There is no God

[lindyhopper]

Todd,

You know I like you a lot so don't take offense to this.

These stages, who discovered or classified them? Regardless of who it was it was obviously someone who claims to be at the upper tier stage, if not the highest. Much like the lower stages I can't see this person classifying anything beyond them. Right?

To me all this classification and analyzation of stages etc. is a product of much objective rationalization. The problem with that is that you can not objectively look at this stage theory without first having a very mythic mind set, IMO.

but because the rational has not yet experienced a post-rational worldview

one cannot distinguish between pre-rational and post-rational worldviews

This is a beautiful paradox, only governed by the experience of the individual claiming to be "post-rational." You're right... sounds very "pre-rational" to me.

This seems more like an outlook change really. One of acceptance of people's experiences and seeing something in all of them together vs. the rational that tries many times to discredit and/ or analyze those experiences or perspectives into a concrete reality. The problem then is back with this "stages" classification system where the ones that "truly know" are always at the top, enlightened, classifying the rest of us beneath them. Sounds very "rational" to me.

I don't know, just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sorry.

peace

[sirguessalot]

no sweat Lindy

and apologies, as i am not able to engage in the long written hypertextual conversations required to cover such things

but i appreciate your response, and do feel i owe some sort of reply

and i will attempt to respond again as much as i can..but i am not promising any thing

so here goes an attempt at a chaser for that bad taste...

here are some of my favorite names in the fields of ego-development, cognitive development, faith development, moral development, values development, etc...

clare graves

jane loevinger

james fowler

lawrence kohlberg

susanne cook grueter

ken wilber

don beck

jean piaget

erik erikson

many more...and many of them do not even know each other...let alone agree

and i think it helps to keep a few things in mind...

(and i will write in the common absolutist voice so as not to sound too kooky)

- most, if not all, developmental models cover a specific kind (or line) of development...and do not claim that there are "different levels of people"

- there is a worldview that strongly rejects most all notions of development...but good thing is that it is a middle stage...bad thing is that it is also one of the dominant worldviews today

- post-rational worldviews (at best) include a rational capacity...and so there are post-rational approaches to development that are indeed highly objective..perhaps even more objective than merely rational

- some folks who study fields of development do so from a mythic worldview...and have simply adopted the language

- both myth and reason are highly valuable to post-rational worldviews

- what i write here is a very simple summation of what i have come to understand and experience...i am not attached to the maps and models and language-sets i use

- i do highly value the nature of paradox

overall...i find the entire integration of philosophical-spiritual-psychological wad of maps and languages to be a very tangled tangled tangled mess ...and not able to be reduced to simple soundbites and cliches...but a mess that can be unravelled and understood (not merely deconstructed)

and i find that the most functionally inclusive way to approach any field of study/practice/experience is to include subjective, inter-subjective, objective, and inter-objective modes of knowing about them

as there are spectrums of subjective development (such as stages of our self-sense in psychology)

and there are spectrums of inter-subjective development (such as stages of values development in cultural anthropology)

both of which are as valid as fields of study, practice and experience as objective (such behaviorism) and interobjective (such as ecology and economics)

and pre-rational maps (and approaches) are very different than post-rational maps in many very significant ways..

...for one ...that the pre-rational maps are merely subjective, often strongly attached to, and based on historic mythic and magical givens (like many metaphysics)

but the post-rational is objectively measuring nature as it unfolds...whether it is interior nature, or collective interior nature

not based on some preexisting ladder that we are to fill in...but based on a ladder that is always being built now

and the post-rational is NOT attached to the maps (although it may be thrilled with them)...recognizing that the language is not the same as the thing being named

and if done well...post-rational recognizes and includes the intersubjective nature of the researchers

any science that does not include the subjective and inter-subjective perspectives in the equation seems merely rational...and half-a$$ at being rational

as any objective approach that dismisses the value of subjectivity is not entirely rational anyway

..

much more...but that is my feeble sloppy attempt to summarize a lot

with very little time

ive been hoping for years

to afford to sit still for years

and do the topic the justice i feel it deserves

for now..i ramble semi-poetically in the back room of a cyber cafe

in the off-chance some of my friends might find something in it all

...

