible to seek to fulfill (obey) the law without “measuring” our success in terms of some sliding scale of goodness? If it is not possible, then we are living with a Catch-22, because Jesus tells us to obey God’s commandment, and he also tells us not to judge.

Electra

I know some of my Lutheran professors would say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to to seek to fulfill (obey) the law without “measuring” our success in terms of some sliding scale of goodness.

Iconoclast

If I am reading this right then I think both of these statements are true. I think the difference is in what “seek to fulfill (obey) the law” means.

Semeia is saying that we CAN seek to obey God’s command WITHOUT judging. There are two meanings here one is presupposed and the other is direct. The presupposition is that we are in unity with God because we are no longer seeking to be in unity with God through our own knowledge of good and evil – through judging. The direct meaning is that we can seek to love God and to love one another WITHOUT using our own knowledge of good and evil – WITHOUT judging based on some abstract set of laws.

I think the Lutheran professors are saying that we CANNOT seek to fulfill the law BECAUSE it requires us to judge. They are saying that we cannot seek unity with God by trying to fulfill the law on our own through our own knowledge of good and evil.

I think that both would agree that “being” comes before “doing”. That only out of unity with God is the law fulfilled and only out of unity with God can we seek to obey God’s command.

Electra

[Lutheran professors would further go on to say:] And we ARE living in a Catch-22—the law really does condemn us as sinners as soon as we try to fulfill it (see Paul’s discussion on the command against coveting). Kierkegaard calls this Catch-22 “the absurd.”

Iconoclast

When we seek unity with God by trying to obey the law out of our own knowledge of good and evil then we are indeed in a Catch-22. And why is this? I would like to suggest that we are in a Catch-22 precisely because we are trying to treat a paradox as a problem.

The following is an excerpt from the book, “On Dialogue” by David Bohm.

The Problem and the Paradox

Wherever one turns today, one finds people talking about a vast range of problems of every kind, social, political, economic, personal, psychological, etc. Most of these problems not only seem to be insoluble, but also tend to give rise to further problems. These go on proliferating indefinitely, eventually leading on toward disorders of world-wide scope, such as pollution, over-population, danger of destruction of the planetary balance of nature as well as, of course, danger of destruction of civilization in a nuclear war. On contemplating this general situation, one may even sometimes have a sense of being confronted by difficulties beyond the possibility of resolution by human intelligence and co-operative endeavour.

In this mass of contradiction and confusion, one finds a very curious common denominator; i.e. that everyone appears to agree that what is actually confronting us is a set of problems. Generally speaking, one does not find that people have considered the question of whether the word ‘problem’, with all that it signifies, provides an adequate description of what is going wrong in human affairs. Yet, if one goes into the meaning of the word, one can see good reason to raise such a question, and to suspect that the attempt to treat our current difficulties as ‘problems’ may be one of the more important factors preventing these difficulties from being properly brought to an end.

The root of ‘problem’ is a Greek word whose meaning is ‘to put forward’. Indeed, this is the essential significance of the word, i.e. to put forward for discussion or questioning an idea that is suggested toward the resolution of certain difficulties or inadequacies. Thus, if one needs to reach a certain destination, one may suggest taking a train, and one can discuss the problem of meeting the train on time, paying for the ticket, etc. Similarly, sailing ships were seen to be a slow and unreliable means of transport, and so men put forth the idea of driving ships by steam, thus giving rise to the problem of how to realise this idea technically and to carry it out practically. More generally, it is clear that a large part of our practical and technical activities are centred on work aimed at solving a wide range of such problems.

However, when one puts forth an idea in the form of a problem, there are certain largely tacit and implicit presuppositions which must be satisfied if the activity is to make sense. Among these is, of course, the assumption that the questions raised are rational and free of contradiction. Sometimes, without our noticing it, we accept absurd problems with false or self-contradictory presuppositions. In the practical and technical realm, however, we can usually sooner or later detect that our question is absurd, and we then drop the ‘problem’ as meaningless. Thus, for a long time, people sought to invent a machine capable of perpetual motion, but with the development of scientific understanding it became clear that this would be in contradiction of the basic laws of physics, and so the search for such a machine has ceased.

All of this is fairly clear in the practical and technical domain. But now, what is to be done when one goes on to consider psychological problems and problems of human relationship? Does it make sense to formulate problems of such a kind? Or is this domain not one in which the presuppositions behind the questions put forth for discussion are false, self-contradictory, and absurd?

