Could you nuance this a bit?

When do we get to the easy questions?

- I'll be out most of the rest of the day, but will get back to you. For now, let me say that your phrase, "we. like Adam, are naturally inclined to separate our awareness from God" needs more nuancing as well. Adam before the fall was not so naturally inclined to separation; his union with God constituted no obstacle to individuation, as we experience with our own growing union with God. Quite the contrary.

Meanwhile, there's a lot of meat on Arraj's web site, including a few good links discussing the nature of Jesus' consciousness on this page. The quote below provides a deep insight, I believe, into the nature of Jesus' consciousness.

The very person of the humanity of Jesus is the person of the Word, the second person of the Trinity, and so the human nature of Jesus does not find its ultimate center in itself but in the Word. This humanity is not taken up in any mechanical way as if it were some inert object. It is transformed by that assumption so that while it remains a human nature - so that there will be a genuine Incarnation - it is a human nature that takes on an enhanced way of being.
http://www.innerexplorations.c...tchtheomor/mind4.htm

"For now, let me say that your phrase, "we. like Adam, are naturally inclined to separate our awareness from God" needs more nuancing as well. Adam before the fall was not so naturally inclined to separation; his union with God constituted no obstacle to individuation, as we experience with our own growing union with God. Quite the contrary."

Yes, ok. pre-fallen Adam wasn't as inclined as we are, yet he clearly had some degree of inclination. Jesus had this same pre-fallen nature, and so my pondering leads to the idea of His Divine Nature absorbing the attention or awareness found in His human nature, making not sinning much easier than sinning. IOW, His creaturely tendencies were much less arousing, as they were taken up in their uncreated Source.

Interesting perspective, though: implied in what you're saying is that our separation from God actually inhibits our individuation. I guess we could say it is the nature of existential crisis: the realization we've come to the end of our search for meaning merely in terms of human faculties/experience. And, becoming more holy would lead to an individuality that isn't defined by ego, which is central to the merely moral, existential life.

BTW, there are no easy questions worth asking. Just ask JB . . . . . .

Phil and Stephen:

Here's an excerpt from Arraj that I think does the nuancing I'm concerned with:

http://www.innerexplorations.com/catjc/jc9.htm

"Once we have this instrument our dilemma begins to look more approachable. The human personality of Jesus is not limited to ego consciousness with the result that we are forced to choose either that Jesus was aware, or he was unaware of his divinity, or he was filled with grace, or was not. Instead, Maritain distinguishes in the humanity of Jesus between a "supraconscious of the spirit divinized by the Beatific Vision" (p. 55) and a human consciousness that embraces the ego, the infraconscious and the normal spiritual unconscious. This divinized supraconscious is unique to Christ and is not to be identified with the spiritual unconscious we all possess. Rather it is as if the deepest center or roots of Jesus' human soul, his spiritual unconscious, is transformed and elevated by becoming the humanity of the Word. This supraconscious escapes Jesus' normal consciousness, not because it is infraconscious but because of its excessive brilliance:

"Imagine that I am in a cellar and I am reading there a book by the light of a candle. To my left, beyond the circle of light of my candle, there is the darkness of the cellar, and if I place my book there I cannot distinguish anything in it, - this is for the infraconscious. And to my right there is a ray of the midday sun which, passing through a window and falling on the surface of some object in the cellar, makes there a zone of dazzling light. If I transfer my book there I can absolutely not read anything there either, I am dazzled by a brightness disproportionate to the strength of my eyes. This is for the divinized supraconscious." (p. 55, note 8)

