quote:

I wonder if the existing Christian tradition of doctrine on creation, human nature, fall, grace, redemption, etc. has any substantive meaning for you, or if you think that you, as a Christian, have any duty to be in dialogue with our (including yours, btw) body of teaching? I've seen little evidence of this in your exchanges with me, Pop and Jacques. It always comes down to your experience and opinion, which you consider as valid as Christian doctrine -- teachings you seem to regard with great distrust and cynicism.

I think that's hard, Phil. The trouble is the experiences of the past 2 years have rocked me to the core, challenged every part of me including my understanding of traditional Christian belief, while simultaneously I've experienced an incredible upsurge of contemplative graces and the unutterable joy of Christ in the Eucharist. I have not reached any conclusions about my experiences or the Christian faith based on them, but I do use SP as a sounding board in an attempt to understand and I can see where that might be annoying or come across as definitive. I did the same thing with my dad and I annoyed him too. Really I'm challenging myself by pushing my experiences and opinions at you, more than I'm challenging you I'm sure. But I will back down, perhaps just hang around to listen occasionally without contributing to this type of discussion or throwing my attempts to sort it all out at you. Allow me to say, however, that you as a spiritual teacher whom I admire hugely have the duty to be gentle and careful when someone's faith is challenged by experience. Of course you must remain strong in your own beliefs but I'd imagine a shepherd needs to listen with understanding to the bleatings of his flock. Thanks for your understanding. I do apologise if my bleating is constant.

Christine,

Thanks. I think you speak with great wisdom. Really we don't know very much and the essence of spirituality is love and simple trust in God more than anything conceptual. Not that we shouldn't use the mind but, really, truth is found in the heart.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: samson,

quote:

i guess when it comes right down to it the real question is.. what IS the Church in the eyes of God? I attend the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox church..i love the beauty of the Mass and Divine Liturgy.. but i see all mankind as my brothers and sisters and all of life in some wonderfully mystical way.. interrelated.

Christine, the Church in the eyes of God is the mystical body of Christ. That's what Christianity teaches. It is the first sacrament or sign of Christ's presence, and the context for which all the Sacraments find their efficacy. It has a mysterious inner dimension that is rooted in the risen Christ and his gift of the Spirit; it also has an exoteric or objective dimension with its teachings, doctrines, ministerial offices, rules, regulations, etc. You can't separate the esoteric from the exoteric, as though the latter is somehow man-made and the esoteric alone is of the Spirit. That's what the gnostics did in the 2nd C., and it's still a common temptation. But the outer and inner go together; separate them and you have problems.

It's one thing for a Christian to struggle to understand a doctrine, and even to disagree with it, or some aspect of it. It's quite another to hold one's opinion as equal in authority to Church doctrine. That changes the whole context of a discussion. Jesus never did such a thing with the Judaism of his day. He never told people to go against the Law, nor to disregard what the Scribes and Pharisees taught. Quite the contrary. He extended the Old Covenant and fulfilled it without denying or denigrating it.

quote:

But I will back down, perhaps just hang around to listen occasionally without contributing to this type of discussion or throwing my attempts to sort it all out at you. Allow me to say, however, that you as a spiritual teacher whom I admire hugely have the duty to be gentle and careful when someone's faith is challenged by experience.

O dear no, please feel free to process things here if you'd like, and especially if you find it helpful. But you must also be willing to consider the responses given as in good faith as well.

I have been through many experiences as well, Stephen, only they have never challenged my faith-understanding. I recall many years ago someone asking me if kundalini had shaken my Christian faith. It was a surprising question, to which I answered, "Why should it? There is nothing in my experience to conflict with Christian teaching." That is still my view. I guess they thought that if one could experience kundalini, then Hinduism should somehow be just as valid as Christianity. I can honestly say that that thought never influenced me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil,

Sure thing, Christine. That's a good point. I'd like to respond to a few more things you said in your post from 12:45 p.m.

quote:

Pope Frances is making headlines these days with some of his more ( which some consider ) more liberal statements regarding salvation for instance.These kinds of statements seem much bolder than what we have heard from other Popes in the past....i understand his statements are not 'official' but it shows a trend in seeing scriptures and an expression of God's truth in a broader way.