and again...as it pertains to "There is no God"

i find that this statement (as it is commonly made)

refers to the nonexistance of a merely mythic God

as declared from a merely rational perspective

but i repeat...that the conversations about the experience of God continues long after the rational worldview debunks the textual myths

...and long after the post-modern deconstructive worldview unravels all our languages

though i must add.. that the "there is no God" kind of statement is also quite true

..in the higher sense that "God" "the holy spirit" is cross-traditionally experienced as pure formless emptiness...which is simply nothing

...although this pure "nothing" is "more" than it seems

Edited March 29, 2008 by sirguessalot

[sirguessalot]

to add...

fear and loathing of elitism seems a natural response to many centuries of punishing mythic and rational elitism

2d mythical elitism = TWI and fundamentalist hierarchies...or even family hierarchies

3d rational eltism = the elitism of specialists, professionals, academics, etc......a "darwinian" hierarchy in business models

and with the birth of post-modern thought about a century ago...we have been experiencing a whole new hypocritical elitism....

"no one is better than any one else (which is partially true)...therefore there are no levels of development (which is partially not true)"

...the hypocricy being the invisible elitism of such a position

when everything everything everything develops in waves, lines, stages and other stratospheres

and this includes the human capacity to know..to cognate...to feel...to think...etc...

heck...by the time we are in our 20s and reading this message...we have already developed through many many stages of mere existence

...and a half dozen since becoming human

but rejection of stages of development (in language and discourse) has become pandemic since the advent of post-modernity

and seems to have been supporting and feeding every kind of self-centeredness we can imagine ever since

(if there "are" no levels of development...we cant say "hey...that guy running this company IS acting like a 2-yr old!" without being nonviolently oppressed with "who are you to judge another?")

...giving us GWB as a world-leader..for example

...

and as far as upper stages of development...

much like the view down...its like looking at a ladder that goes on forever

though we CAN measure the bandwith of the ladder we find our selves on

...

but i pray for a day when the world can look for/to leaders (political, religious, economic, scientific) who demonstrate perspectives that are worth calling "holy" (or whole..or holistic...or whole-minded/hearted..whatever)

(rather than kill them...which is what we have usually done to highly developed people)

but it wont happen if we do not allow our selves to distinguish between levels of development (along whatever line)

Edited March 29, 2008 by sirguessalot

[skypilot]

there comes a redeamer but he too slowly fades away

[Seth R.]

Parallel (and not perfectly) to stages of ego development, and stages of moral development, and other developmental maps and models, are James Fowler's Stages of faith development

i post this as a way to reinforce the simple notion that all kinds of development/evolution/growth/transformation/change occurs in general stages

and that subjective belief develops in measurable stages...where subject becomes the object (of belief) at each "leap"

Wow cool I guess I'm at stage 6 enlightenment.

Thanks,

Seth

[jen-o]

quite frankly, i think this stage theory is a bunch of crock!

any theory that proposes that all humans grow in faith (according to stages of development) fosters spiritual elitism, imo... (with a few "enlightened" ones at the top)

this really isn't anything new... eastern religions promote the same thing... it's just another way to set up a hierarchal system... and in the most extreme form, it develops into a caste system...

but God has given to EVERY man the MEASURE of FAITH...

[lindyhopper]

Well, JenO, I am not a "believer" of any sort in this matter but... does having "THE measure of faith" mean that you have it and you never "grow in faith" or "develop your faith." Everything else grows and develops. I can see what you are saying and on one hand I agree with it seeming elitist, but is it all all that different from the normal growth or development of our natural body? Children are subject to their elders. At a certain age kids think they know it all. Teens are rebellious. Young adults are naive. With age comes wisdom. Yada yada yada.