Thinking and feeling is dominated, through and through,by a set of self-contradictory demands ...

Consider, for example, a man who suddenly realised that he was very susceptible to flattery. He might well put forth the idea that he ought to be immune to flattery, and then he would of course have the problem of overcoming his tendency to ‘fall’ for anyone who told him how wonderful a person he was. It takes only a little consideration, however, to see that this ‘problem’ is based on absurd presuppositions. For example, the origin of the wish to be flattered is often a deep sense of being inadequate, which is so painful that awareness of its very existence is largely suppressed, except for certain moments in which criticisms or some other indications of a similar nature momentarily call attention to this very unpleasant feeling. As soon as someone comes along and tells such a person that, after all, he is good, capable, wise, beautiful, etc., then the deadening sense of suppressed pain disappears, to be replaced by a buoyant feeling of pleasure and well-being. Along with this goes a tendency to believe that he is being told the truth: for otherwise, of course, there would be no such release. In order to ‘defend’ himself from the ‘danger’ of discovering that it is not the truth, such a person is then ready to believe all that he is told by the other person, and thus, as is well known, he opens himself to the possibility of being taken advantage of in countless ways.

In essence, what goes wrong in flattery is a subtle kind of self-deception. If such a person were then to put forth ‘the problem’ of how he can stop deceiving himself, the absurdity of this procedure would become self evident. For it is clear that even if he tries hard and makes an effort to overcome his tendency to self-deception, this very effort will be infected with the wish for a pleasurable release from pain that is at the origin of the whole tendency, in the first place. So he will almost certainly deceive himself about the question of whether he has overcome self-deception or not.

More generally, one can say that when something goes wrong psychologically, it is confusing to describe the resulting situation as a ‘problem’. Rather, it would be better to say that one was confronted by a paradox. In the case of the man who is susceptible to flattery, the paradox is that he apparently knows and understands the absolute need to be honest with oneself and yet he feels an even stronger ‘need’ to deceive himself when this helps to release him from an unbearable sense of inadequacy and to substitute instead a sense of inward rightness and well-being. What is called for in such a case is not some procedure that ‘solves his problem’. Rather, it is to pause and to give attention to the fact that his thinking and feeling is dominated, through and through, by a set of self -contradictory demands or ‘needs’ so that as long as such thinking and feeling prevail, there is no way to put things right. It takes a great deal of energy and seriousness to ‘stay with’ an awareness of this fact, rather than to ‘escape’ by allowing the mind to dart into some other subject, or otherwise lose awareness of the actual state of affairs. Such attention, going immensely beyond what is merely verbal or intellectual, can actually bring the root of the paradox into awareness, and thus the paradox dissolves when its nullity and absurdity are clearly seen, felt and understood.

Iconoclast

A key aspect of “taking each thought captive” is to focus our attention on it long enough to subject it to the truth about God – that God is Love – and the truth about us – that in Christ our well-being is already assured - that we are unconditionally loved by God and thus we are free to do the one thing that is required of us – to unconditionally love each other.

Back to Bohm

It has to be emphasized, however, that as long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved. On the contrary, the ‘problem’ can do nothing but grow and proliferate in ever increasing confusion. For it is an essential feature of thought that once the mind accepts a problem, then it is appropriate for the brain to keep on working until it finds a solution. This feature is indeed necessary for proper rational thinking. Thus, if a person were confronted by a real problem (e.g, the need to obtain food) and dropped it before it was adequately solved, the result could be disastrous. In any case, such a mode of operation would indicate an unhealthy flightiness or lack of seriousness. On the other hand, if the mind treats a paradox as if it were a real problem, then, since the paradox has no ‘solution’, the mind is caught in the paradox forever. Each apparent solution is found to be inadequate, and only leads on to new questions of a yet more muddled nature.

Iconoclast

This is what we do out of our own knowledge of good and evil when we use it to try and give effect to the law that God gave us.

Back to Bohm

Thus, a paradox which has taken root early in life (e.g., that arising out of a situation in which a child is made to feel a sense of inadequacy) may continue for the whole of a person’s life, always changing in detail, growing more and more confused, but remaining the same in essence. And when the person becomes aware of the disorder in his mind, but describes this disorder as a problem, then this very step makes the activity around the paradox both more intense and more confused. Clearly, then, it is important to see the difference between a problem and a paradox, and to respond to each of these in a way that is appropriate to it.