Right. He's a real media darling, for sure, but he hasn't really said anything new nor stated any teaching that hasn't already been established. That's true for his remarks on homosexuality as well. What seems different are his emphases on serving the poor and his ability to connect with ordinary folk. He is also less "imperial" in his lifestyle.

quote:

i would like to share one thing that really stands out for me when readings this thread... I sincerely believe that Truth can only be discerned so far via the mind. I know i have said this before in different threads on the forums and have been accused of not trusting the mind.. part of what is happening on the earth today as i experience ( and i am far from the only one this is happening to) is this shift that is occurring is *beyond the mind*..

Divine revelation also discloses truth that the human mind could not come to grasp on its own. Sometimes it seems that Church doctrines that elucidate revelation are considered "of the mind" or merely "man-made." That's certain been my impression in discussions on reincarnation, for example, and a few other topics.

But one's sense of broad, general trends or movements of the Spirit on the planet is another matter, calling for discernment. Who can really say for sure one way or another about these things? Unless one receives a vision or prophetic message from the Spirit, then there's just no knowing anything for certain. But you can be sure that if it's from the Spirit, it will not conflict with Church teaching.

quote:

what if Stephen and countless others like him and i on the planet today are truly receiving information via the grace of God and it is heard by traditional Christianity as our 'personal experience and opinion' that is heard as bucking the systems of things as it has been known by the visible church? ... when in truth whatever is happening transcends our experience and opinions and we don't know how to talk about it other than to express it conceptually in this way?

I know some things are difficult to articulate, but why should anything that is good or true or holy "buck the systems of things as has been known by the traditional church," especially in the area of doctrine?

quote:

what IS happening is beyond opinions and experiences... that is why it is so very hard to discuss such things...

Anything happening that would be "beyond opinions and experiences" would indeed be difficult to discuss. I'm not even sure such a thing could be considered "real" in any sense of the word. It sounds like you're referring more to vague intuitions of some kind. You certainly can't consider anything like that to be revelatory, nor such "knowledge" to be privileged in any sense. Unless/until we can put words to something and grasp ideas about an issue, we really don't have much of a grasp of it. I would even go so far as to say that something is probably not the Spirit if it just hangs out in a luminous zone without making itself known. God's ways are not to confuse or obfuscate, but to communicate to us in a manner we can understand.

quote:

O dear no, please feel free to process things here if you'd like, and especially if you find it helpful. But you must also be willing to consider the responses given as in good faith as well.

Thanks, and yes, of course. I still think I'm fairly open though, indeed turned to Aquinas the other night at Jacques' prompting. Alright I didn't get very far .

I know I'm a rebel, a rogue, as Christine says. I'm even left field of Protestant teaching. All of which makes it difficult for me to submit to a central authority. I'm inclined to listen to private revelation and use my mental faculties quickly, efficiently to process, but without a huge need to articulate my reasoning. My understanding is intuitive. Then I dump it all here . But always private revelation with an ear for the zeitgeist, spiritual movement around me, which these days, thanks to the Internet, is global, and never to the extent where I'd impose that private revelation on anyone else. It's certainly not that I don't respect Catholic doctrine, I just don't seem to regard ecclesiastical authority in the same way. It's not been my upbringing and it's not part of my nature. I can see where this causes problems in discussion.

Ok - some sincere questions in an attempt to understand all this. In what way is spirit different from consciousness. If spirit is volitional and self-reflective, why are these not simply just more evolved aspects of consciousness? I can see a theological imperative in terms of sin and redemption for making a distinction, at least from a certain perspective, but why then should our understanding of life be prompted by theological necessity rather than a simple intuition of being? I'm all about simplicity, and a desire to see all creation interrelated at the deepest spiritual level, and not just energetically.

Also, if spirit is God infused life, why is that not simply given at the outset of creation as potential, and realised through evolution and subsequent interaction with God and one another? Surely the Word is present from the start and infuses all creation from the start.

Stephen, I take this up in depth in chapter 2 of my new book. I believe you have a copy.

Basically, you can say that "consciousness" is a being's manner of perceiving and knowing, and thus recognize that everything has some kind of consciousness, which is limited by its form. What doesn't follow is that there is just one consciousness manifesting in all these forms (pantheism) or that such consciousness is God (also pantheism).

