Science of Mind magazine, May 2004 issue.

Question Authority, A Conversation with Neale Donald Walsch

"I had no hesitancy about becoming God's messenger, because I was simply becoming who I really am."

"The mission of my foundation, Humanity's Team, is to free humanity at last from its opppressive beliefs about God, about life, and about each other in order that we may reconnect with God and with our love of life and of each other. We seek to accomplish it by creating local Humanity's
Teams in cities, villages and towns around the globe in order to be--if I could put it this way--
an underground antidote to the violent fundamentalist cells that similarly have been formed, we are told, in cities and towns across the globe. These local Humanity's Teams will create opportunities for underground explorations of the New Spirituality."

"We are calling this a 'civil rights movement for the soul,' freeing humanity from its oppressive beliefs so we may create a different world."

"Humanity is going to create a whole new theology and a whole new God in the next two or three decades. We'll do it either as a reaction to the next great cataclysmic event event or as a preventative measure."

"What I'm calling the New Spirituality--Which is set forth in the writings of Deepak Chopra, Marianne Williamson, Gary Zukav, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Jean Houston, and, reaching back a few years, of Earnest Holmes and the Fillmores--contains the ideas that at one time were considered radical theology, but are now being embraced, endorsed, accepted and re-read to bring new wisdom to new times."

The only thing wrong with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has seldom been tried at all. There is no New and Improved Gospel, and any imitation is bound to produce an inferior quality of result to the authentic. If I act on God's Logos, I'll see results
such as love, peace and harmony. For generations there has been an idea that more self-love will fix the problem.

The Orthodox Church lists self-love as the Eighth Deadly Sin. Do they know something Neale Donald Walsch and half a dozen Conversations With God books have yet to learn? Was his life crisis based on the Roman Catholic Christ of his understanding or of his misunderstanding?

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

The only thing wrong with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has seldom been tried at all.

quote:

Deepak Chopra, Marianne Williamson, Gary Zukav, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Jean Houston

I'm not against progress or improvement, but my impression is that there's always somebody who, because they've had a good personal experience, thinks they've built a better mousetrap, one that we should all use. This as also known as the refutation of the Lennonesque "love is all you need" schema. Sometimes you also need good fences, not to mention good defenses. Even though ultimately love is all you need, not everyone is developing their love at the same rate.

That is, I find Chopra types in particular to be na�ve�sometimes dangerously so. This, to me, brings into question their wisdom. I'm going to assume that their compassion is authentic though.

What also stands out for me in all of this is how impossible it seems to be a messenger of God in the way these guys portray it. Just a few moments of contemplative grace make it clear that my faculties can in no way pretend this function. I have dreams that seem, at times, to be graced, and similar moments in prayer and meditation, but the god these guys describe seems so much a product of their imaginations. It also sounds like the common failure among New Agers to distinguish between Kundalini and the Holy Spirit, or the created and the uncreated.

I have dreams that seem, at times, to be graced, and similar moments in prayer and meditation, but the god these guys describe seems so much a product of their imaginations.

I think I understand the general basis from which they're coming, WC.s To put it in the most condensed terms I think it's the karma-like "be good to others and that goodness will spread." I think that's absolutely true. The missing piece of the puzzle is a tricky piece because it's quite true that you can, with a total loving and seemingly selfless attitude, evoke the good out of apparently scumbag people. The problem is that to even get into these situations very often it requires that one be willing to put one's life at risk from the other. This is a trait that we might well revere in individuals. But I think as soon as you start codifying this behavior and developing larger communities based on it then you become quite presumptuous as you impose your life-or-death values on others and, in effect, put the rights of the scumbags over the innocent, no matter how subtly.

And, of course, a lot of good ol' fashioned ego can be involved. That's a difficult determination to make because teachers (gurus, whatever) are, by necessity, in a public position whether it's in front of sa small classroom of thirty or a more ambitious classroom of global proportions.

I should also say in regards to all this that I think it's a particularly difficult judgment to make as to what is good (that is, who knows god and what is godly). My personal opinion is that, unless one is of the spiritual heights of Jesus, it's rather juvenile to equate what is good only with the warm, fuzzy feelings of "spreading love vibes". I'm reminded, for instance, that both Carter and Gorbachev were, at best, mediocre in the jobs�but both are perceived as being warm, fuzzy do-gooders and both received Nobel Peace Prizes while the REAL job of peace was carried on the shoulders of Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney and others.