I guess now we are at another point in which definitions start to merge and diverge. What you consider to be "the measure of faith" may be different from another Christian and different from what Todd is calling faith. VPW had 5 (maybe more) different usages of "faith." The one in which you are using would fall under the "faith of Jesus Christ" or holy spirit he described. Seems that is a faith all it's own. A broad usage of the word would most certainly change over time as our beliefs in the invisible/unprovable/unascertainable/unknowable change throughout our lives. Faith in some things is a little more at our fingertips, while other faiths are on the other side of the universe (that is if your faith includes the universe having sides and limits).

What if developmental elitism is the reality of life? Just because you or I don't like the sound of it isn't going to make it any less true. Is choosing a faith that suits us best and makes us feel good about ourselves and our ideas of a god any less elitist?

Edited April 24, 2008 by lindyhopper

[sirguessalot]

hi Jen-O

honestly, not to single you out

but your argument is a common one

as odd as this may sound

it seems to me that you have just declared your own 2-stage faith system

...one that puts you at the top of your own spiritual hierarchy

all the while denying the value of any stage or hierarchy

i mean...you are the one who referenced a measure...or yardstick of faith

...that we each have

so...

what relationship does faith have to a device with notches?

one that every being potentially has?

i mean, is it possible we have an innate ability to measure faith as our faith grows?

heck..even trees form in stages...and have layers

the atmosphere formed in stages...and now has layers

the earth formed in stages...and now has layers

there are certainly distinct and easily measureable stages of pregnancy

is our faith so different than all these things?

reminds me of a wise king's staff

or the ancient caduceus of healing

etc...

represents the fullest range of something that is already always growing in each of us

...

besides...

is there something inherently wrong about something being eastern?

it seems many eastern religions came out of abraham

and seems to me that it is written

that our own favorite jewish kid was fond of being where east meets west

coming to us

like a flash

as when insight comes with solving that piece of the puzzle..

"oh...ah...duh...ok...

the world is not flat and stationary

but round and turning"

quite a leap

..

and besides ...whether we make a religion out of it or not

we are all living somewhere in a caste system right now

i am not so sure that systems and theories and sciences and philosophies and studies that deal with stages of faith (or cognition, or values, etc..)

are in danger of causing extreme caste systems as widespread as some world-class religion

...

and too...

most stage development theories (and studies and disciplines, btw)

view development in terms of overall human development over time

such as the stages from birth to death

i dont think its hard to point out the many very clear stages all humans go through

as a baby..we had faith in something

and by childhood...that shape of that faith had changed quite dramatically

cursed seems the one who is an elder...

and who whose faith has not grown and changed many times since childhood

and i promise...your faith

and mine

is going to change yet again

near and on our deathbed

...

ultimately, it seems

that most all sages and saints and rabbis and gurus and teachers

of most all religious lineages

all came from

and then eventually met

at the same place

in their search for God

which is what this thread seems to point to...

...the vast infinite invisible everpresent timeless formless God that simply cannot be found

there are no true images of God..remember?

yet within this vast spiritual ocean of Spirit

it seems we are being pushed/pulled through

a patterned chain reaction of very important mistakes

in order to get back home

and no matter how many steps we think there is on this journey

no matter how many we feel we have experienced

the first is the first is the first

and the second is the second is the second

and the third is the third is the third

yada yada yada

..

language eventually fails to hold such things

ya know?

Edited April 24, 2008 by sirguessalot

[jen-o]

hi sirguess and lindy,

i'm not really able to post a lengthy reply right now... but i will say a few things...

sirguess,

good to see you (and i don't mind being singled out) :~)

my reference to "the measure of faith" comes from romans 12:3, and i won't apologize for having a biblical worldview... neither do i pretend to have all the answers... however, this i know - that God does not like spiritual elitism...and Jesus states that he HATES it... so anything that looks like spiritual elitism, i will speak out against...