Human consciousness is "spiritual" because the form in which it exists is spiritual -- the human soul. It infuses the psychological and physical levels of our existence, enabling us to experience ourselves as aware subjects of our own acts of perception and cognition. It's spiritual "faculties" are intellect and will, but even our psychological and physical faculties have been enspirited, so they exist in and for the human spirit. Spirit, here, is not God, but a level of creation. But God's Spirit can flow within creation as well, communicating God's life and will.

We can thus make a distinction between the manner in which God and creation interact. A creature receives its existence from God and so enjoys a kind of natural union with God as a consequence; this includes humans. A creature might also enjoy a creature - God relationship, though only (on Earth) the human could realize that as I - Thou as only the human has a conscious "I" capable of recognizing other I's as thou or relational partner with whom to freely enter into conscious relationship. The intimacy consequence of this relationship would enable the human to experience supernatural life -- the life of God in the soul. The loss of this relationship would be a forfeiting of supernatural life, leaving the human with only the awareness of some kind of immanent connection with God as the Source of one's being. Everyone, it seems, has an intuition of this. To have an I - Thou relationship with God is beyond our power to realize, however, as we cannot have a relationship with God unless God wants to also have a relationship with us (chapter 6 in my book). The Judeo-Christian tradition finds its relevance in affirming this possibility.

So I make a distinction between spirit and Spirit, which it seems you do not. I have noted before that your implied anthropology is closer to Aurubindo and even Wilber than to traditional Christian thinkers.
- see http://www.visionsofdaniel.net/R&HSch4.htm and scroll down to the section on "About God and consciousness," and read on . . . Good stuff!

Phil,

I enjoyed the Helminiak page. But after reading it I was confused on two accounts. He says:

"My point is simply that these are very different notions: consciousness, spirit, or Buddha nature; God; and Brahman..."

which suggests he thinks consciousness, spirit, and Buddha nature are the same, exactly what I have being saying, AND that they are distinct from God, again what I very much believe. Why would you think I don't differentiate between Spirit and spirit? Consciousness or spirit is infused in the creation from the start but it is not God.

He also said in an earlier section:

"The all-embracing experience in question is the experience of consciousness or spirit...", referring I think to unitive experiences or enlightenment.

Again here, then, he equates consciousness with spirit. Surely this makes all consciousness spiritual, and not just the human soul. Perhaps he is only referring to human consciousness. But you yourself said "everything has some kind of consciousness", which brings me back my point that human consciousness is created by God by way of evolution, and that creature consciousness is, by comparison, simply not as evolved, but still "spirit" with potential for further evolution. The unitive experience suggests to me that there is one underlying consciousness manifesting in multiple forms, but that this consciousness is created spirit, not God, who is Spirit, which is closer to panentheism.

It may be I'm not communicating well. My use of the term "lifeforce" may have been misleading. God, of course, gives life. What I was referring to was the energy of consciousness, or kundalini. I will read the Helminiak passage again tomorrow to make sure I'm getting it.

quote:

Also, if spirit is God infused life, why is that not simply given at the outset of creation as potential, and realised through evolution and subsequent interaction with God and one another? Surely the Word is present from the start and infuses all creation from the start.

I think it was this paragraph from you that seemed to equate God and consciousness. Terms like "God infused life" suggests supernatural life, as does the sentence where you state that the Word "infuses all creation." The term "infuses" suggests a giving of one's own life, as in "infused contemplation," which is a gifting of Spirit or divine life. It sounds like you're not meaning to equate consciousness with divine life, however, but that you are suggesting an underlying unified field of consciousness in which all creation participates. That would actually be closer to Taoism and other systems that work with chi energy.

quote:

Again here, then, he (Helminiak) equates consciousness with spirit. Surely this makes all consciousness spiritual, and not just the human soul.

He is referring to human consciousness, which he regards as spirit (not Spirit). I don't think it follows that the consciousness of all creatures is therefore spiritual, however.

quote:

. . . creature consciousness is, by comparison, simply not as evolved, but still "spirit" with potential for further evolution.

Would you say that creature consciousness then is unevolved human consciousness? I don't think so.

The problem in all of this is that there's no evidence for an underlying field of consciousness apart from creatures -- unless one is meaning to refer to the divine. But our tradition and even experience has clearly established an inviolable boundary between the human and the divine, so the divine-as-underlying-consciousness would need to be considered Source-of-consciousness. But that's not what you mean, I know. You're presuming some underlying consciousness that connects all creatures and even influences their development -- "the Force" of Star Wars, or something similar. The idea of chi in Taoism is similar to this, but I think Christian theology would consider it of the created order, and a consequence of creation rather than its cause. Evolution would proceed more through the interaction of forms rather than via some inner influence of an impersonal, created life force. In other words, intelligence and freedom resides in forms, whether plant or animal or human, and not in the bio-electricity or chi or life-energy that flows through a creature.