"Jesus' consciousness exists in two different states. In his divinized supraconsciousness he was aware of his divine identity and he had a fullness of grace. But in what Maritain called his "terrestrial" or "crepuscular" consciousness into which the higher supraconceptual knowledge could not enter as such, he grew in age and in wisdom and in grace. This does not mean for Maritain that the "unconscious" of the divinized humanity of Jesus had no communication whatsoever with his human consciousness; although there was a "certain incommunicability" the separation between the two was a "translucid partition" which Jesus in his human consciousness could cross, but his supraconsciousness could only partially enter into a human consciousness founded on the working of the discursive mind. It is not a question of two ego consciousnesses, but one ego-awareness surrounded by various "unconscious" dimensions, and the divinized unconscious has more right to the title of the center of the soul than the ego itself. Maritain goes on to work out in considerable d tail and with appropriate theological nuances the relationship between these two states of consciousness, but his basic statement of the principle is enough for our purposes. Such an approach will allow us to begin to see how Jesus could feel the agony of abandonment if the supraconsciousness in which he was united to the Father became inaccessible to him at the time of the Passion. And there is no need to make the child Jesus in his child consciousness have all sorts of human knowledge so that his life with Mary and Joseph would be more a charade than a true time of learning."

And for me, the real gem:

"But what will happen if the human form becomes the human soul of a divine person? It will be, by that very fact, elevated and transformed in its depths which Maritain called the superconscious of the spirit, the light and gravitational pull of which will effect the rest of Jesus' psyche. The natural urge towards unity that the soul possesses will be intensified."

Does a fish know what water is? I belive Jesus was, as Paul believes him to be, the second Adam and
was swimming in it, but with a conciousness of sin and human suffering, something Adam got to experience but in his previous state had little or no consciousness of.

Jesus got to swim in the divine water as a sinless fish, and reunited both fish and water in a way that Adam could not and in doing so healed the human separation.

Everything the Christian mystics have done is an attempt at approaching and approximation and an imitation of this.

I sat up until 5 am with a new freind who is having a "k" experience (the photograph of his aura is the largest these particular photographers have seen so far,) and an old freind who just informed me of her breast cancer.

The presence of the "water" was so palpable that it was relatively easy to be with her in a
detached manner and talk about the fish experience at length.

Water used to be hard to find and it was a long crawl from one oasis to another. Then it began to rain alot and sometimes today I feel as though I am swimming, whatever is going on.

I'll never understand Christ's experience since
He is unique, but the taste of being both fish and water that I do have is plenty enough for a mere mortal.

great-full,

mm <*))))))><

Good exchanges, and yes, w.c., I see how those quotes speak to the issues you were raising.

And while we're speaking of water . . . . . . kind of reminds me of drinking alcohol. Take an alcoholic and tempt him with alcohol; the struggle with be very different than the experience of a non-alcoholic. I imagine Jesus' tempations to be along the lines of the latter -- there was no wound of Original Sin inclining him to self-destructive, separative behavior, so his resitance to temptation was as easy as the non-alcoholic's temptation to drink alcohol. This is not to minimize Jesus' temptations, nor to distance him from knowledge of the human experience. Remember -- he experienced the destructive power of sin more deeply and completely than did anyone who ever lived.

So take those quotes you shared, w.c., and at the end, add the one I shared at the top of this page, and I think we begin to get an idea of the uniqueness of Christ.

-----

btw, this thread title does little justice to the discussion that's developed. I wish I could tranfer individual posts to a new thread on the theme of what Jesus' crucifixion accomplished, but this software doesn't do that. Anyone have any suggestions on what we ought to do about this?

"This is not to minimize Jesus' temptations, nor to distance him from knowledge of the human experience. Remember -- he experienced the destructive power of sin more deeply and completely than did anyone who ever lived."


Interesting how only one not naturally drawn to sin could experience its full weight, or destructive effects.

So Phil, is it theologically correct, in Catholic terms, to define original sin as just the separateness of the creation from its Creator, as in its natural tendency to withdraw its will from that Presence and attempt to create its own meaning and happiness?

I began the thread with Neale Donald Walsh and his attempt to define the New Spirituality as an alternative to oppressive belief systems.

The question might be then just how to keep the Christian religion from becoming oppressive? How do you keep from throwing baby Jesus out with the dirty bathwater (oppression) or from throwing dirty water (syncretism) on the baby?

I saw a motion picture last night, The Magdelene Sisters, about an oppressive institution
in Ireland where 30,000 women did pennance for their "sins" by washing laundry and taking canings
from angry nuns.

