tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11900172.post5547002747305655410..comments2023-09-17T07:02:09.587-04:00Comments on p e a c e f u l t u r m o i l: Reconciling tradition and contemporary insight: How to live, meeting God, and judgmenttinythinkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11900172.post-37208214499925542512011-03-10T16:03:05.201-05:002011-03-10T16:03:05.201-05:00Tiny, I like that parable! And I agree with a lot...Tiny, I like that parable! And I agree with a lot of what you said. The Scriptures do say that "now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. . . but when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." <br /><br />But thinking about what you said about the immanence and the transcendence of God-- I think it makes sense to think of the Trinity in light of that: that the Father is in some sense the transcendence of God, while the Son and Spirit function in two different ways, as the immanence of God. I do think that Jesus did more than connect fully with the Divine; I think Jesus was, in some way, an embodiment of the immanence of God into a human form, with a nature that was both human and divine. I know you would say that our own human nature connects to and arises out of the Divine, and thus in some sense we are divine too-- but I think that the Christian tradition intentionally makes a distinction between us as smaller, individual consciences and the Foundational Consciousness-- whereas Jesus Christ IS the complete presence of the Foundational Consciousness in a human form, made one with a human consciousness in a way that is unique and that no other human can achieve. In other words, that we are distinct from the Divine Consciousness in a way that Jesus is not. This is hard to express in words, but that's the best I can do. <br /><br />I think the Trinity can be described as three distinct centers of the Foundational Consciousness, Each functioning in such a way that It can inter-relate with the other Two. We humans can connect to that Foundation, but we are not that Foundation, whereas Jesus in some way IS one of those three centers of Foundational Consciousness. This is different from "a piece of God in a human suit" because Jesus is not just a "piece" of that Consciousness but one of the three Centers of It-- not just embodied in flesh, but mingled with a fully human consciousness so as to become one human-divine individual. Our humanity tapping into the Divine, does not give us humans that Incarnational aspect.<br /><br />In any case, this sort of thing is hard to express in mere words. It's simpler to just show the picture of the man who was born blind "worshiping" Jesus, and Jesus not telling him to stop, but accepting that worship. John 9:38. A picture is worth a thousand words!Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11900172.post-34763824467663977342011-03-09T10:34:18.002-05:002011-03-09T10:34:18.002-05:00A further thought that I guess didn't get push...A further thought that I guess didn't get pushed or explained enough, but yes, Christ I agree is definitely something we can contrast to ourselves (him/us), and since Jesus (some-image-of-fully-becoming-what-you-are-that-only-makes-sense-from-a-perspective-beyond-time-and-space) Christ, since he is Christ and Christ is he, then yes, it makes sense to have this idea of distinction. Perhaps the real difference is the idea that we can truly be one in the Christ with Jesus. I can appreciate the reluctance to believe that as well, but I do think it is where we are expected to go at some point with the teachings. I think the following parable might say it better (haha!):<br /><br />There is a Buddhist parable that has been compared to that of the Prodigal Son where the son doesn't recognize his wealthy father, but his father recognizes him when he spots him in the slums. The son is a poor wretch and his self image is so low and his understanding so weak, the father cannot just say "Hey, I'm your daddy and I happen to be the richest and most powerful guy around; even kings come to ask me favors." So the father has his steward hire the son as the lowest kind of servant, for which the son is immensely grateful (it saved his life from starvation and disease). As the son is given more and more responsibility, he gains more confidence (reminds me of the story of the servants and the talents from the Gospel) and is given more authority, until finally he becomes the master's right hand man, kind of like an adopted member of the family. He has charge, in his father's name, over everything his father owns. Then, finally, the son is ready. He has learned humility and gratitude from his failure, poverty, and redemption. He has gained true confidence as a servant and adopted heir. Now he is ready for the full truth, that he really is the wealthy man's son, and has been all along.tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11900172.post-52726553271507403272011-03-09T10:11:49.706-05:002011-03-09T10:11:49.706-05:00And of course, by "your readers", you do...And of course, by "your readers", you do realize that you mean yourself and two other people, right? ;O)tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11900172.post-9252176954545534642011-03-09T10:09:27.465-05:002011-03-09T10:09:27.465-05:00As for the other points, I don't mind disagree...As for the other points, I don't mind disagreeing, but I do think that some of what I have said is understated in that it means something much deeper and more powerful than it may sound. I had a hard time really conveying the idea I wanted to describe about divinity. To say Jesus was fully immersed in God consciousness, for example, is no trivial thing. That doesn't just make him some extra wise guru. If the ground of being is understood as consciousness, then to be fully fused with it is much more than simply tapping into God like tapping into one's hidden reserves of courage. Jesus and the Father would have been one in a complete and perfect union.