I really appreciate your patience in this matter
Jacques. I see now that my confusion has to do
with both Christianity & Eastern relgions using
the same words for outwardly similar things. But when one goes deeper the processes really aren't.

In this discussion I finally saw a big part of what has been occurring within me is not occurring in a Catholic manor, but a natural way of kundalini. At best
I think i'll be a Christian on the fringe.

And yes Phil I have been reading from
the Catechism book. It didn't help in this issue.

quote:

It sounds like you're not meaning to equate consciousness with divine life, however, but that you are suggesting an underlying unified field of consciousness in which all creation participates.

Exactly! Sorry I was misleading. I'm not as well read in these matters as you, so I don't have the language, and as I said above, I don't really have a need to articulate my reasoning or intuiting of this personally, which is evidently a problem in dialogue.

quote:

Would you say that creature consciousness then is unevolved human consciousness? I don't think so.

No, I don't think so either, but I'd say that the seed of spirit or Buddha nature is dormant in all creatures and this is where reincarnation might come in.

quote:

You're presuming some underlying consciousness that connects all creatures and even influences their development -- "the Force" of Star Wars, or something similar. The idea of chi in Taoism is similar to this, but I think Christian theology would consider it of the created order, and a consequence of creation rather than its cause

Again, yes! It feels nice to be understood. And again, yes, this field of interconnected consciousness is very much of the created order, but God may have given something of himself, or is present to it as intelligence, allowing it to evolve through interaction. So panentheism. But certainly distinct from the Creator in essence. This may be where my words quoted at the beginning of your last post were confusing.

quote:

Ok - some sincere questions in an attempt to understand all this. In what way is spirit different from consciousness. If spirit is volitional and self-reflective, why are these not simply just more evolved aspects of consciousness? I can see a theological imperative in terms of sin and redemption for making a distinction, at least from a certain perspective, but why then should our understanding of life be prompted by theological necessity rather than a simple intuition of being? I'm all about simplicity, and a desire to see all creation interrelated at the deepest spiritual level, and not just energetically.

Also, if spirit is God infused life, why is that not simply given at the outset of creation as potential, and realised through evolution and subsequent interaction with God and one another? Surely the Word is present from the start and infuses all creation from the start.

My questions were a genuine attempt to understand how man suddenly became spirit at the point of his evolution, the Adam and Eve moment, according to Christian orthodoxy. From my perspective, this would be a natural consequence of a spiritual universe. Jacques seemed to be suggesting some kind of recreation or intervention from God which set man apart from creation. That was my difficulty.

PS -

quote:

The problem in all of this is that there's no evidence for an underlying field of consciousness apart from creatures

I think there's testimonial evidence. I think that's what Christine's implying when she says this:

quote:

what if Stephen and countless others like him and i on the planet today are truly receiving information via the grace of God and it is heard by traditional Christianity as our 'personal experience and opinion

There may be a recent activation of this energy field accounting for a raft of strange experiences over the past couple of years. My own included. An increase in unitive experiences or enlightenment is part it, but not the whole story. To focus on enlightenment or to equate the energy field with God, as so many are doing, is a mistake. But many are experiencing the interconnecting field of consciousness quite acutely. I'm keen to bring it into a Christian context rather than have it hanging in New Age limbo. It is, after all, the design of the Sovereign Lord.

quote:

Stephen wrote:
Also, if spirit is God infused life, why is that not simply given at the outset of creation as potential, and realised through evolution and subsequent interaction with God and one another? Surely the Word is present from the start and infuses all creation from the start.

Phil responded:
I think it was this paragraph from you that seemed to equate God and consciousness. Terms like "God infused life" suggests supernatural life, as does the sentence where you state that the Word "infuses all creation." The term "infuses" suggests a giving of one's own life, as in "infused contemplation," which is a gifting of Spirit or divine life.