You might call it an anti-religious film, but
the gospel message was mixed in there along with a great deal of shaming and guilting of the relative captives who were having it forced upon them.

I don't blame Walsh for feeling the need to move away from this, but is he moving toward anything better with his syncretism?

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

It's a good thread-topic, Michael, and our meanderings are relevant to the general focus and concerns raised. Eventually, one is led to investigate some of the traditional teachings we've been reflecting on, as they're the main ones being called into question by people like Walsch. Same goes for the Peter Jennings thread. I guess anyone really interested in what we've talked about re. Original Sin and what was accomplished by the crucifixion can find their way to this discussion using the forum search.

from w.c. So Phil, is it theologically correct, in Catholic terms, to define original sin as just the separateness of the creation from its Creator, as in its natural tendency to withdraw its will from that Presence and attempt to create its own meaning and happiness?

"Separateness" can be of two kinds, as I see it--one ontological, the other existential (JB could probably nuance better). Ontological separateness would mean that God and a creature are really two different beings (as opposed to pantheism). This is not a bad thing as it's the only context in which true relationship is possible. The original intent was for human beings to know and develop in a context of profound intimacy with God, one another and creation, and so to become truly, authentically individuated ("loving unity differentiates"). By acting against this intent, the first parents committed the "original sin," the consequences of which have been passed on to the entire race owing to the fundamental unity of the race (Aquinas' ideas on form are relevant here) and the traditions we've developed that inculturated an anti-relational dynamic. The consequence to individual humans is a sense of "existential separateness," isolation, alienation, development of a false-self identity, and tendency to try to develop oneself in an exaggerated spirit of self-sufficiency. Existential separateness as I am describing it is, then, how we experience the consequences of the Original Sin and what many theologians actually call the evidence of Original Sin in our lives; but the Original Sin was the act of rebellion of the first parents.

What follows is a lengthy exerpt from Arraj's fine reflection on Original Sin found here. Good stuff, and more of it precedeing and following this quote. For those with more than an average interest in these matters . . .

-------------------

"Sexuality is intimately connected with what Jung called the animus and anima, those deep archetypal dimensions of the psyche that express themselves in characteristics of the opposite sex. Here, too, we can expect a certain distortion has entered in because of original sin. Further, the whole trajectory of psychological development that Jung called the process of individuation, especially in terms of the fourth, or inferior, function, could have suffered distortions due to original sin. Thus we are faced with the difficult question of how to distinguish normal growth towards psychological integration from what might be the effects of a fallen and redeemed nature. We often act, for example, under the influence of the unconscious which clouds our rational judgment, and the archetypes of the unconscious understood as natural aspects of the soul, exist in a certain existential state generated by the fallen-redeemed world we live in, and so their influence might be more disruptive than it otherwise would be.


"At the root of our deepest intellectual and creative activity are certain intuitions that flash like heat lightning in the depths of the unconscious. These include the intuition of being that gives rise to metaphysics, and the creative intuitions that come to fruition in art and poetry. Is it not possible that these kinds of intuitions, including genuine religious ones, could have played a primordial role in the minds and hearts of the first humans? And could they not have been adversely affected by their turning away from God? Then it is possible to imagine that these intuitions would have become more obscure and distant to us, and would only make their way into consciousness and find adequate expression there with considerably more difficulty. But the disruption wrought by original sin would have fallen most heavily on the relationship the first humans had with God even if much of this relationship were to be conceived as a virtual one, waiting on their acceptance of God�s offer of grace.162 This is a relationship in which a supernatural contemplation of God would likely have played a central role. It would have formed the central axis which held the various energies of the soul in their proper places and bound them together into a harmonious whole. Without it, they would tend to seek their own goals irregardless of the goal of the whole person.

"Just how deeply rooted in the depths of our souls are the effects of original sin and the subsequent history of sin? When John of the Cross is describing the journey of the soul to God, he gives a central place in it to what he calls the dark night of sense, and the dark night of spirit. He tells us that it is the very dawning of the soul�s union with God that illuminates the stains and distortions within it. It would be possible, I think, to read his detailed and often horrific descriptions of these nights in the light of the damage done to the soul in its depths by original sin.