todd, i fail to see how i have set up a 2-stage "faith" system by referencing scripture... in what way does this put me at the top of a hierarchy??... what i am saying is that EVERY man has been given the measure of faith BY GOD, and it is not something that one aquires in stages... it is A GIFT (a complete package)... so i do not think that "faith" can be compared to "trees"... i do not think that "faith" grows the way that trees grow and develop... so although there are stages of development for many different things in the world (as you have noted: pregnancy, etc.), i do think that FAITH is in a different category... like i said, it is A GIFT, one that is GIVEN to us BY GOD, and therefore not something that we "develop" or can improve upon... afterall, all we need is faith the size of a mustard seed, so all this striving to develop "faith" makes no sense to me... i certainly do NOT believe that gurus, sages, etc. have any more faith than the rest of us!... and how does all of this put me at the top of a spiritual hierarchy when what i am saying is that EVERY PERSON on earth has been given the same thing... the same MEASURE (as in the same DOSE) of faith, the same GIFT... so that NO ONE can BOAST that they have more or are better than another person... i am not proposing a "2-stage" anything... there are NO STAGES of development regarding GIFTS... this kind of language does not apply to GIFTS...

i will write more later...

peace,

jen-o

Edited April 24, 2008 by jen-o

[cman]

Stages are not meaning higher or lower regarding faith.

Realizing more is in stages or growth obviously.

I don't see how it can be called something that is stagnant.

Being given the measure of faith would not rule out learning more about it.

Which would include going down or up, and all directions in stages and growth.

If one thinks that is elitism then it's their privilege I suppose.

I don't think that way and I believe that growth occurs in everything including faith.

Do we look at a child and think we are better then a child?

Does a child look at an adult and think they are better then the adult?

And coincidentally we are to receive as a child.

[sirguessalot]

jen

here is a definition for "measure" in the verse you referenced

measure, an instrument for measuring

a vessel for receiving and determining the quantity of things, whether dry or liquid

a graduated staff for measuring, a measuring rod

proverbially, the rule or standard of judgment

determined extent, portion measured off, measure or limit

the required measure, the due, fit, measure

it is a neuter noun...

in other words...it seems to say that we are all given a way to measure faith

and the mind of christ is a full-spectrum affair.... not a simple black and white model

...The Reveletion seems clear on this (rainbows around the head of Christ?)

how does all of this put me at the top of a spiritual hierarchy when what i am saying is that EVERY PERSON on earth has been given the same thing

because you are claiming that this is the only best view...and some other views are "a bunch of crock"

like i said...your position is common

but suffers from a major hypocrisy

...

also...i did not say your system was 2-step because you referenced scripture

...read slower maybe

it is because there are only simply 2 steps to your position on faith

step one = no faith (as you define it)

step two = faith (as you define it)

and you are claiming to represent step two

which is also the only top

and because you deny there is anything higher

while claiming not to have all the answers..oddly enough

...

also...jesus did compare faith to mustard seeds

...which becomes a tree

and being born again is patterned after the first birth

...which includes stages

but...is faith somehow separate from the new birth process?

...

and huh?

jesus states that he hates spiritual elitism?!?

but it seems he knew the difference between those who could understand his parables

...and those who could not

we cannot develop or improve on God's gifts?!?

...faith without works is dead

...faith is tried seven times

...more

a "biblical worldview?!?"

i tell ya

ive spent a lot of time looking at worldviews

and a lot of time studying the bible with people of a variety of backgrounds and worldviews

and i cant help but say "nope" to your claim of having a "biblical worldview"

imo, if there is such thing as a "biblical worldview

i would hafta say that it (at least) must be willing to include and compare all worldviews about the bible

we cannot cut off most all of 4000 years of global human experience and thought and expect to know squat about that book

we cannot ignore all the other religious texts of the world and claim to know how wrong they are

the contents of the bible was influenced by many many beliefs...and i do not think this is a bad thing

...

not sure what else to say Jen

except that yours seems a difficult position to defend

[jen-o]

dear sirguess,

i don't need to defend anything, i don't need to convince anyone of anything, and i don't care if anyone agrees with me... i am telling you MY opinion based on what i know about God and the bible...

i do not need to study other religious texts (although i have)... i do not need to study other global worldviews (although i have)... but neither false religious texts or counterfeit worldviews (and a comparitive study of these things) brings one unto a knowledge of the truth (for the world by wisdom did NOT know God)... it is the Holy Spirit which leads a person into all truth...

so i do not care if you analyse me according to the world's wisdom (i find the world's wisdom very lacking in this area)... and i don't expect you to agree with me...

btw, being born again does NOT occur in stages...

peace,

jen-o

[sirguessalot]

thats ok with me Jen

btw...did you know that word for "born" in the epistle of Peter is actually the word for conception?

likewise in the 3rd chapter of John

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born ?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be ?

Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

and so...

if there are stages between conception and birth...

and both Jesus and Peter are speaking of the point of conception

and not the point of birth...

?

...

btw...i italicized the last line to point out the elitism of Jesus (and his mysterious "we")

Edited April 24, 2008 by sirguessalot

[cman]

I think the 'elitism' jen-o is thinking of is something that is an offshoot of pride.

There isn't anyone at any stage of faith that thinks themselves better then anyone else.

If it's faith we are speaking of.

And there again, definition of terms is a biggy...........

What is faith?

We know from hebrews it has substance.

"Increase our faith" the disciples asked....

then the mustard seed deal

ever seen a mustard tree...lol...

kindof like mustard, a little goes a long way

too much is too much

if we were to know everything at once then no one could handle it all in this life

some know some things

others know other things....

[jen-o]

sirguess,

are you trying to pull one over on me?

either that or you don't know how to use your own bible tool site that you linked to...

??

work with me here... i'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt...

i did go and check the word for "born"... and what i found was no different that what the link you provided says...

which is that the word for "born" is "gennao" while the word for "conceived" is "sullambano" (both are in the verb form, not the noun "conception")

and the passage you cite in john chapter 3 (regarding the conversation with nicodemus) uses the word "gennao" for born (in every word that you highlighted, the word is gennao)...

"gennao" clearly means BORN and NOT CONCEIVED (or the noun - conception)

again, in 1 Pet. 1:23, the word for born is "anagennao" (obviously a form of the word "gennao" (i.e. born, NOT conceived/conception)

[i'm not really sure if you are trying to mislead me just to prove your stage theory or not] ??

but according to strong's (which was also contained in your link), "gennao" means: to be born, to be begotten... and "sullambano" means: to conceive

there is only a handful of times that the word "sullambano" is used (four times), and in very limited circumstances - as when elisabeth conceived john the babtist (obviously prior to his birth/being born)... while the word "gennao" (born) is used approximately 50 times...

this does not a stage theory make!

further, it is clear from the biblical context in many different places that the word means BORN and not conceived/conception...

as in john 9:2: the man BORN blind, not conceived blind

or in acts 2:8: where they heard them speak in the tongues wherein they were BORN (not tongues wherein they were conceived)... and the cities of their BIRTH are listed, not the cities they were conceived in...

or in acts 22:3: where paul speaks of the city he was BORN in (again, he wasn't telling people about the city he was conceived in)

or in acts 22:28: where paul speaks about being free BORN (he wasn't talking about being free "conceived")

or in john 16:21: which speaks of a woman (who after delivering her child) has joy because a man is BORN into the world... she doesn't deliver a child and then have joy that a man is conceived... (that's backwards)...

anyway, i could go on... context after context shows that the word means BORN and NOT CONCEIVED/CONCEPTION...

sooo... i don't know what to make of your post... Jesus and peter were NOT speaking about the point of "conception", they were speaking about the point of BIRTH!

this conclusion of yours is an outright error, not supported by facts... i'm not even sure how you arrived at this conclusion, except that you are so determined to prove your stage theory is valid...

as for your last line about Jesus being "elitist", i will have to deal with that another time... suffice to say (for now) that Jesus was NOT elitist, the same way that the word for born is NOT the word for conception in john chapter 3 or in 1 peter 1:23...

anyway, nice chatting with you...

peace,

jen-o

Edited April 25, 2008 by jen-o

[sirguessalot]

sorry Jen

not trying to mislead anyone

and i dont think the born/conceived differences are as cut and dry as you claim

(check mat 1:20 for example..where "conceived" is the word "gennao")

nor do i feel your "bunch of crock" assessment of stages is very informed ...or civil

and that was what i was originally trying to respond to

but i do feel it is quite pointless to continue ... as we obviously do not use the same methods of knowing

and i dont want to waste any more of your time or mine going round and round

i hope we can just part ways and call it good

peace?