Stephen also wrote:
My questions were a genuine attempt to understand how man suddenly became spirit at the point of his evolution, the Adam and Eve moment, according to Christian orthodoxy. From my perspective, this would be a natural consequence of a spiritual universe. Jacques seemed to be suggesting some kind of recreation or intervention from God which set man apart from creation. That was my difficulty.

Hey Stephen, some of this goes beyond my pay grade so I'm glad Phil has jumped in and cleared up some of the confusion. I think part of the problem is still the distinction between spirit in a created sense and Spirit in the Divine/God sense.

Spirit is not a natural part of the material universe, it does not evolve, only matter evolves as matter is by nature mutable and unstable. Christianity teaches that while a mother and father contribute the essential biological material to produce a baby, it is God who co-operates with them by infusing a spirit at the moment of conception. Matter and spirit are of different realms, so to speak, and that is what I was getting at when I spoke of man as the "bridge between worlds". But once infused this spirit constitutes an eternal part of the person, so much so that at death the separation of the immortal spirit and the mortal body is now an unnatural division requiring the resurrection to restore body and soul(spirit). Human nature is the union of body and spirit, so properly speaking we do not have a earthly nature and a spiritual nature, because once united the body/soul composite is simply 'human nature'.

But this spirit, that is infused in every baby, is still a created reality and part of the spiritual realm. Angels are also spirit in this sense, but they are pure spirit without a material body. So our spirits, and angelic spirits, and demonic spirits, and any other spirits that may exist, are of the spiritual dimension/realm in a way that the rest of the material universe is not.

When Phil highlights the difference between the above and terms like "God infused life" and "supernatural life" he is highlighting the difference between what we have naturally - our bodies and our spirits - and what we might have by Grace, that is The Infused Spirit of God. Our spirits are ours by nature, but God's Spirit is never ours by nature, but only by Grace. We could not evolve into our spirits any more than we could evolve into God's Spirit.

So if it seems strange that God would need to infuse our spirits at conception, then it would seem just as strange that God infuses His own Spirit at our spiritual conception/rebirth (baptism).

Jesus is the perfect exemplar of all of this theology and how it all works practically:

He is the eternal God, 2nd Person of the Trinity.
At conception the Eternal God, 2nd Person of the Trinity, becomes "infused" (more properly Incarnated) in the Hypostatic Union with a physical body. This physical body has everything that a normal physical body has i.e. an organic body and a spiritual soul. In addition this physical body/soul is eternally united to the Logos. Christ has both these natures (human and Divine) by nature.

When Christ dies he gives up his spirit, the immortal part of himself, and suffers death. He then resurrects and is once again the same body/soul union in union with the Logos. And thus He will be for all eternity, Body/Soul/God, eternally unchanging and perfect, no purely spiritual existence, no reincarnation.

Human beings follow in his footsteps, body/soul at conception, infused with God through baptism, separated from our bodies at death, returned to union at the resurrection, eternally Body/Soul/Divine for all eternity. The only difference is that we are Body/Soul by nature and Divinized by Grace.

quote:

There may be a recent activation of this energy field accounting for a raft of strange experiences over the past couple of years. My own included. An increase in unitive experiences or enlightenment is part it, but not the whole story. To focus on enlightenment or to equate the energy field with God, as so many are doing, is a mistake. But many are experiencing the interconnecting field of consciousness quite acutely. I'm keen to bring it into a Christian context rather than have it hanging in New Age limbo. It is, after all, the design of the Sovereign Lord.

I have a question. From reading Phil and Arraj over the years I am now under the impression that unitive consciousness/enlightenment is a natural mysticism. If I'm understanding them correctly this natural mysticism gives human beings access to the Ground of Being, or an intuitive and immediate experience of the Logos, as God gives existence to all of Reality in every moment.

But you seem to be suggesting that it is impossible that this 'field of consciousness' is this experience of the Logos. So my question is, why is it not or why could it not be?

quote:

I really appreciate your patience in this matter
Jacques. I see now that my confusion has to do
with both Christianity & Eastern relgions using
the same words for outwardly similar things. But when one goes deeper the processes really aren't.

In this discussion I finally saw a big part of what has been occurring within me is not occurring in a Catholic manor, but a natural way of kundalini. At best
I think i'll be a Christian on the fringe.

Happy to be of assistance in any way. I'm wondering though Mary Sue which parts of what Phil and I have shared seem to be difficult for you to accept and what part of your spiritual development seems to contradict this or lead you to want to view your journey primarily through the kundalini lens? As you know Phil has integrated both these realities very well and been able to remain perfectly orthodox as a Christian.