"The effects of original sin and all sins are social, as well. We literally cannot exist physically, psychologically, intellectually or spiritually outside of the human community. We are members of the one human race that gives birth to us, and all our actions for good or for ill reverberate throughout this community. The actions of the first humans had a devastating impact on all their descendants because they stood at the very beginning, and had the task of transmitting both nature and grace. But we, too, in a lesser way, are meant to transmit nature and grace to all those around us and who will come after us, and the effects of our bad actions are transmitted to them, as well. We have an instinctive understanding of this. We realize how powerfully we have been impacted for both good and for evil by those around us, and even those far distant from us in space and time. But what I want to focus on is the embodiment of these influences in our social structures. These structures are natural and normal expressions of our social natures. We create schools, hospitals, corporations, and so forth, but they, too, have a dimension that can be seen as a result of original sin and subsequent sins. They take on, for example, a certain life of their own, and can even lose sight of the very purposes for which they were created. Then we have schools that extinguish the love of learning, hospitals that spread disease, and corporations that wrench the pursuit of profit out of a truly human context.

"The point of these examples of the possible impacts caused by original sin and subsequent sins is not to push us into a pessimism that sees sin behind every tree and under every bush. Each of these areas has a progressive and salvific side. We do not just live in a fallen world, but a fallen-redeemed one. The nights of St. John of the Cross are nights because they lead to divine union. The passion of Jesus and his death ends in the resurrection. The distortions of our souls and social structures, however powerful, need to be seen in the context of the greater power of the grace of Christ. But if we learn to see the world through the optic of original sin, then perhaps we can learn to act in a more determined manner to remedy some of these ills."

Thanks for the above quotes w.c. and Phil and for the discussion as a whole. It certainly got me going.

Have a look at this passage from Colossians 1:19,20 -

"For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell,
and by Him to reconcile(good word, w.c.) all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross."

Later too it says: "For in Him all the fullness of the godhead dwells bodily."

How can this be fully comprehended?!

God manifest in the flesh is a bit of a mystery and to retain the wonder of it all, it should remain so.

The preceding verses from 15-18 are worth a look too as regards Christ's position in the universe.

Another key verse in establishing the nature of Christ's sacrifice, which, consequently, opens a window on the divine nature itself is: "righteousness and peace have kissed one another." (Sorry, I think it's from the Psalms, can't quite recall.)

This, coupled with Paul's teachings on the righteousness of God at the start of Romans seem to indicate the need for some sort of judicial procedure in dealing with sin, a judicial procedure which indicates God's judicial qualities. The fact that God is dealing with it in His incarnate form is evidence enough of the grace involved. God is seen as the wise, righteous and gracious judge. So then, the ultimate penalty/wage of sin is death. That is its natural outcome. Thus, by dying on the cross, Christ is paying the penalty. Also important that His blood was shed, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. The life of the flesh is in the blood. We're dealing with pretty earthy stuff here, aswell as super spiritual truths. And I maintain that Christ's sacrifice effects both reconciliation AND righteousness with God. (See Romans 1-5, particularly in reference to Abraham being reckoned as righteous with God.)

Why then should righteous judgement be seen as harsh? It obviously presents a problem for Walsch and others but - "righteousness and PEACE have kissed one another." Maybe these concepts are old fashioned, but surely they are eternal. Why the need to twist or dilute the gospel as it is presented in scripture?

I've always thought of the temptation of Christ as meaning He was "presented" with temptation in all things. He Himself remained unmoved while the Devil, the temptor, was active - ie no flicker of temptation crossed His mind, it all came from without. What do you think? Perhaps this position needs adjusted somewhat, perhaps not.