This distinction is important, not only psychologically for the individual, but also for human relationships, and ultimately for establishing a proper order of society. Thus, one can see that it is wrong to describe a breakdown in human relationships as a problem. For example, it is now widely found that parents and children cannot communicate freely and easily. The paradox is that all concerned seem to understand their common humanity and mutual dependence, which imply the need to be open to each other, while nevertheless each person feels that his own particular ‘needs’ are being ignored or rejected by the other, so that he is ‘hurt’ and reacts with a ‘defence mechanism’ preventing him from really listening to what the other person means to say.

David Bohm, Copyright

Semeia

In disunity with God we are in a catch-22; in unity this dilemma dissolves.

Iconoclast

Only when the “absurdity” is seen for what it is can we quit trying to “solve” our “problem” and simply accept the truth about who God is and who we are in Christ.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/27/2002 3:36 AM (GMT -6)

Loved the "problem/paradox" piece! I'd like to explore it a bit.

It seems to me that the "paradox" is caused by "a deeper problem." In the case of the person who is prone to accept flattery, decieve themselves and defend themselves because of a deep seated feeling of inadequacy, isn't "the problem" their deep seated sense of inadequacy? It IS a "paradox" in that they NEED to do what they they are DOING even though they don't want to DO it. So their DOING it reenforces the NEED which drives them to do it. But how is this "paradox" to be resolved? I don't see how calling attention to the paradoxical nature of the dilemma itself resolves it. It seems to me that "the problem" is the original sense of inadequacy.

The solution, from a Christian perspective, is Jesus Christ. The person needs to discover who God is, and who they are, in Jesus Christ. There are things we could offer him or her that would help him or her be transformed by the renewing of their mind that would eradicate the sense of inadequacy.

At base, then, I'd say the solution is a matter of being OKAY NOT doing anything, but just being loved by God. But even this presupposes A WAY OF SEEING which is a MENTAL doing. Moreover, there are mental strategies (e.g. TNT, NLP, etc.) that can help the purpose GROW in their "free okayness."

Am I agreeing or disagreeing with Bohm? I don't know. Help me out.

Thanks

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/27/2002 2:34 PM (GMT -6)

A truly humble person doesn't look back to see if he/she was humble. Jesus certainly exemplified this. Since He was not a slave to the knowledge of good and evil in the same way we are, He was able to walk outside of it; true love and true displays of love. What was there to look back at? The Law, the knowledge of good and evil (within the same conditions fallen man possess it), and sinfulness were no part of Christ's being. His love, therefore, is pure, pure in the sense we're talking here. One doesn't look back to see if their love was truely love. The freedom and simplicity of this is like when it rains; one doesn't look to see if it's raining when it's raining. One may look back, however, one may look at the rain to admire and be thankful for it's life-giving qualities, as one may look back at the one being loved to be rejoice in the results love has had in another's life.

If we have the mind of Christ by faith, if our minds have been--or rather, our being--transformed into His likeness, then I believe the mind can reach a place, in harmony with the heart--though whether it can stay there consistantly is up for question in view of our sinfulness--where one's love can be displayed without looking back. And in this regard to not look back, not because you know something is or is not there, but because it isn't in your nature to do so, is to love purely.

I'm struggling desperately--the struggle itself testifies to my lack of love--with coming into a more deep and pure love before God, for God and for others.

For the love of you all,

Starkman

Edited by - Starkman on 07/27/2002 7:42:29 PM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/27/2002 2:49 PM (GMT -6)

Say, how do I subscribe to this thread???

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/27/2002 3:33 PM (GMT -6)

Doc

It seems to me that the "paradox" is caused by "a deeper problem."

Iconoclast

I think that the "deeper problem" in this case is also a "paradox".

There was more discussion on the relation of "problem/paradox" to what happened in the Fall. In it I am suggesting that the Fall happened because the Serpent introduced a lie that created the paradox. You might argue that believing the lie was the "deeper problem" but I think an argument can be made that the lie can only be believed in the midst of the paradox. When the paradox is "dissolved" by focusing our attention so strongly on it that we perceive its absurdity - then and only then is the lie overcome. The lie and the paradox are inextricably bound together. If you get a chance, check it out:

Wanted: Real Action Heroes (an analogy)

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 07/27/2002 8:35:02 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/27/2002 4:14 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman

A truly humble person doesn't look back to see if he/she was humble.
...
One doesn't look back to see if their love was truely love.