Jacques,

Spirit (small 's') can evolve by becoming more conscious.

And I think the Logos can be experienced through the field of consciousness because it is the Logos which activates and animates it, but they are ontologically distinct.

That was a great explanation of Christ's nature, Jacques, and how he is both like and different from us. The phrase, "begotten, not made" says it all. Our participation in divinity is via "supernatural adoption" (holy smoke -- thread topic! ) while his is "natural" in the sense that he is the incarnate Word. Even so, his divinity is constrained in some manner by his humanity, so that his human development proceeds as everyone else's. I like to say that Jesus always revealed God as fully as it was possible for him to do so, which is to say that the baby Jesus could only reveal so much, as could the teenager, young adult, etc. The fullness of his revelation of divinity comes with the resurrection and even then there is an additional stage, the Ascension, where his sacred humanity is completely absorbed in the cosmic Logos. And yet Jesus the individual human somehow remains as well.

quote:

My questions were a genuine attempt to understand how man suddenly became spirit at the point of his evolution, the Adam and Eve moment, according to Christian orthodoxy. From my perspective, this would be a natural consequence of a spiritual universe. Jacques seemed to be suggesting some kind of recreation or intervention from God which set man apart from creation. That was my difficulty.

I don't think we know the answer to this, Stephen. Scripture wasn't written with an evolutionary cosmology in mind, and the Church hasn't yet come to articulate a satisfactory response. We just don't know when and how the first humans came to be or what they knew and how they knew it. The Genesis story is obviously mythological explanation, but its emphasis on "naming" does say something about spiritual consciousness.

There are Christian process theologians who would have no difficulty affirming that no special intervention by God was required for the spiritual consciousness of the first humans to emerge. Teilhard de Chardin seems to hold this position. This view considers the universe itself to be implicitly life- and spirit-oriented -- i.e., that God created a kind of universe that is capable of giving rise to a wide variety of life forms, which will find expression through the evolutionary process. The critical issue, then, is biological complexity, which develops through evolution. Neurological complexity and spiritual consciousness are concommitant developments, in this understanding. Personally, I don't have a problem with this view as it does not confuse natural energies (including chi/prana) with the divine, and it affirms God as creator of a universe entirely dependent on God for its existence and continuance. Practically speaking, imo, it would be impossible to distinguish between a natural, emergent, quantum leap from ape-consciousness to human and a divine intervention in terms of shift in form from animal soul to spiritual soul. I suspect it's "both/and." After the shift occurs, it's clear that humans who breed with humans will have spiritually conscious children.

quote:

Even so, his divinity is constrained in some manner by his humanity, so that his human development proceeds as everyone else's. I like to say that Jesus always revealed God as fully as it was possible for him to do so, which is to say that the baby Jesus could only reveal so much, as could the teenager, young adult, etc. The fullness of his revelation of divinity comes with the resurrection and even then there is an additional stage, the Ascension, where his sacred humanity is completely absorbed in the cosmic Logos. And yet Jesus the individual human somehow remains as well.

Right Phil, thanks, I've spent quite some time over the last few years reflecting on this very dynamic of the "constraining" of Christ's Divinity in relation to His humanity and (to a lesser extent) the fruit of its' liberation through the Resurrection and Ascension

quote:

There are Christian process theologians who would have no difficulty affirming that no special intervention by God was required for the spiritual consciousness of the first humans to emerge. Teilhard de Chardin seems to hold this position. This view considers the universe itself to be implicitly life- and spirit-oriented -- i.e., that God created a kind of universe that is capable of giving rise to a wide variety of life forms, which will find expression through the evolutionary process. The critical issue, then, is biological complexity, which develops through evolution. Neurological complexity and spiritual consciousness are concommitant developments, in this understanding. Personally, I don't have a problem with this view as it does not confuse natural energies (including chi/prana) with the divine, and it affirms God as creator of a universe entirely dependent on God for its existence and continuance. Practically speaking, imo, it would be impossible to distinguish between a natural, emergent, quantum leap from ape-consciousness to human and a divine intervention in terms of shift in form from animal soul to spiritual soul. I suspect it's "both/and." After the shift occurs, it's clear that humans who breed with humans will have spiritually conscious children.