<br /><br />I do see evidence this is what Jesus wanted the same for us, to be one with him and the Father, and in fact we even have the image of the body of Christ of which the Church is so fond. The question of Christ's uniqueness is not unimportant, but I don't see the need to equate it with separation. This is where I think a lot of the royal images are overplayed, so that we are the little serfs and Jesus is the majestic king. I can't help but see Jesus as trying to find a way to tell people, "No! You are special too! You've just got to believe it. Look at me, whom everyone knows as a poor guy from the wrong side of the tracks, and look what I have done. At who I really am beyond just being the son of a carpenter. If you believe in me, you will be free. You won't keep seeing yourself that way anymore. Come and join me. There are plenty of rooms in the royal mansion."<br /><br />In any case, thanks for reading and commenting. Again, the point is to get people to think, and to pray, and to not leave a lot of what they believe unexamined. To expose and offer an alternative to hidden assumptions, not simply as a replacement, but as a catalyst to go further. Be well.tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11900172.post-65606793722175103112011-03-09T10:08:19.753-05:002011-03-09T10:08:19.753-05:00There is a lot of room in what I wrote, so that it...There is a lot of room in what I wrote, so that it's a starting point rather than a conclusion. One doesn't have to believe Jesus was "just another guy", but then, I don't believe any of us are. I think we each a unique role and a unique relationship with God. One of things to consider is that Jesus is already awake, he has already taken on the mantle of Christ, so it would not be inappropriate to say "Come to me", because he isn't pointing to just Jesus but to the Father as Christ. That's how I take passages such as John 3:16-17 ("For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned"), John 4:13 ("the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life"), John 5:24-26("Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life... For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself"), John 6:35 ("I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty"), John 7:37-38 ("Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them"), <br /><br />In those cases I hear Jesus speaking as the Chris, yet mixed in are also teachings that if we were just talking about Jesus, he would have no such power, insight, or authority: John 5:19 (“Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does"), John 7:16 ("My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me"), John 8:38 ("I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence"), John 8:54 ("If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me"), and John 10:36-38 ("what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father").<br /><br />This isn't an argument for or against, but rather an illustration. Similarly, neither is the following argumentative but intended for clarification.tinythinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137637122776756669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11900172.post-67527392205191936442011-03-09T01:39:02.984-05:002011-03-09T01:39:02.984-05:00I really liked this whole series. I especially re...I really liked this whole series. I especially resonated with this part:<br /><br />"This limited thinking and living is also taken to be that to which Biblical references to "the flesh" are referring, whereas insight that comes from immersion in the divine consciousness is taken to coincide with references to "the spirit". Moreover, the flesh here is not seen as evil but merely incomplete, like a young child left to its own devices. Hence to reach our full potential, to not fall short of the glory God intends for us, we ought to strive to grow into a full relationship with God, which involves developing our divine consciousness (or in common parlance a relationship with God)."<br /><br />I do, however, see Jesus as more than someone like ourselves who somehow connected fully with the Divine-- such that we can be just like him, be "Christ" ourselves, if we learn how to connect in the same way. I see a difference between being the "image" of God (me) and the "incarnation" of God (Jesus) -- and I think Christianity does make this distinction, and that it's more than just a form of immature or "magical" thinking about the nature of Jesus. I think Jesus saw himself as more than just a man who had tapped fully into the divine. If that were all there was to it, he would have rebuked those who treated him as more than that. And he would not have said things like, "Come to me, and I will give you rest" -- he would have said, "Come to God, and God will give you rest."<br /><br />This may be an area where we are going to have to just agree to disagree. :) I don't know exactly how to translate "Jesus is God incarnate" or "Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity" into more contemporary language-- it's a mystery that's hard to express. But I do feel a real distinction between Jesus and myself, and I do think that distinction is part of what Christianity is about, and not simply a misunderstanding based on literalism. <br /><br />That said, I do think you have done your readers a service in your analysis. Thank you for opening your mind in a way that helps me open mine.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.com