Iconoclast

Good point. This sort of "looking back" is the sort where one is assessing how many "points" they should get for being humble or loving. Which of course means that they are trying to be "good" (gain "points" toward their own "goodness") by seeking to be humble or loving. This is what the Pharisees did with their public prayer and alms giving.

On the other hand true love seeks to have a positive impact on other people's lives. When true love is doing this it often "looks back" to determine if the action succeeded in having a positive impact. Remember the story about Jesus healing the blind man who didn't get healed in the first pass? Jesus asked the blind man how well he could see. The blind man responded that he could see but that the people looked like trees. Jesus then had him do a second "treatment" and then the blind man could see completely.

What would you say the struggle is? Are we struggling to love purely because we so desperately want and need to be OK ourselves? Or is it something else?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/27/2002 5:08 PM (GMT -6)

Doc

At base, then, I'd say the solution is a matter of being OKAY NOT doing anything, but just being loved by God. But even this presupposes A WAY OF SEEING which is a MENTAL doing. Moreover, there are mental strategies (e.g. TNT, NLP, etc.) that can help the purpose GROW in their "free okayness."

Iconoclast

This is what I understand Bohm to mean when he talks about paying attention to our thought processes in order to "dissolve" the paradox. Bohm is big on "suspending" an emotion (neither suppressing it nor acting out of it - for example anger) and then tracing the thought process that is behind the emotion. We may ultimately choose to act out of our emotion. A big concept of Bohm's is that "thought" is faster than "thinking". TNT / NLP strategies presuppose this and are "thinking" mechanisms designed to understand and modify "thought" processes. Bohm seems to presuppose in all of this that the underlying reality is that we are already OK - indeed that our non-OK'ness comes out of our confused thought processes. Unfortunately he never delves into his rationale for why this is so.

I don't see any big disconnect between what you are saying and what Bohm is saying except of course that you are articulating WHY we are already OK - because God loves us.

Bohm also wrote a book called "Thought as a System". It's really good but I only read half of it before putting it down. I just found that using "thinking" to try and comprehend the intricacies of "thought" to be very challenging (no wonder it takes a quantum mechanics physicist like Bohm to comprehend it in detail!). I also found it not particularly practical compared to using TNT / NLP techniques although it certainly shows why these techniques work so well.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/28/2002 8:21 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast: On the other hand true love seeks to have a positive impact on other people's lives. When true love is doing this it often "looks back" to determine if the action succeeded in having a positive impact.

Starkman: Yeah, that's what I meant in the next part of my earlier post; one does look back to see if the love displayed has had a positive affect and effect. By all means!

My struggle is to look at the fact that after having been a Christian for 25 years, I still walk in very little love, at least in view of the level of love in which I feel I should be walking. I hate seeing myself in a mirror, so to speak, because, man, I should love a lot more wholley and purely. I feel, anyway.

To some extent I suppose we all could say that we don't love to the level we think we should. It's just that for me this seems almost a paradox itself that's not getting solved: "Okay, God, make of me what I can never be without you. It's been 25 years already!"

For loving more,

Starkman

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/29/2002 6:20 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the clarification Icon. I TOTALLY agree with the notion that thinking is faster than thought, and agree that it is helpful to suspend, without judgment, a though or emotion to trace it back to the root. And, of course, I think the paradox is only "resolved" -- and the root problem is solved -- by the realization that one is "okay" in Christ (if only Bohm had known!)

You can try this Starkman. Wake up to your unlovingness. Suspend the unlovingness and investigate it. Ask yourself, How are you DOING unlovingness in your life? What do you actually see and hear in your head when you are "doing" unlovingness? What need are you meeting by being less loving than you want to be? Don't judge the unlovingness or get mad or remorseful. Just be interested. Study it.

And then let Jesus meet the need you are trying to meet by being unloving. If you try to get rid of "unlovingness" while not getting the need met which this activity is meeting, it won't work. Indeed, it will exaserbate the problem. This is Bohm's "paradox." All true transformation involves being okay in God's love IN THE MIDST of the problem... which is how the problem disappears, and the self-defeating paradox is resolved. You BECOME more loving AS A RESULT of experiencing more love from Christ.

Its like I always say (e.k.a. Sebastian on the Little Mermaid)

"Unless you can be totally okay in the midst of your crap, you've NEVER get out of your crap."

And all God's people screamed: "preach it brother!"

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/29/2002 11:52 AM (GMT -6)

Starkman

To some extent I suppose we all could say that we don't love to the level we think we should. It's just that for me this seems almost a paradox itself that's not getting solved: "Okay, God, make of me what I can never be without you. It's been 25 years already!"