I must admit I've been quite ignorant of the place of process theology in Catholic circles. I didn't even know that Chardin is considered a process theologian, thou I read an article recently that indicated a number of problems reconciling many of his ideas with orthodox theology. When we looked at it during my studies it was viewed with great suspicion. The only thing I could remember about it was that it postulated a growing, changing or evolving God who changes in relation to His evolving creation - this of course is irreconcilable with the traditional teaching on God's immutability. But then I found this article on process theology in the Catholic community - it was a good read and suggests that process theology can never be bought into wholesale via process philosophy, but that as a dialogue partner in relationship to spiritual experience it may have great fruit to offer:

quote:

The road ahead for process theology is a difficult one. Whether this road is a dead end or a through road will depend, in my judgment, upon a return to the empirical basis in which its roots were sunk and from which it drew nourishment. The Catholic theological community will remain critical of process theology and its relationship to a cosmology that seems to dictate the theology. This community will require a clearer delineation of the relationship between philosophy and theology. At the same time, it will admit no usurpation of its tradition of 2000 years nor take theology away from the worshiping faithful. One can expect a theology which dialogues in the future with many philosophies and will subject them to the critical function of its interpreting community. This community will continue to issue demands that doctrine and life be combined and mingled together in an integrated whole, thus providing nourishment for faith on the practical and theoretical levels. Further, this community will require a complete explanation of faith as it relates both to its traditional doctrines and to its legacy from past communities who also sought and found the God of Jesus Christ. If these dimensions of the challenge are met, process theology will enter a new phase in its own life of thought whose identity may be transformed into one flower among many and with a new and more lasting life.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jacques,

Right, Jacques, there are many process theologians whose ideas about God deny immutability. But immutability is an idea that would need to be qualified, especially if we are to avoid an image of God as somewhat stagnant.

It's possible to accept some process ideas while holding to a traditional understanding of God as omniscient, omnipotent and even immutable. The main contribution I take from process is the idea of God's involvement with creation being that of Love . . . that God draws creation (especially spiritual beings) by holding before them loving possibilities while respecting their freedom. Even when we mess up and sin, God simply "re-shuffles the deck" and finds new ways to draw us forth in love (including repentance, etc.). You can affirm this gem of an idea without buying into some of the more unorthodox aspects, which don't always hold themselves accountable to any particular religious system.

Teilhard de Chardin is sometimes listed in discussions of process theologians. I have a book on Process Theology that has a chapter on him, but it seems more because he took an evolutionary viewpoint than that he was enamored with Whitehead's approach.

quote:

Jacques,

Spirit (small 's') can evolve by becoming more conscious.

But is spirit not something more than simply being conscious. All organic life is conscious is some way through their souls (animal and plant souls), but not all souls are spiritual souls?

To my understanding conciousness is related to soul...but spirit is something more...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jacques,

quote:

but spirit is something more

Well what exactly?

I'm beginning to prefer the chakra system which is precise and clear and avoids a lot of theological clutter. There are two poles - consciousness and energy, which unite to give access to the pure bliss of being. Spirit is pure consciousness. But it is created, an expression of the uncreated divine, while the soul might be called an individual, energised expression of that pure spirit. Volition and self reflection (what you guys are calling spiritual) are simply evolved aspects of consciousness. Everything created is simply energy and consciousness. What else is there? Except God, who transcends it all but is always present to it.

So many definitions, interpretations, words, meanings.

quote:

Well what exactly?

Consciousness of one's consciousness.

quote:

So many definitions, interpretations, words, meanings.

You think Christianity is bad, try the chakra system.

Consciousness of one's consciousness is still only consciousness

Not "only" . . . It's what we mean by spiritual consciousness and the existence of a self that is the aware subject of one own interior life (as well as the outside environment as well).

Chapter 2 of my book.

Actually, Phil, I'm fine with that, always have been. But to me this spiritual consciousness is only an evolutionary leap, not a spiritual add on, as if spirit were somehow different from consciousness, which, unless I'm mistaken, is what I heard Jacques saying. So in essence, in terms of the "stuff" of consciousness, we're no different from the animals, but have simply evolved into a conscious relationship with God. This is interesting, and confirms what I'm saying. In fact, takes things a whole lot further, back to what I affirmed earlier:

Dolphin Self Awareness

Your book awaits. I cannot wait .