God gave us life for a reason and protecting it surely must be a worthy goal. To define goodness as absolute pacifism (or liberalism or socialism) is folly.

�it's rather juvenile to equate what is good only with the warm, fuzzy feelings of "spreading love vibes".

I might say that it's also a convenient way to look at things as well. It theoretically allows one to leap entirely over vexing moral issues that take real gut-wrenching wisdom and intellect to solve and to define every problem as just "not enough love". How nice�but how utterly useless this so often is. And it's a particularly neat way to avoid confrontation, and more specifically and importantly, responsibility for confrontation. Let's face it: we need to draw a moral line in the sand on some issues: "You can not behead innocent civilians." "You can not blow up children in their school rooms." "You can not gas entire villages of Kurds." Saying "yes" to love also requires saying "no" to hate. And despite what some may thing, I do not think it absolves anyone of responsibility if their Love Dial is set to 10 but they're not willing to look evil in the eye and call it such and to call acts against this evil necessary.

Regarding the mention of scumbags -ouch! I resemble that remark. I see scumbags transformed every day, some times quickly, sometimes slowly, at times haltingly moving forward and occasionally in great bursts of brilliance.

w.c., we appear to be on the same channel

I have not read any of the first five Conversations books, but this question from the interview is thought provoking:

"What do you see as the greatest challenge of this work?"

Neale Donald Walsch

"The most deeply entrenched of all damaging beliefs--beyond fear and limitation--is righteousness, the idea that there is one of us who is better than another one of us.'Betterness' is the most destructive idea ever visited upon the human experience, and exclusivist organized religion has done more to inculcate the idea of betterness into the human mind than any othe construction of human social engineering. Exclusivist organized religion has told us that one of us is better than another one of us because God said so. That person who is better is going to heaven and the rest of us are going to hell. Ironically, that has caused the opposite of what religion was intended to do--seperation rather than unification of the world's people. This is an idea about God as vengeful, as violent--an idea about God as in fact a God who kills people. The New Testament, the Old Testament, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, the Koran--virtually every scripture of every one of the world's exclusivist organized religions speaks of a God who kills people who disagree with him.

Along the lines of what Walsch has said, that he finds righteousness to be a primary fallacy, I'd suggest that it can be reduced another step further. Before one can assert righteousness, one must first take a stand; i.e. personally identify with a mental/emotional position on something. Seems to me that this need to 'taking a position' on anything is a fundamental characteristic of dualistic perception (a perception enjoyed by roughly 99.99% of humanity).

As one burns through their inner garbage (via kundalini, self-inquiry, devotional service, etc), this need to take positions decreases to eventual dissolution. One notices a natural awareness of greater and greater degrees of context in any given situation, and it becomes very clear that all position-taking is due to the limitations and biases that individuals have at any given moment.

To go on living in this dualistic world, however, the 'positionless' individual continues to have preferences, thinks and takes actions that appear to be positions. But what is happening is that all thought and action arises spontaneously and is carried out without a personal stake in any of it. Just a part of remaining In The Flow.

It's a challenge. I believe that I can move toward it. I tend to think of it now as less duality
rather than non-duality. I'm not sure that Christianity as I understand it can ever be completely non dual, but it keeps coming up and presenting itself in a multitude of ways. I might call it a hardening of the categories.

I went through a stack of Alan Watts but I have avoided The Two Hands of God, the book about nonduality. It seems that I have some fear around the entire subject, which may be yet another duality.

I often think of Thomas Keating's Awakening. He was a monk for 30 years and abbot of the monastery
during the reforms following Vatican II. People were pushing and pulling at him from both sides and it all seemed hopeless. He went for a walk under the moon and experienced enlightenment.

I'm still waiting for mine...

caritas,

mm <*))))><

In reference to MM's last quote of Walsch's and subsequent replies, I don't think righteousness is a "position", but rather a "condition", a state that is every bit as valid as enlightenment. Problem comes when people go after this state under their own steam, then it becomes self-righteousness, which clearly needs to be distinguished from true righteousness(is this disitinction lost on Walsch? ((righteous anger there)) ), which is a gift from God that demands humility - it comes from God, it is His grace, His righteousness and relates very much to His nature, His holiness.

I think the subtlety of the Christian argument is lost on Walsch (admitedlly I'm only going by this one quote). As a person walks in the righteousness of God, he/she begins to realise not that one is better than anyone else but that, if anything, one is worse, lesser, a greater sinner. This self realisation then leads the individual to the conclusion that one has an intrinsic worth bestowed on him by God, who loves without measure each one of us, thereby sending the heart into a state of supreme gratitude and self worth. It is a paradox which, to me, is quite enlightening.

Another paradox is that righteousness can be both relative(on a practical, earthy level) and absolute(in a heavenly context).

As for God being a God who kills, he seems to be applying his own notion of morality onto God, always a danger to the free thinking mind . The verb "to kill" is such a loaded term, and is quite different from the taking away of life, which is, after all, God's business.

By the way, RWS, isn't your idea just another "position"? While our minds exist in time and space we cannot help but be positioned. Even the enlightened mind is positioned.

Peace y'all.

Stephen,

That is an interesting observation and seems to line up with enlightened Christian thought. One can have many ideas of righteousness other than the true
one exemplified by the Master himself. Mel Gibson
presented us with a Christ who was tough and masculine as a Green Beret.
I got a jolt in my thinking today from a biography of C.S. Lewis in which he is quoted as saying that the most manly form of religion next to Christianity would be some form of dualism. This turned me about 180, as I have perhaps been seeking a false goal in recent years in pursuit of
non-dual teachings.

There is a shadow side of masculinity which
I have feared all my life, and thereby avoided the right kind as well. This is rather common in this current generation. Could it be that by rejecting
the more toxic forms of patriarchy and embracing
feminism and the like, we have lost a treasure as well? I know that opens up a huge can of worms but I am seeing that I can only work so far in the direction of a foo-foo Buddhism or a sissy Jesus without losing some precious aspects of manhood.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

One of the aspects we all shy away from is divine judgement. Matthew 25 talks clearly about God separating the sheep from the goats. Check out Michaelangelo's Last Judgement for a portrayal of Christ's masculinity - divine righteousness, divine retribution.

The point is that God is grieving for lost souls, but that isn't going to stop Him wiping out the spirit of rebellion that has plagued humanity since the fall.

The notion that we are all included doesn't really work. Just look at how nature functions, how the universe works. Any part that's rotten will weaken and corrupt the whole if it isn't cut off. A little leaven... An enlightened society has compassion on the weak, but it shouldn't be afraid to chop off branches that aren't bearing fruit(I trust you take my point. I'm certainly not advocating social cleansing.)

Thankfully God is a righteous judge and His law is perfect and all His ways are just.

Hiya Stephen!
I can see where you'd see what I say as being a position. Indeed, you are correct from a certain POV.

What it actually feels like, and how it is personally perceived these days, is as a snapshot; one frame taken out of an ongoing movie. IOW, any particular thought or action feels like it 'pops out' of the ongoing stream of awareness, or Flow of Things.

I no longer seem to have the sense of, or feeling of actually doing or thinking anything of my own volition; i.e. that inner sense of 'me' acting with intention that was always the case before. Thoughts/actions just pop out or happen whenever they need to. Most of the time no thought or action feels to be happening... just repose and stillness. It's really very fascinating, actually, if I can call it that. It also feels supremely natural.

In many respects, it probably looks to the outside observer that nothing's changed, but within there is a near-total disconnect from the old 'me' that used to do and think.

Another neat aspect is that whenever I do or think something, there is no longer an 'inner monitoring' function that hesitates or questions or morally weighs whatever is thought or done. It just happens, instantly, then back into the Flow. And whatever is said or done doesn't have any feeling of being 'mine', in the sense of needing to be held or defended. That old connecting mechanism is gone, too. It is expressed, gone and back to blank slate. Thus, there is no sense of worry or regret anymore about any of it. It is as it is, and that's pretty much the end of it.

A downside of it, if you will, is that it seems far more difficult to keep trains of thought or action going, compared to how it was in my old way of functioning. Yet sometimes they do happen in a continuing way, such as this rambling post, in order to complete an expression. Completing it for my benefit or for other's benefit, I often don't know. In any case, it all feels to be happening through rather than by me. I'm still just kinda getting a handle on it.

So anyway, I'd say that 'positions' are thoughts and actions that ego claims as mine, ego claims are good and worthy and valuable and important, and then needs to be defended. Righteousness, pride, arrogance, embarrassment, shame and guilt are the next resultant feelings that typically ensue from this ownership and importance function.

All that, as opposed to spontaneous expressions that have no sense of ownership or real importance in a bigger picture POV. It all just happens... and is gone.
RWS

Those are wonderful states indeed. I look at them as preparation and building of a reservoir of peace and tranquility. When action is required of me
or when under stress, I can then draw from this reservoir.
A bus passed me in the dark and I had to wait another hour and a half for the next one. I began to
curse this driver. Doesn't he know who I am? Anger came in smaller and smaller waves and had dissipated by the time the next one arrived. There was a time when someone would have had a piece of my mind over something like this, or I would have fumed for days over it. A little progress...


I cannot imagine Jesus angry over riding into Jerusalem on a donkey rather than a chariot, but he did tend to go off on the Gurus of his day.
He took this radical position against sin and sickness and devils and wrongdoing of every kind.
Perhaps he did not lend an ear to the Oracle of Delphi, the Priests of Ra or the Lamas and Yogis he visited during his lost years. I would have thought some Greek or Roman philosopher might have
pointed out his attachment to positionality.


caritas,

mm <*))))))><

Hi guys,

Thanks for the responses.

w.c. - This is indeed a beautiful way to see and experience God - Abba - truly beautiful. And don't get me wrong, I often get a profound sense of God's Fatherly love in my life and know that His love extends to all of creation. His love and grace keeps the world turning. And His grace is extended to all, no doubt. What I meant when I said that we aren't all included is that some will inevitably reject that grace and for doing so there are consequences.

I see two simple things. God is love and God is Holy/light. When we sin or when there is a turning away from God, His love is rejected and He feels hurt by the offense. I don't think God lashes out like a hurt child, it's just that such offense is an affront to His holiness. It's as if the nature of holiness recoils from evil and demands that it be removed from it's presence - Hell. It's God's holy nature to hate lawlessness. Judgement stems form His holiness not from His love.

My take on God's judgement is really just taken from scripture. God gets angry, it's a fact, and not just in the OT. Check out Romans 1:18,

"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men."

Indeed, the Revelation talks about the "wrath of the Lamb". That's like some bizarre oxymoron or something. But it's there.

Christ often talks about souls sent to "outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth."

I don't see this as harsh, rather as just and righteous. The righteousnes of God demands holiness. I think people are afraid of this aspect of God, especially in this supposedly liberal/enlightened/progressive day we live in, but I believe it is part of the revealed truth about His nature.

I don't think that when Satan rebelled it was because He was afraid to enter into God's grace. He was in such a privileged position, perhaps even friends with the Son. Whether people believe it or not, I've had experience of demonic powers and can vouch for the existance of evil. I think it filters into the human heart and has to be dealt with. God's love and grace despite that evil is simply overwhelming but there is "condemnation (because) light has come into the world, and men have preferred darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil"(John 3:19). This is from the same chapter that declares God's love for the whole world.

Also, check out Isaiah 24:21,22 for word on God's punishment for fallen angels.

I think it's all part of how awesomely powerful God is. We need to fear God, not in some cowering pathetic manner, simply in respect and homage to His great power.

Your right, w.c., it's wonderful to think of God as Abba. I go there everyday if I can. I just think we can't ignore God's wrath against sin. I've seen the damage focus on divine retrbution can do. It can destroy a fragile soul, breed fear and terror. we need to focus on God's love before we go there. I'm not at all into hellfire and brimstone preaching, but I do think that when we grow up as Christians, we should be mature enough to handle the subject.

RWS - I've experienced much of what you describe. I just relate my existing in that flow to walking in the will of God. I don't think there's anything wrong with using a point of reference to "explain" these states. To do that involves taking a position. I know people talk about just being and not analysisng and I would agree up to a point. But what if that flow involves meditation/action/contemplation in a certain context ie. Christianity. Is that still a position?

Anyway, I need to run,

Peace out!

This is turning into a rich discussion, with several themes and sub-themes. I will pick out just one to reply to for now and will hopefully have time to engage others later today (busy one!).

RWS, you wrote: I no longer seem to have the sense of, or feeling of actually doing or thinking anything of my own volition; i.e. that inner sense of 'me' acting with intention that was always the case before. Thoughts/actions just pop out or happen whenever they need to. Most of the time no thought or action feels to be happening... just repose and stillness. It's really very fascinating, actually, if I can call it that. It also feels supremely natural.

Would that even include the act of writing the above?

I understand what you're talking about and have written of this in a number of places as living in the True Self. In the Catholic mystical tradition, it's called living in transforming union; also abandonment to divine providence. I think you describe the intrapersonal situation quite well--the silent mind, spontaneity of thought, un-selfconsciousness, sense of being in a Flow.

In Christian spirituality, there remains an orientation to God as Other even as we surf the immanent waves of Spirit. We also relate to other individuals and creation as "other," even as we sense a kind of bond with them at a deep level. "Other-ness" remains, and continues to be a context in prayer and spirituality. Sometimes we just rest in the Spirit, with no sense of I-Thou; sometimes we pray to God as Other. There seems to be a kind of rhythm to this flowing in and out, at least in my experience.

In an earlier post, you wrote: To go on living in this dualistic world, however, the 'positionless' individual continues to have preferences, thinks and takes actions that appear to be positions. But what is happening is that all thought and action arises spontaneously and is carried out without a personal stake in any of it. Just a part of remaining In The Flow.

A nuance I would make, here, is that this "positionlessness" is from the standpoint of the conscious Ego, as you have noted, but not from the direction of one's life. There is a direction to "The Flow," and there are directions coming from one's thoughts and preferences. My understanding is that the direction of the flow and spontaneities has been established through the more conscious, active work of spiritual practice in the earlier stages of the journey. What happens is the lessons and skills learned come to deep integration and constitute a kind of unconscious infrastructure, enabling consciousness to more freely operate through the senses and the higher, intuitive dimension of the intellect.

We all experience something like this happening in many areas of life. Take driving, for example. There is a period of active learning, then as the skills become more integrated, driving goes on without having to consciously monitor what is happening. A well-trained driver can listen to the radio, chat with a passenger, and not have to think about every little thing s/he is doing to operate the vehicle. We could say that "driving happens," and that would be true, only it would be naive to suggest that this comes naturally to human beings if only they just let go of dualistic thinking and learn to trust the guidance that comes in the NOW.

We might noted, too, that a well-trained driver has integrated an alert system -- a sensitivity to times when more deliberate conscious attention is needed, as during a storm, or heavy traffice. Same goes, I would suggest, for contemplative consciousness at times. We are not forever done with the need to deliberately reflect, dialogue, explore alternatives and even learn new skills. When storms come, heavy traffic, new situations, etc., there is a natural shift to active learning, even while a certain level of spontaneous flow continues. You don't have to continue thinking of lessons learned in the past, but you might have to re-think how new skills and lessons fit in. During such times, the Ego does have a responsibility to be more engaged in mental and dialogical activities. E.g., we don't always "just-know" whether to quit this job and take another . . . to have another child . . . to move to another city. Sometimes we do, but more often than not, a period of deliberate, intentional, reflective engagement is called for.

In addition to the "position" established by one's active religious and spiritual formation, I do believe there are times when, even in a contemplative flow, we are moved by the Spirit to take a conscious position on an issue. We see Jesus doing this many times, even pointing out wrong. In my experience, it's sometimes necessary to consciously engage an issue intellectually and on other levels to discern how to best respond; I don't always know this spontaneously. The more complex the situation, the more deliberate, conscious attention is called for. Eventually, a new integration happens, with a return to a new level of spontaneous movement. There are positions implicit and even explicitly indicated in this flowing; we are always doing this instead of that, one thing instead of everything else, etc., and there are moral dimensions to this movement, and moral consequences as well.

w.c.

I can't quite agree with you there buddy.

What happened to Christ at Calvary? Apart from the physical suffering. What happened? Did He not enter into the oven of God's wrath? Was all the sin of all the world not laid on Him and dealt with, punished, "the chatisement for our peace" etc.? Did the Father not turn His back on His own Son because the Son "became" sin?

Calvary is the supreme example of God's wrath and judgement and without it the grace and mercy and love that is so bountiful in His nature would not be able to express iteslf. I admire Christ so much for this. But rememeber His work is an atonement. I believe in moral consequences for our actions. Rehabilitation is fine but if it doesn't work, if there is no repentance, there is still a moral imperative to be answered which demands that sin be atoned for. That involves punishment.

I admit the parental metaphor is powerful but we are not only God's children, we are His creatures, His servants, His subjects, His church, His society. If a servant steals, his master dismisses him; if a tree is rotten, it is chopped down; if a man is violent, he is separated from society. If a child commits a serious act, say of murder or rape, is it not possible to imagine a parent turning their back on the child, handing them in to pay the penalty for their crime. If your child committed such an act would you not be darned angry(wrath is quite a bit different from anger)! Christ paid for our crimes. I believe in a moral imperative.

It's wonderful how much grace God has for His creation, but I think it's only half the picture. Nor do I think that our sin is just fear. I do think that God embraces our fear and has compassion on our weakness, but acts of sin are quite distinct from their root cause. And acts of sin(sins) are mere shadows of that root cause, which is sin(singular- SINgular, even,(pardon me)). The root cause of wrong doing isn't fear but sin. I think that God does embrace our fear but recoils from our sin. Romans is quite clear on this. And that's why sin, the root cause, has to be dealt with.

w.c. - you're going to have to give me some scripture here. I see the weight of the Testaments stacked up against you. All the same your argument is strong and I certainly hold it to be true in the way God deals with us in this present life. It's a fact that He is holding back His wrath just now, treating us as children, giving us every chance to run into His loving arms. But Isaiah tells me that He cannot hold back His wrath forever.

"Thy kingdom come"

I've never heard of Christ at Calvary entering into the wrath of God, or at least not as you're describing it. His entering into Hell and experiencing all the pain known to mankind wasn't God punishing Him, but His willingness to completely identify with the most horrifying aspects of the human experience. And it is equally odd to me to think of God turning His back on Jesus because of this loving embrace of the human predicament, but it may well be that the witdrawal of God's known presence to Jesus could have been part of Calvary's redemptive power, such that Jesus knows the furthest extent of human alienation from God. But not as punishment, since it was Jesus' choice to make.

Following the parental metaphor, which I think leaves room for other aspects of God's intervention, wrath would only be necessary if it was the only thing capable of waking up the soul to its own disowned grief and conscience, but the purpose wouldn't be to punish. This would be an expression of judgement meant for the benefit of the lost soul, not to placate God in His grief. The latter sounds like a parent who is too emotionally needy to let the child have his own independence and experiences, and harbors some unspoken resentment for it. This is anthropomorphism, IMO. The father doesn't require his prodigal son to recount his sins or writhe in some sullen state of conscience for the father's sake, although the son seems quickened to this remorse by virtue of the father's unconditional love and understanding.

And so wrath and judgement certainly exist as possible expressions in God, but toward the end of waking up the soul; however, love beyond the ability of the soul to contrive it is a much more potent motivator toward transformation than punishment, which further burdens the soul with shame and resentment.

As for Christ's atonement, we probably have significant differences there, too. I'll post this and continue with another since my server has been unreliable lately.

Stephen:

One thing I should admit to is that I don't adhere to the Scriptures in the way you apparently do. I'm not intending to argue the merits or weaknesses of our positions on Scripture, since that much is probably a deeply held assumption for both of us and not open to persuasion. You seem to start off with a view of the Bible I simply don't share. We can agree to disagree, but this divergence probably colors many of our other differences. But my personal beliefs are probably considered mostly orthodox, with a few exceptions, which will likely appear in this post.

"Rehabilitation is fine but if it doesn't work, if there is no repentance, there is still a moral imperative to be answered which demands that sin be atoned for. That involves punishment."

I've done social work with prisoners, so I know the limited value of punishment, at least as you may be intending the metaphor here. The only real value is to contain the behavior of people, protecting others from their violence or tendencies that seriously undermine the social fabric. Repentence would mean a genuine commitment to cease doing harm, and in this we probably agree. But the metaphor breaks down for me if it is extended to sin which doesn't cause harm to others; it may be degradating to the soul, but inherent in these destructive tendencies is a distorted longing for God that responds best to some appeal to its Source.

As for atonement and punishment, the only way I understand this as tenable is something similar to the Oriental notion of karma. This will probably not agree with you, but since it is my take on things, I'll share it here. Simply, it is the internalized aspect in myself of the pain I have caused others. However I may hurt others, my lack of awareness and concience at the time becomes quickened by the pain I create, and eventually serves to generate compassion in me, although sometimes the situation to get my attention has to be severe. Again, this isn't punishment from God, IMO, but a kind of "quantum singularity," or resonace within the goodness of my own soul that must be embraced, eventually, in conscious experience so I know the state of the other I've hurt.

I'll post here and return after I get a better read for the rest of yours.

w.c. - Isaiah talks about Christ being "smitten by God", stricken, chastised. He "paid the price". In my book this amounts to punishment, not a punishment of Christ, of course not, but a punishment for sin, paying the penalty in our place. To say that His entering into hell was merely an identification with the horrors of human experience is so wrong. It goes against all the Levitical teaching, the offerings, teachings of Paul in the NT. He was being sacrificed! What does that mean? (Noted the difference of op on scripture.)

God cannot look at sin because "He is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity."

As for God sounding like an emotionally needy parent, I think you misconstrue my argument somewhat. Isn't your metaphor of God as a parent anthropomorphic. The God you present is unprincipled and characterless and totatlly at odds with the way He presents Himself in scripture. God has an existance in Himself, without us, and doesn't solely act to waken up our souls. He has to exist on His own terms and act according to His own righteousness, which is where your parental metaphor falls down.

"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolators, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone." Rev 21:8.

What's that all about?

Anyway ,w.c., it's pretty late on this side of the pond and if I go on with this unconsidered rant I'll never get any sleep. Let's see what the morning brings

As for Christ's atoning sacrifice, for me it accomplishes two things. One: Full identification of God with the human experience. Since Christ was sacrificed both in history and before time itself, this has been the Father's awareness of His creation since the beginning of time, but with an unfolding of that awareness in time among human beings. Two: this full identification of God with creation allows us to know the Trinitarian Divine Reality, and ultimately, God as "Abba," the fullest possible knowing of God in the mystical experience, even more compelling in human concience than God as unspeakably Holy Other, or Rudolph Otto's "mysterium tremendum," since having this "awe-full" God as Daddy is an incomparible love, in which the human faculties are utterly stunned.


I believe in a moral imperative, too. Yet, what purpose does it serve, beyond merely reminding us that God is no creature? He is fully human as Christ resurrected and ascended, and so while morality kindles its own sensibility via natural law, it leads ever deeper into mystical intimacy, where one knows not only goodness in oneself, but the Source of all goodness,and the wish, as St. Teresa the Little Flower laments: "Would that I could give Him something good without Him knowing the source." Otherwise, the actual weight of morality mostly appears in degrees of immorality, when conscience is beset with conflicts and the will unable to rescue it by its own power.

Sleep well, Stephen. Maybe more tomorrow.

One more thing before I hit the hay (gee, once you start, it's hard to stop).

How can we know that Trinitarian Divine Reality unless our sins are dealt with and taken away. Without Holiness no man can see the Father. 1 John 2:1-5 is pretty clear on this too. Therefore the main purpose of Christ's sacrifice is to remove the "curse" of sin, and only by doing so can we enter into the identification and knowledge you describe.

I'll certainly consider your posts more fully but I think our differences are rooted in our approach to scripture. I adhere pretty strictly to the word and I see that you come from a tradition/thought process (whatever) that diverges somewhat. No matter.

Be assured, despite my insistance on divine judgement etc, my experience of God's love and the bliss I feel in His fatherly presence is no less powerful for that.

Now, if I can drag myself away from the computer zzzzzzz.

It's a fine line between a toxic religion and a healthier form, and it seems to me much as a tightrope walk where I could, and sometimes do fall off on one side or the other. I've gone back and forth alot and am still earnestly seeking some middle ground which might be comfortable for myself and others.

I went to Doctor Karl Menninger's fine classic from 1970, What Ever Became of Sin? The word was alrady passing from our vocabulary, and
the good doctor noted that no president had made mention of national sin and the need for collective repentance since 1953. Eisenhower had quoted Lincoln, our most theological president.
Can you imagine the reaction if George Bush were to suggest a national day of repentance? Reagan instituted a national day of prayer and the churches did fill up for a few months after 9/11.

There is a long history of toxic religion in
the American culture, from Puritanism to Jansenism
and w.c. has pointed out the damaging psychological effects, as the Founder of the Christian faith did so poignantly.

All the way over on the other side we have this long tradition of attempts to deal with the problem, from Mary Baker Eddy to Neale Donald Walsch, from Norman Vincent Peale to Doctor Robert
Schuller and from Emmet Fox to Matthew Fox.

Dealing with fear as the most basic element seems to achieve a good result, and is shared by twelve step programs, psychology and The Course in Miracles varieties of "spiritual psychotherapy"

What exactly is sin and is it the fear which leads to sin or does sin lead to fear? What is the human condition? What is sin? Individual and collective,
societal and personal, religious and secular? Is the bible a second rate source of answers fron an ancient culture or a message of love and the answer to how we deal with sin and fear?

caritas,

mm <*)))))><