[dakotawind]

hi again vick,

i have been where you are too.

i take this whole 'religious thing' very lightly these days.

i was on deaths door a few years ago.

the best thing that happened to me besides surviving was that i let go of all prior judgments of myself, and people in my life, (which included the religion i subscribed to responsible for guilt), all wrongs done to me, perceptions of others that were less than loving - i forgave, and ultimately, the only thing that mattered to me (and my recovery) at the crucial time i had to experience was - who i loved in this world and throughout my life.

in the end, that's all that matters. ask any hospice worker. forget the priests unless they aren't blind. it's people on earth, not god and heaven.

love matters.

i've been hospitalized about 7 seven times to get the issue straight that nearly killed me (i'm fine now, not to worry), and this realization has not wavered for me.

religious faith might do something for many people, obviously, who are frightened and i respect people who have to rely on faith as i understand why they do, as do you.

the thing i learned though, in the face of death, was, that religion or my faith mattered nothing (to me) in the big picture.

what did and still does matter to me every day is 'love'

by love i mean those i love, such as the children,my life-long friends, but most importantly family (no matter how bad, lol, in my case) they matter still, and all i respond to is love for them ...

what causes a love response in you?

knowing what does, and the people you love who matter regardless of what they have done to you or not done, and how you feel you were treated - that's handled by forgiveness by us anyway, and in the end, we do forgive. today if we are basically honest, all that matters to us and our peace of mind - especially if we are prepared to leave this world peacefully - the thoughts are on those we love and who love us - and the kindness and peacefulness we can inspire or create or reap.....sometimes religion is the opposite of this, yes?

anyway, i thought i'd share this with you because - love is the answer - not religion - in my book - and many others i respect feel this way as well.

one might learn good behaviors or how to love from some sort of religious training, as Christ did, but in the big personal picture of our lives as mere humans in the 21st century, in the personal seat of our lives where our lives emulate from, and where importance to love is key, and effects are sublimely peaceful and open in our loving, it's about who we feel love for, throughout our lives, in OUR experiences, not a religious one, that is what really matters.

to me. i must say, to me.

i appreciate what others feel though.

i was open to that prospect once that my religion was the key to life once too.

it doesn't work for me now.

i don't rule out a benevolent ear in the univrese to the human need - some call that god.

i think love is the greatest thing humans are capable of ...

gods' history (according to the bible) doesn't show me that throughout dogmatic history, actually quite the opposite.

i can't stand the old testament, let alone the horrors in the new.

i don't ask myself too many questions that people do not have the answers to anyway.

i'm happy about how our positive emotions and mindsets get us far ... using our own biology.

the rest ... who really knows?

don't knock yourself out trying to figure it out.

just be happy!

[cman]

i don't understand how conception and birth can be separated

though the bible thumpers insist on a difference

without conception there is no birth

being born again would include both

birth is both, cuz you carry what was conceived into birth

it is a process with many processes at work

i've seen it, lived it and still experience it daily

some just need to open the eyes to more then someone's book

or close them to see

[jen-o]

cman,

i suppose you are referring to me as a "bible thumper" LOL

(hey, i've been called worse) LOL

anyway, i do not believe that "being born again" is a process... i believe that it is a gift!

if it was a process, then we would be saved by our own works, because it would take our own energy, effort, intelligence, ability, etc. to work thru the process (or to work thru the stages of the process)... but we are saved by faith, not works, lest any man should boast (about ANYTHING, including how much more "spiritual" one is OR how much further along in the "process" one is...

it is true that in the natural world, stages exist between conception and birth; but that does not mean that the spiritual new birth follows a pattern of stages... what is true in the natural world can be quite different in the spiritual world...

btw, you wrote:

some just need to open the eyes to more then someone's book

someone's book??

my answer to that is: 1 Thess. 2:13

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God

(i too have received the word of God as it is in Truth, it is NOT the word of men)

this is the way that i have received it; you may not have done the same...

and if you have not, i do not expect you to understand where i am coming from nor understand my worldview...

peace,

jen-o

[cman]

the process of the spirit coming

revealing itself, being born

it's timing not ours

and no i wasn't referring to you as a bible thumper

i looked up the references as well as many comments

and works of men on the word and subject

[Steveo]

Reminds me of the old Woody Allen quote....