In this respect He still retains that identification and sympathy with human suffering, while allowing us to identify with Him(in that our true spiritual natures identify) and gain strength from Him. Look at His answers to the devil's temptation. Does it even cross His mind to accept ? I can't see it. "You shall not tempt the Lord your God." How on earth can the Lord God be tempted in Himself? Surely it refers to temptation from without. Remember at this stage the Spirit had descended on Christ and He was still one with the Father. Any kind of separation only came on the cross.

Still He overcomes because purity and holiness are triumphant, unmoved.

NDW's closing remarks:

If there were one thing God would want to say to the human race, what would it be?

God would say, "You've got me all wrong." Here's the great irony of life on this planet; We have made breathtaking progress in our technology, we've made stunning advances in the medical sciences, and we've even made some forward progress in our political sciences. We've brought down the iron curtain, and freedom and democracy have moved to places around the world where we never thought we'd see it. Indeed, every aspect of human endeavor has made stunning advances over the past two thousand years, with one single, sad exception--humanity's theology. There has not been
a startling new idea introduced among the exclusivist mainline churches in this time period.
What's more, they won't even consider any. This causes a large number of human beings to walk into the twenty-first century with first century or pre-first century moral, ethical and theological constructions.

The ethical and moral dilemmas with which we will be confronted in the twenty-first century cannot be successfully negotiated using old ideas. So we have to have the courage to experience what my wonderful role model, Sir John Templeton, would say: What the world needs now is a bit of humility with it's theology, that is, a theology that understands
we don't have all the answers but is willing to remain inside the questions, "Who am I? Who is God? What is our newest, our grandest, and our most extraordinary understanding?" Let us not stay in the answer we gave ourselves hundreds, even thousands, of years ago. Let us hold onto the parts of the answer that still continue to resonate and make sense to the human soul but let us release those parts of the answer that do not--
and there are many parts that do not. We're going to create a new God at last. Of course, it won't really be a new God but simply an enlarged and breathtakingly refreshed understanding of the God who always was and who is now and always will be.

Stephen:

Those passages in Colossians are worth meditating on, as in Lectio Divina, for instance.

As for how Jesus experienced temptation, Arraj's descriptions work for me . . .

"But what will happen if the human form becomes the human soul of a divine person? It will be, by that very fact, elevated and transformed in its depths which Maritain called the superconscious of the spirit, the light and gravitational pull of which will effect the rest of Jesus' psyche. The natural urge towards unity that the soul possesses will be intensified."


IOW, everything Jesus experienced was felt through an unfallen human psyche and allowed, according to its obscured, but still present hidden design, to find its way to its ultimate source in Him. And so lust, for instance, would reach His heart very quickly, and perhaps become adoration of the Father, or deep love for His creation. So I would say He overcame temptation by transforming the passions through His Heart. I sort of imagine this is why He was so at ease hanging out among the shadows of human experience, to save sinners by imparting some sense to others, just with His presence, what it is they yearn for the most in their distorted passions. To have the object of that yearning be the Person right there in front of you is just overwhelming to imagine. No wonder John the evangelist enjoyed laying on His chest, and seemed to talk a lot less than the others.

Men are God's method. The church is looking for better methods; God is looking for better men....What the church needs today is not more machinery or better, not new organizations or more or novel methods, but men whom the Holy Ghost can use--men of prayer, men mighty in prayer. The Holy Ghost does not come on machinery, but on men. He does not anoint plans, but men--men of prayer....


The training of the Twelve was the great, difficult and enduring work of Christ....It is not great talents or great learning or great preachers
that God needs, but men great in holiness, great in faith, great in love, great in fidelity, great for God--men always preaching by holy sermons in the pulpit, by holy lives out of it.
They can mold a generation for God.

-- E.M. Bounds

Nice picture, w.c.

However, the gospels often talk about Jesus looking on someone and loving them or feeling compassion for them. I think there is a purity of vision, a purity of intent that transcends any notion of transforming sinful impulses, however immediately. I see Christ's nature as being more than just an unfallen nature but a totally new expression of humanity in the presence of God. He is the new man.

