Phil,

Usually, I no longer expend the energy, but in this instance I felt that I had kept my mouth shut for so long that it was perhaps more integrous to take a stand for a change. Being a confict avoiding personality, I have room to grow out of my people pleasing just a little.

Everyone has their share of blind spots, and some have them in different places. That's why I need everyone. Taking an honest self-appraisal, as
I have the responsible choice to do nowdays, I come up with a list:

It may be that pushing away the yinlike qualities
of my own personality for fear what others might think and at the same time getting a great deal of excersise from flying off the handle, jumping to conclusions, dodging responsibility and evading authority has perpetuated an immature and incomplete view of the world.

Fear of the shadow side of the yang may have prevented me from some of it's healthier aspects and qualities as well.

When I consider our beloved johnboy for example, I can't help but wonder if I might have pursued a professional career and raised several children to college level. The amount of work is the same.

Then there is the question about authority:

Science of Mind: In your work you've dared to take the slogan "Question Authority" to it's ultimate level of application. What caused you to do that?

Walsch: The things that "authority" had been telling me in the past were not working in my life
and if I didn't question authority I would have to give up my life. I was at the point of ending my life--or at least seriously considering doing so--
when I had my first conversation with God, because I had based my life on what authority had told me
in the past in terms of how I should live and and what I should believe. I had no choice but to question authority. I was in a place of utter desperation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I've been there but in my case the answer was to trust authority, and I learn more about this every day. At times it is also a good idea to question it, but as the Man from Galilea reminded the Roman Governor all real authority derives from
that which can give it.


caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Hiya Again, Phil!
I do appreciate the time you've taken to enlighten me to your POV & also to contrast my thoughts with the Judeo-Christian POV.
Perhaps I am off-the-mark regarding the 'ground rules', so to speak, of this forum. I will elaborate below.

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.

Isn't the universe and all its inhabitants intrinsically theistic (of/from God)? There is no other possibility, as far as I can tell.
One can mentally divide up creation into orders of reality, and that can be very useful, practically speaking. However, all remains of God. Innately so.
But then someone (pope, priest, rabbi, scholar, whomever) comes up with the category described as 'not of God', and a pernicious breach of reality occurs, IMO. How can anything exist 'outside' of God? Once this God-continuum called the universe is rent into pieces, some of which are considered to be not of God, then it is an automatic function of the (fearful) mind to begin ascribing negative qualities and judgments to this unfavored part.
What might be the (hidden) motive for the church ascribing something/someone as begotten as opposed to made? Does it not emphasize and justify an unbreechable chasm between Christ and mere mortals? Didn't Christ basically tell us to join Him in the Kingdom that is at hand, as well as have faith enough to do the things he has done, and more? Why does the church need to create distinctions that separate further, when the Source Himself of the church strived to forgive and re-join?
I see humans, through the vehicles of church and religion, endlessly project their own dualistic separation fears onto the unitive teachings of their founders.

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.

Perhaps I see the trouble as being in the use of the term 'child of God'. Evidently, you are one or you aren't, depending on a bunch of conditions.
But if ultimately the whole point of Christ's teachings were to unify us in spirit and to have that sense-ability permeate throughout us, then exclusionary concepts such as 'not a child of God' are counterproductive, if used as a generalized teaching. Perhaps the original teaching should be constrained into its proper context - directed at certain particular people at a certain particular time in history, for a certain particular reason.

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.

But isn't God within everything? How does anything live if God's not within it? How does anything exist if God does not sustain its existence? Why do humans keep making God separate from everything? As long as this POV persists in one's mind, so will existential separateness, it seems to me.

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. [Wink]

Ha! Wink right back atcha.
Well, as far as unproven assumptions, there are hundreds of them inherently underlying most everything put forth around here... [Wink]
To even mention the words "prove it" in spiritual discussions is pretty much useless and divisive, IMHO. I know your intentions are good, but heck, we can't 'prove' nearly anything of a mystical spiritual nature, except as we consensually agree on our personal experiences of it.

RWS, I'm trying to understand the issue(s) you're raising, and where you're coming from. What you seem to be objecting to most is the use of language that separates or judges, but I don't follow the reasoning you use to state your position.

You'll say, for example: How does anything exist if God does not sustain its existence? Why do humans keep making God separate from everything? As long as this POV persists in one's mind, so will existential separateness, it seems to me.

It sounds like, for you, the only way to counter existential separateness is to deny that God and creatures are different beings. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, then what you are proposing IS pantheism: i.e., that God and human beings are not separate beings--human beings are instances of God or God manifesting as human forms. If that's the case, then:
A. God is directly responsible for evil, or.
B. There is no such thing as evil.