"I would believe in God, if when I talked to Him he would just let me know he's there....Maybe just clear his throat or something...."

OK when I get realistic in my mind, here are the bottom line reasons why I believe in God.....

* Ok so you have this expanding Universe/Multiverse going all the way back to the "Big Bang" But if you go back further yet....what existed before the Big Bang? If nothing...then what got it all started?

* I look at the world and the stars and heaven, and especially when I look at places un molested by man, there is a random and intense beauty that speaks of a master artist at work, a perfectly interdependent, and infinitely layered system, that we are only just beginning to understand.........the universe/multiverse is awesomely beautiful, glorious, just, lawful, with meaning and language of its own that we can only scratch the surface of at this time. I recently saw some quality photos of the Earth, Moon, and Sun from space and it was incredibly, awesomely glorious....OMG I could go on and on... :)

Edited April 26, 2008 by Steveo

[sirguessalot]

Dakotawind...though you were responding to vickles who started the thread

i personally want to say thanks for posting everything that you did

in my understanding...those who experience "death's door" and are transformed by it

bring us the most authentically spiritual kinds of insights

that are more closely related to the messages of All the world's saints and sages

in and out of scripture

thanks again

...

and yeah...very good points cman

like how being pushed/pulled through a process by grace

is NOT the same as being "born again by works"

being born is a many stage process that we did not ask for (as is both life and death)

and we have no choice but to work hard and participate in the entire process

even if we resist...our egos are dragged along the way

it seems the "works versus grace" arguments are often both severely limited to an "either/or" position

...when a "both/and" position seems more likely

like how...if we did not ask for the works

than the very works themselves are also a gift of grace, no?

by Grace

its still One faith

with many possible stages

...and a whole garden of work

nonetheless...Grace is still the ground and foundation of all the work

...

hi steveo

i hope you mind

but your post inspired a bit of a rant

(this coffee helped a bit too)

1 word from each paragraph of your post...

...clear

...nothing

...space

cuz according to scriptures (and the depths of most all the world's religious traditions)

God is an infinite, everpresent, formless, timeless, invisible, spirit

and any image of God is merely an idol...right?

yet oddly enough...while we have no problem likening the beautiful view from space to God's view

...we still seem to have a problem likening God to space "it's self"

as if generations of dogma and myth have conditioned us to give some sort of concrete form to God

some sort of imageness

some sort of ITness

or thingness

or human personality

but if God is Spirit

and Spirit is spacious

and we are created in God's "image"

then perhaps we too are essentially fundamentally beings of spaciousness/spirit

and are only temporarily identified with matter (flesh, thoughts, feelings, etc...)

but are destined to return to that very same spaciousness we came from

and the journey from spirit to form back to spirit again is the trip of a life

after all...God "spoke" to Job from the eye of the whirlwind, no?

like all the things we find beautiful were caused by the center of a "black hole"

like agape...unconditional love

...this vast vast clearing we find ourselves in

is what simply allows everything to be

everything

everything

everything

is IN a vast vast space

and space is IN everything

just as scriptures declare that we are IN God

and God is IN us

it is IN God that we move and have our being

as if stillness, silence, emptiness

causes movement on the face of the deep

and as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

the ultimate beholder

is the "eye of God"

...

imagine...what if we were to view creation from the perspective of the space/spirit that we already always are?

or even simply view our physical body from the space that our body is in?

is it possible that when we Witness the universe (or our body) from the spaciousness deep within

(and there certainly is plenty of space within each of us)

that we are Witnessing the universe (or our body) from the perspective of "the Spirit of God?"