On the subject of God's punishment(or not). If I were to concede that God doesn't punish His children, the fact still remains that we are not all God's children. Indeed, Christ said, of the Pharisees: "you are of your father the devil." The distinction has to be made between God's children and God's creatures. We only become His children when we enter into NEW birth, when we are born of the Spirit and not just of flesh.

I guess what I'm saying here, Stephen, is that it is likely Jesus experienced human passions, which are not sinful in themselves, at least as I understand Catholic theology. Phil would know better. Jesus certainly experienced anger, and so the other passions were probably familiar to Him as well.

There's a lot of nuancing you'd have to do regarding the second point: God's children. Catholic theology seems to accomodate the idea that those practicing other faiths can be under the grace of the Holy Spirit. Again, Phil would be our point man on this.

Moreover, the accounts of those having Near Death Experience tend to contradict the need for formal membership in any particular creed, at least regarding salvation.

Jn. 3:19 speaks of the Light coming into the world, but people preferring darkness. This seems to be how the judgment works; if we reject the Light, God lets us experience the darkness that is a consequence. I think that's punishment enough! Think what consequences come with darkness; no need for God to do anything more, imo. So Hell would be the state of the absolute rejection of God, and that would spell absolute misery.

Re. children of God . . . Scripture clearly speaks of believers becoming adopted children of God. Yet there are Gospel stories that speak of people being saved who did not even know Christ -- e.g., sheep and goats. Do a search on this board for "implicit faith" and you'll be referred to threads that develop this understanding deeply. It resonates with the traditional view of a "baptism of desire" and, in some cases, "baptism by blood." Personally, I'm not comfortable drawing lines concerning who are God's children and who are not; certainly, God wishes for all to be.

Yeah, salvation is best left to God, Phil.

Agree with you too, w.c., on the passionate nature of Christ's manhood,

Peace out!

Lots of judgment talk happening...
Someone once said, "The Universe is a machine that makes Gods."
Formless potential (unmanifest God) begot form actual (manifest God).
And... Formless potential (unmanifest God) and form actual (manifest God) infuse and inform each other, constantly and endlessly.
Not two; not one. 'Tis a mystery.
Everything and everyone is God and is of God, constantly and endlessly. To exist is to be a 'child' of God. To be excluded as 'not a child of God' is impossible. Such falseness does not exist. However it is quite possible to believe in this concept: 'not of God'. That belief keeps one ensnared in duality, and creates constant underlying anxiety about one's life, one's thoughts and one's actions.
Separate, apart, alone, afraid, unloved, forever.
Major Bummer.

Exacting balance is maintained in the manifested universe, constantly and endlessly. "Judgment" doesn't exist except in a particular narrow POV perception. 'Tis better understood that "Judgment Day" is every day, every moment. Constantly and endlessly.

The Pharisees were/are children of God as well, as is everyone. Perhaps Christ, in that particular situation, spoke to them at their level of reality, reminding them of their beliefs and the actions that stemmed from them; i.e. the falseness of their belief construct, and its consequences.

http://spoirier.lautre.net/walsch.html

http://apologeticsindex.org/w21.html

He's not asking for much, just the overthrow of the political, social, sexual, psychological, economic, educational and theological systems of the world. (his words about Book II)

In a Larry King interview in 2000, he said maybe God sent Hitler to teach us a lesson. He also said in the interview that the Pope had said on July 20th of that year that there is no hell, which is news to me.

He's making very large sums of money from this and runs his foundation like a corporation. The first book came as a result of the breakdown of his business and fourth marriage.

I'm planning to translate my own midlife crisis into 27 languages and see if I can get Marianne Williamson, Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra and James Redfield to sit on my board too. At least that's what I distinctly heard God telling me to do.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Thanks for the links, Michael. The similarities with Chopra, Dyer, Williamson, etc. are noted. I would add Hawkins and "The Course in Miracles" to the list as well.