I suspect your sentiments are with the latter, but I'll let you clarify if you wish. What I can share, here, is that Christianity does indeed teach that we are "of-God," but that doesn't translate into a pantheistic concept. What God creates and holds in being is a creature with freedom and intelligence. Using our freedom and intelligence to promote the Ego in defiance of love and relationship is what creates existential separation. When we do so, we are not acting like children of God.

Well, as far as unproven assumptions, there are hundreds of them inherently underlying most everything put forth around here...

I'm sure that's so, but I think many/most are ultimately rooted in a Judeo-Christian perspective. I wasn't suggesting that anyone prove anything, only that we acknowledge that different assumptions about God and the universe give rise to different ways of talking about things and even differences of opinion.

Why does the church need to create distinctions that separate further, when the Source Himself of the church strived to forgive and re-join?

I think you use Jesus' teaching selectively and wonder how much familiarity you really have with the Bible or Christianity. The Church isn't saying anything that Christ himself didn't emphasize. He did speak of the reality of sin, of some being lost, of a separation at the end between sheep and goats, and of the Father saying to some, "I do not know you." He spoke of not coming to bring peace, but a sword; not unity, but division; of family members turning against one another because of him. For Jesus, unity was not the goal, but a consequence of living in love and truth. There's just no way to use Jesus' teaching and example to deny ontological duality, a moral dimension to human life, the reality of evil, and the possibility of hell for those who reject God's ways.

Are we dreaming, or pretending not to be?

Not my predicament, that's for sure!

from Michael: Usually, I no longer expend the energy, but in this instance I felt that I had kept my mouth shut for so long that it was perhaps more integrous to take a stand for a change. Being a confict avoiding personality, I have room to grow out of my people pleasing just a little.

I understand, and salute you for making the effort to dialogue. There's so much misinformation and fallacious thinking in some of those groups, however, that trying to unravel it can be an exhausting affair. I think it's true that many in those quasi-gnostic movements have been burned by the Church or different authority figures in their lives, and that no doubt accounts for some of their criticisms of Christianity. Still, the way they're going instead has its own set of problems, and it's good to try to point those out.

Re. questioning authority: I'm all for it! But I don't take as a starting premise that authority is probably wrong, or has been motivated primarily by clericalism, political power or patriarchical concerns, as so many critics of Christianity are wont to do. I give Church authority the benefit of the doubt, believing that the Holy Spirit has been guiding us in spite of our flaws and failings. In Catholicism, at least, we understand Christian truth to be a congruence between what Scripture, Tradition and Authority proclaim; this means that Authority cannot arbitrarily proclaim anything that goes against Scripture and Tradition. That's a good set of checks and balances, imo.

Phil,

I just get so tired or agreeing with you, that
on occasion, I wonder if I might be becoming Phil

One picture which came to my mind is Theresa of Avila's Interior Castle. In the outer dwelling places there are reptiles and crawling things and they are able to penetrate the periphery, but as one moves toward the inner dwelling places, the creeping things are no longer to be found. There is an evil which is separate from God, IMHO.

Something that occurred to me regarding Walsch is that he is from the Silent Generation.
Being somewhat overshadowed by the WW2 generation and the baby boomers, they tended to go along with things without making a great deal of noise. I am interested in their stories and they have some to tell.

An old saying says that if you are not a liberal when you're twenty, you've got no heart, but if you are still a liberal at forty, you've got no brains. I don't know why, but that one still makes me chuckle.

Thomas Keating is teaching from John of the Cross and a little modern psychology that the emotional centers tend to be healed in the order of 1)security/survival center 2)affection/esteem center and 3) power/control center.

The spirit of blasphemy can come out when the third emotional center is being addressed by the Spirit. This seems to be what is going on with Walsch, and it would be interesting to see how his
following relates to authority, and whether alot of them are into a phase of this in the present time.

caritas,

mm <*))))><

Phil said:

quote:

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 think that's very well said and pretty much covers how I feel.

Dittos Phil and Brad

I'm running across this again and again.

"I don't want to turn my will over to someone or something I cannot see."

"God wants me to be happy with a variety of sexual adventures/partners/experiences."

"All they do in church is ask me for 10% of my money and to volunteer my time."

"Everyone has their own path and there are no absolutes."

"Religion is for people who are afraid of hell and spirituality is for people who have already been there."

"They are all hypocrites, for example __________."

"Just be a nice person and do what you want."

"Question authority"

"That stuff is for losers who don't really have a life or for little old ladies."


There is a grain of truth in all those statements and it depends on what someone really wants to see, experience and believe.

I'm into my fourth Gary Zukav book and like
Brad he seems to me the best of the New Age gurus with some spiritual dynamics that work in the real world. People who have served in the military and in combat often have character and reverence for life.

Still, he is a bit ambiguous when it comes to morality.


caritas,

mm <*)))))><