...

in other words...

perhaps No thing started it

...literally

Edited April 26, 2008 by sirguessalot

[sirguessalot]

dakota..plz permit me to reflect and refract a tad more...

i'm happy about how our positive emotions and mindsets get us far ... using our own biology.

this says a lot to me about your experience..and such experiences

and how one can be rooted and grounded in that which is NOT our positive emotions and mindsets and our own biology

deepening our appreciation of all of the above

which is not love

or even Love

not a mere grasping wanting needing kinds of love

or mere conceptual intellectual theological theoretical kinds of Love

but perhaps simply LOVE

of a higher wider deeper kind

that is embodied

experienced

and felt

...when all else fails

such as when beliefs and faiths fail

and when the stories we tell about truth fail

even time fails

as if by experiencing a sense of profound loss

do we realize that which never leaves us

when every thing and every one becomes out of the way enough

we can see clear enough

and hear clear enough

that which had never left

and never leaves

...this extra ultra ordinary Love

often also called God

who has no opposite

and includes everything

and this realization has not wavered for me.

indeed

...like breaking a seal

on a one way trip of many seals

Edited April 27, 2008 by sirguessalot

[jen-o]

hi sirguess,

sorry it took me so long to get back to you (or maybe you didn't want me to get back to you) LOL

yes, of course, everything is all good... and peace!

i did want to say though that i was not trying to be uncivil...

i was just posting my opinion on stage theory as it relates to "faith"...

although i did state the theory was a "bunch of crock", i also told you the reasons why i thought this way... and why i came to this conclusion, so it wasn't a case of me just slinging mud... i used the term just once, but it seems it really stuck in your bonnet (so to speak)...

just because we don't agree doesn't mean that i am uncivil...

and i certainly didn't call you any names or attack you personally...

what i said was directed at the theory...

(in fact, you got more personal than i did by telling me that i had set myself at the top of a spiritual hierarchy)... but i'm not complaining...

i still believe that there is a world of difference between the event of conception and the event known as birth...

and i am aware of mat. 1:20... it is the ONE and ONLY instance where the word "gennao" was translated into the english language as "conceived"... and i don't think that the english translation accurately conveys what is going on in this verse... in light of the 50 (or so) other uses of gennao, mat 1:20 is letting us know that Christ coming into the world is NOT the same as when other humans are "conceived"... in other words, christ did not come into the world via "conception"... He was not the result of an egg and sperm... He was the Word made flesh, and as such, His existence was "gennao" from the womb... the word "gennao" connotes "existence" and comes from the root word "ginomai" which means: to come into existence, to begin to be, to receive being... whereas we come into existence as human beings at our births, this verse is showing us that Jesus had a unique beginning as a human being (as the Word made flesh)...

when john the babtist was "conceived", the scripture uses a different word: sullambano (in luke 1:24 & 1:36)... the scripture makes a distinction between Jesus and other men... why?... because i believe that the scripture is telling us that Jesus is God... Jesus is the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God, the Word was made flesh... and therefore, the word "gennao" is used in this verse instead of the word "sullambano"...

i originally wasn't going to get into all of this because i did not think it was germane to the discussion...

but since you brought it up (by referring to this ONE unique instance where the word "gennao" was translated "conceived"), i don't mind talking about it... :P

anyway, the point is that "conception" and "birth" are two very different things (according to the scripture anyway)... and mat 1:20 actually emphasizes that point (contrary to what you posted which seemed to suggest that because "gennao" was translated into the english word "conceived", that somehow changed the definition of the word "gennao" (which it does NOT)... it merely points out the distinction between Jesus and other human beings)

as always, it's nice chatting with you... :)

peace,

jen-o

Edited April 27, 2008 by jen-o

[cman]

It's interesting that no matter what we think, things are going to happen.

Being dragged along as you put it sirguess, kind of funny. Outwilled by the will.

Just to glimpse or an extended look at what is was and will be happening is humbling.

The falling and rising all being drawn like a great black hole..lol..:)

Both outside and inside forces at work,

as though there is a difference.

One may just mean something........