Iconoclast

I hear you. I have often felt like I am just not a very loving person. That I don't feel the love that I think I should feel toward others. And not that I am incapable of feeling love – I deeply feel love toward my wife and children and others that I am really close to but I don’t generally feel love toward others. I resolved this concern to some extent by telling myself that love isn't a feeling toward another - it is always an action. And I think this is true. The problem for me is that it is hard to will myself to taking loving action toward others out of a sense of feeling like that is what I am supposed to do. I can do it from time to time when I remember but it is hard to "walk in love" by sheer will power or determination. This just doesn't seem to lead to love becoming the "suit of clothes" that we wear.

I haven't thought about this in this way before but now that you mention it, it does seem like a paradox. Perhaps something like: love IS an action but to "walk in love" means to automatically take loving action toward others which can't really be done unless we automatically feel love toward others. In the past I would have argued that taking loving action toward others will lead to feeling love toward others. And I think this is true. But still, this seems like a paradox. To feel love means we need to take loving action but to automatically take loving action requires us to automatically feel loving.

On the other hand why isn't this a "virtuous circle"? Why can't we just use will power to take loving action because that IS God's command which should lead us to feeling love which should lead us to having more intrinsic motivation to take loving action? My personal experience is that this doesn't seem to work very well.

Stream of consciousness here.

One thought that comes to mind is that when I am trying to will myself to take loving action I am associated into the thought that I am supposed to take loving action. It is God's command which I am supposed to obey. Maybe from this psychological position it is too much about me trying to be "good" by taking loving action so that I never actually experience love flowing through me - even though the action may indeed actually have a loving impact - and since I don't experience love flowing I don't feel love and then I don't get the benefit of additional motivation.

Another thought that comes to mind is that maybe this strategy is like trying to start a chain reaction (the virtuous circle) without enough initial "power".

The analogy that comes to mind is the workings of a nuclear bomb. (hmmmmm.... horrible association to think about when one considers the use of one of these things but bear with me) A nuclear (fission) bomb is a massive chain reaction of neutrons and protons splitting atoms which in turn release neutron and protons to split other atoms. All one has to do create this chain reaction is to take sufficient sized lumps of Plutonium and put them together really, really fast. If you don't put them together fast enough (with enough power) then the first set of chain reactions pushes them apart and the chain reaction stops.

So how do you put them together fast enough - with enough power? Well, it turns out the first atom bombs used dynamite to push the chunks of plutonium together fast enough. But, how does one explode dynamite? You use a blasting cap.

So a little blasting cap (or set of them) is used to explode some dynamite which pushes the plutonium together which sets off the chain reaction.

The analogy is that maybe this strategy for “walking in love” fails because it is like trying to push two pieces of plutonium together by hand. Something happens but it fails to ignite an explosion of love within us.

Maybe the strategy fails because we are trying to start at too “big” of a level (pushing chunks of plutonium together by hand). Maybe we really need to start at a much “smaller” level (a blasting cap).

Maybe the “blasting cap” is simply willing ourselves to ask God to bless other people in our minds. Doc told a story in one of his sermons about how one day in a shopping mall he just started asking God to bless other people in his mind – for God to pour His spirit out upon each individual who walked by. He said that doing this caused him to actually see and feel each person’s unsurpassable worth before God, which in turn caused him to feel love toward them.

I have tried this a few times and have also experienced this. I have also noticed that when I do this I must be smiling more because people start smiling back at me and will sometimes just engage me in conversation – that never happened before. I have found this strategy to be relatively easy to remember and even easier to do. It is also quite rewarding in and of itself.

It seems that a simple thought (asking God to bless) which is a loving action quickly produces a “seeing” or a recognition of the infinite worth of others that leads to a feeling of love and openness to others. Although one might argue that even this first requires a thought or a belief or a recognition that others really do have unsurpassable worth because God ascribes unsurpassable worth to us all.

Doc

Its like I always say (a.k.a. Sebastian on the Little Mermaid)

"Unless you can be totally okay in the midst of your crap, you'll NEVER get out of your crap."

Iconoclast

Which I think suggests that we won’t be able to ascribe unsurpassable worth to others unless and until we really allow God to (we see, hear and feel Him) ascribe unsurpassable worth to us.