I think these people are onto some helpful spiritual dynamics, but stumble badly on the issue of moral judgment. They rightly recognize how we make judgments about all kinds of things that are neither good nor evil, and how this keeps us trapped in a delusional, dualistic false-self ego. But they throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater in proposing that the "solution" to this dilemma is to forego all judgments concerning good and evil, right and wrong. This is analogous to saying that because some have misused the intellect to propose silly theories that can't be proven, then intellectual life is not to be trusted. Or, the more common one these days -- that because some wars have been committed in the name of religion, then religion is a bad thing.

I note that many of these people claim a kind of "private revelation" from God, and that they believe the convergence in their message indicates a common source. What they haven't considered is if this source might be something "other" than God. Of course, for them, this would be unlikely, as there really only IS God, no evil beings, etc. Quite a set-up!

In terms of a Catholic evaluation of Walsch and others of a similar vein (or, vanity ), some of the objections are obvious, as noted above. I would add, here, that their teachings fall under the same critique of private revelations that the Church has long used to evaluate claims by people claiming to have received messages from Jesus, Mary, an angel, etc. See this link for more info. It seems the Vatican is currently preparing a new document on this topic.

RWS, good to see you here again. I'm wondering if you read my reply to your earlier post on this thread? I think it addresses some of the comments you're making on your most recent one, as does my post above this one.

Some of what you're saying sounds like it's coming from a pantheistic understanding of the universe and God.
E.g., Everything and everyone is God and is of God, constantly and endlessly. To exist is to be a 'child' of God.
- Not in the sense of "begotten," which is how the term is used in Scripture. The Judeo-Christian understanding is that creation is not begotten, but "made." It's like the distinction between one's child and one's creative artwork.

To be excluded as 'not a child of God' is impossible. Such falseness does not exist.

It does in the Judeo-Christian tradition. To be a "child of God" doesn't simply mean that one is a creature/human being, but that one lives in the order of grace established by Christ and so to share in his Sonship. That's what Rm. 8 is affirming.

However it is quite possible to believe in this concept: 'not of God'. That belief keeps one ensnared in duality, and creates constant underlying anxiety about one's life, one's thoughts and one's actions.

Again, note one of my posts above where I make a distinction between ontological duality and existential separateness. Unless one adopts a pantheistic view of the universe (which has been condemned by the Church), then ontological duality (God and creatures are different beings) is the order of reality. It doesn't follow, however, that ontological duality leads to existential separateness.

You are aware, RWS, I'm sure, of the irony that you are making judgments about positions others are taking based on assumptions that cannot be proven while condemning the judgments others are making based on assumptions they've derived from other premises.

"You are aware, RWS, I'm sure, of the irony that you are making judgments about positions others are taking based on assumptions that cannot be proven while condemning the judgments others are making based on assumptions they've derived from other premises."

I don't think you're in danger of Alzheimer's, Phil. But take the Turmeric anyway . . . . .

Lots of synchronicity around Walsch today. Engaged in a lively discussion with no less than four of his fans simultaneously. Went round robin on the usual cluster of assumptions and arguments.

Gospel of Thomas

Jesus was married

Jesus was a Jewish rabbi and never claimed divinity

"Ye are gods," capital "G" vs lower case "g"

Paul had too much to drink on the Damascus road

Paul is responsible for hundreds of years of war and oppression of women

Christian scripture is entirely of human origin

pantheism

God as father is a poor image and wives need not submit to husbands

Christians are mean and arrogant, especially the male variety

In each case, my sense of where Walsch's readers were coming from was a reaction to and disillusionment with some aspects of Church teachings. One of them is even in RCIA classes and I can't wait until she gets into Book II. I'm sensing these people are all still Christians and
"methinks they do protest too much."

Just as I experience some doubt during these discussions, (I felt some tightness in my stomach and throat) they were apparently fighting there own battle with doubt. It's always like that. Faith and doubt are two sides of the same coin.

Shall we toss for two out of three?

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Nice try, Michael, but you just can't reason with people like that. Send them to read this thread. Maybe they'll pick something up. Don't run yourself down trying to dialogue with them, as you're dealing with irrationality and emotional judgmentalism -- the very things they claim to be detesting in orthodox Christians.