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.

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.

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 <*)))))><