I really like the idea about suspending our “unlovingness” – for some reason it never even occurred to me that “unlovingness” was an emotion that I was having - that it was something I was actively DOING – rather it always seemed like it was an emotion that I WASN’T having – something that I WASN'T doing. I see now how that is indeed a paradox just like Bohm describes.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/29/2002 5:43 PM (GMT -6)

So its like this:

Until we can experience GOD's love for us in the midst of and inspite of our crap (viz. everything inconsistent with God), we cannot love ourselves in the midst of our crap. And until we can love ourselves in the midst of our crap, we really can't love others in the midst of their crap. And the only thing that gets anyone out of any crap is God's love in the midst of crap.

Which explains quite well why the world is so full of crap.

Its the flip side of noticing that it is so devoid of unconditoinal love.

And all God's people said...

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/30/2002 2:16 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
And all God's people said...

And all God's people said...CRAP!

Praise God for his unconditional love!

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/30/2002 2:52 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast said:
I hear you. I have often felt like I am just not a very loving person. That I don't feel the love that I think I should feel toward others. And not that I am incapable of feeling love – I deeply feel love toward my wife and children and others that I am really close to but I don’t generally feel love toward others. I resolved this concern to some extent by telling myself that love isn't a feeling toward another - it is always an action. And I think this is true. The problem for me is that it is hard to will myself to taking loving action toward others out of a sense of feeling like that is what I am supposed to do. I can do it from time to time when I remember but it is hard to "walk in love" by sheer will power or determination. This just doesn't seem to lead to love becoming the "suit of clothes" that we wear.

Well said, my brother (as well as the rest of your post). You've well hit this nail on the head.

Doc said:
Wake up to your unlovingness. Suspend the unlovingness and investigate it. Ask yourself, How are you DOING unlovingness in your life? . . . Just be interested. Study it . . . You BECOME more loving AS A RESULT of experiencing more love from Christ.

Thanks Doc. I'm really going to try and hone in on considering what's going on in my head when I am unloving. Funny how one can live with the streaks of light constantly flashing across the eye of the mind and hear (i.e. the slim rays of truth that tell you something else is going on inside you when you encounter an issue such as not having love for someone), but it amazingly gets overlooked. And then someone tells you to just stop and consider what you're thinking or feeling when the issue arises, and, lo and behold, you see the streaks of light that have always been there! Amazing. I know they're there in my head and heart, but I think I can begin to see some of them now.

Thanks much,

Starkman

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 8/6/2002 8:56 AM (GMT -6)

Quick Thought for Bonhoeffer fans:

What would happen if traffic were not guided by speed limits, traffic signals, speeding tickets or benchmarks for people to see how fast they were going? What if traffic speed were guided by people's GENUINE, loving concern about the safety of ALL drivers (including themselves)? What if everyone were to concern themselves with the reality of the road conditions, weather, and car health withing the genuine concern above...and NOT just how fast the law allows them to go? What if everyone were merely concerned with being a LOVING driver?

What would happen if we really trusted ourselves to BE loving drivers, reality to help show us the way and, finally, the process of constantly becoming a more and more loving driver?

To those who have an ear, let them hear.

PS: Note to Semeia and Icon. Check it. Think about the Enneagram and the One personality. If you think about it, doesn't the Basic Fear, ego defenses to stop it, AND it's perceived resolution (as detailed in the healthiest level of the One personality), in many ways, PARALLEL this entire conversation about the knowledge of good and evil?

Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/06/2002 2:05:51 PM

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 8/6/2002 9:10 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi2K says:

quote:

What if traffic speed were guided by people's GENUINE, loving concern about the safety of ALL drivers (including themselves)?

The verse that comes to mind is: "Jesus wept"

How He must long to see us gathered together...

peace and love, don

"It's time to wipe the tears from our eyes time to stop questioning why, 'cos every clipped birds gonna fly the Healing has begun" T.S Taylor

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 8/6/2002 9:33 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
What would happen if traffic were not guided by speed limits, traffic signals, speeding tickets or benchmarks for people to see how fast they were going? What if traffic speed were guided by people's GENUINE, loving concern about the safety of ALL drivers (including themselves)? What if everyone were to concern themselves with the reality of the road conditions, weather, and car health withing the genuine concern above...and NOT just how fast the law allows them to go? What if everyone were merely concerned with being a LOVING driver?

What would happen if we really trusted ourselves to BE loving drivers, reality to help show us the way and, finally, the process of constantly becoming a more and more loving driver?

To those who have an ear, let them hear.

I like it. I really like it. Meph, it's good to have you back. Bon's been giving me fits.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

36 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:10 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual