NEO, et al:

I assume--that is, I take it for granted--that this is a dialogue, not a debate. As I understand it debaters try to prove that they have the monopoly on the Truth. A dialogue is about exploring,  with others, ways and means of finding the highest and best possible truth.

By the way I usually agree with those who tell me that the Gospels teach that Jesus claimed to be at one with the father, GOD.  But then I ask: Do not the Gospels also teach that he called us to follow him? I don't think he ever said: "But you will find it impossible to do so." Usually the dialogue ends there.

I also remind the doctrinaire of Matthew 5:48: "You must be perfect--just as your Father in heaven is perfect." WOW!!! What a challenge!

OTHER INTERESTING BIBLE REFERENCES

John 10:34, Jesus quotes Psalm 82: "I have said you are gods."  I wonder what he had in mind when he said this? [Keep in mind that the original Greek text was in uncials--that is, without upper and lower case letters. Also, ancient texts had no punctation marks.]

John 17:20-26 is interesting. It is all about our oneness with Jesus and GOD. The central verse: "That all may be one." is on the crest of the United Church. BTW, I do not believe it is about the organic union of churches.

Galatians 3:26-29. "It is through faith that all of you (including women) are God's sons in union with Christ Jesus." .... Check the whole passage.

THE NT AND DEMOCRACY?

I have heard the above teaching of Paul quoted as the basis of all the modern democratic freedoms. I believe that our at-one-ment with GOD is the source of all freedom. Now that IS Good News! The Gospel. Matthew 5:48: "You must be perfect--just as your Father in heaven is perfect." What a challenge!

BTW, I use the term 'GOD' as an acronym--Goodness, Order and Desirable--not as a noun. How do you use it?

Sometimes, instead of the O, I will use the Ø, the null--I will explain why, later.

GØD is at one with all that is;

At one with cosmos, earth, sky, sea.

GØD is at one with time and space

And all pervasive gravity.

Hi RevKing:

Yes, RevKing, if Kosmos, or GØD, really is in a state of synthesis, then we can only discuss IT, not debate IT. Then defining GØD is a creative or arstistic act in which every one of us comes up with their own, unique definition, yet every definition is valid, and the differences between our various definitions are necessarry, artistic differences.

This is treating theology as an art.

After all, the source of all art needs to be apprehended artsitically, right?  "Thou art all art."

But thou art all my art, and dost advance,

As high as learning my rude ignorance.

-Sonnet LXXVIII, William Shakespeare

GD GD, RevKing, I lve your samples!

Crazyheart, you comment: "Please start a thread of its own, RevKing." 

To whom are you asking this? What kind of thread?

GOD AS BEING LIKE OUR

CONSCIUSNESS OF SELF

With this in mind, let us take a look at Exodus 3:14. Keep in mind that this chapter is about GOD'S CALL TO MOSES.
To get the full context of the story--and I make no claim that this is hard and factual history--we need to start reading at Exodus 2:11.

THE HISTORIC MOSES
By the way, the Bible-name we pronounce 'Moses'--the Egyptian is Maise--was a common Egyptian name in the 14th and 13th centuries, B.C. [I wonder if our word 'maize'--a corn-like grain--comes from this word with a Spanish origin?]

In Egyptian it means 'to be born'. Although there is no mention of Moses in Egyptian literature, nor that he led the the Hebrews out of Egypt , scholars accept that Moses was a historic person, not just a folk hero or an eponymous ancestor of the tribe of Hebrews. Without him there would be no explanation for Yahwistic monotheism. I keep an open mind, but I tend to agree with the above information.

HENOTHEISM
Check out
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm
Here is a quote:

The popular notion that Moses was the original monotheist is a thesis that has very little support. As we shall soon see, Moses probably was not even a monotheist, but even if he was, there was monotheism in Egypt a generation before Moses, most likely under the heretic king Akhenaten of the 14th century B.C.E. In his insistence on the worship of Yahweh alone, Moses was a henotheist, i.e., he believed that Yahweh was the greatest among the gods, the king of gods.

Now, take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism

IMO (in my opinion), there is nothing to fear here. All this goes to show is this: Ideas evolve in the same way as do physical bodies.

Now, let us go back to the origin of Moses' idea about God.

It seems that he was shocked--and good for him--by what he felt was an injustice, which was inflicted on his kith and kin. Courageously, he took action. Like and ancient John Wayne, he killed an Egyptian bully. This is quite an interesting story. Read it. Every sentence is filled with meaning. It even points out that Hebrews were bullies.

Because of this dramatic and risky action, Moses was forced to flee the security he had in Egypt. He found refuge with his Kenite relatives, the children of his relative,Jethro, in what is now called the Sinai dessert. I is between Egypt and Israel. Then it was called Midian.

It was in Midian, the land of his relatives, that Moses--at the so-called "burning bush"--became aware of God as the I-AM-NESS of all that is. Not a bad idea. But keep in mind, this is was only the beginning.

Think about this question, carefully:
Are you prepared and willing to accept that when you say, "I am..." that you are saying: "I am one with all that is--GØD." Later, Jesus made this claim--for himself and for us.

I repeat I use the spelling do because I want to get away from the baggage around the word, 'God'. Feel free to use what is comfortable for you.

BTW, did you hear about the insomniac-dyslectic? He lay awake and wondered: Is there really a doG.

For me, and for now:
GØD, or GOD, is the one with all that is;
the one with cosmos, earth, sky, seas;
GØD's one with time, the eternal now,
And all pervasive gravities.
=========================================

The editorial argued that it is OK for politicians, who believe in God,  to ask for God's blessing. In response, and in general agreement with the editorial, I wrote the following:

Editor:

Are you serious? Are you saying that there are among us those who actually do object to politicians, in the freedom of their conscience, asking the god of their conscience to bless people; that they find it "squirm inducing" for politicians to express that they believe in God, in one form or another? No wonder many politicians fear being candid with us in more mundane things.

Perhaps they would prefer politicians to say: "If you don't like what you just heard me say, you can go to hell in a hand basket!" [Editor: If you prefer, you can use "go to h*** in a hand basket!"]

But seriously, even as a Christian, I agree that there is such a thing as too much "God-talk", which can be cloying and sound so insincere. So here is my suggested solution to this conundrum--this puzzling problem. If I were a politician, here is how I would end my speeches:

I realize that among us here today there those who hold differing opinions about the policies you have heard announced. At the same time, there are also those who believe there is a personal god who, when called on, will bless our endeavours, and those who do not. I respect the right of anyone to believe, or not to believe, as they see fit. I ask you to grant me the same right. My conscience tells me that the god-concept can personal and/or impersonal. That is, it can be be spelled God, with a capital G, or, using the form of an acronym, it can be spelled capitals G, O, and D--standing for all that is Good, all that is Orderly, and all that is Desirable.

So, with this in mind and in the spirit of the Golden Rule--respected even by the non-religious--I say, according to our beliefs: May GOD, God, or conscience bless each and everyone of us.

That greatly answered my question. Thank you Neo =)

Now i hope you do not get mad at me but i see you have brought up the word master a couple times... isn't there but one master tho?? the creator of creation the maker of time.

I do not mean to be offensive and i apologise if i am. i'm just a pupil thats all, enjoying this wonder filled cafe

once again thank you for teaching =)

 RevLindsay: Really, it's either.  Or both.  We're so open and accepting we'll accept people who aren't (unless they say like, hate speech).

TESLA IS AWESOME!!!!

Neo: Wow.  Where exactly did you find this?

Hi Mendalla:

Unitheism, eh? Sorry, I don't have time for a longer response. I must get off to church.

ABOUT the Christmas and New Year's edtion (Dec. 2008) of the UNITED CHURCH OBSERVER:

Just recently, I finished going through the December edition of the UC Observer mentioned above. As usual, this edition is an inclusive mixture of interesting, spiritually-based news items and stories--especially the cover story.

The cover story--there actually are several stories in the piece--speaks of faith, hope, love and grace in unlikely places. But they are, in fact, pathos-filled stories--especially the one called "The Trouble with Angel" (a street person), by the Rev. Lee Simpson. This story, and others like it, poses deep questions, often unspoken, about what it means to be God's "down-trodden children" and what we can possibly do about the trouble we are all in, especially in this time of international financial crisis.

I am sure that this prompts many to ask: If God is all powerful and all loving, why does he not come in, intervene as the conquering Messia, and, if he refuses to do the job all by himself, at least help us to solve all our problems.

If God intends that it is up to us to deliver ourselves from evil, why do we keep on praying--asking: Your Kingdom come, and your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven; God give us our daily bread; lead us not into temptation and deliver us from all evil?

It ought to be obvious to us that, based on media reports, only for the privileged few in the first world, is the above prayer answered, "Yes!" And, according to recents news from the financial markets, even many of us are not doing all that well, especially our American cousins.

Meanwhile, for much of the world--and many in the midst of the privileged few--the answer is, "No!" And this has been true for centuries. Are we perhaps talking to the wrong god? Or in the wrong way?

===============

Decades ago, with the consent of the Official Board of Willowdale United Church, I made a change in the delivery of the Pastoral Prayer. I decided to use the model Jesus gives us in Mark 11:24:

"Pray and...believe that you have received it and it will be yours." Compare John 17:20ff. Keep in mind that the Aramaic word, which we translate as 'pray' is slaha. It means to "connect with" to "tune in to", not to ask for.

Instead of petitioning a reluctant for God to do this, that and the other thing for us and the world,  I spoke, affirmatively,  to  the congregation and, with the help of quite organ music in the background, as follow is: 

"GOD is not a remote being separate and apart from us, but divine Being, Presence, or Spirit, as close as every breath we breathe.

"With eyes open or closed, take this opportunity to connect with the power, the wisdom and the love of GOD in an through all that is, including you.

Now, pay attention to your breath your basic source of physical life. Slowly, take a deep breath. In, in, in and ... hold it! ... Now relax and breathe out--[I did this at least three times.]

"Now allow the Spirit of God to fill every atom of your physical being with energy and power as your heart and lungs work together to create rich, red energy-filled blood cells, which will be delivered to every part of your body bringing new life and healing power. Let red, like the blood of life, be the symbol of this process. From now on, everytime meditate on red and take three deep breaths, this porcess the feeling of strength and power will, automatically be repeated.

"By the power of your God-given Spirit, now allow your imagination to be filled with the God-created light of knowledge and wisdom--the best use of knowledge. Imagine the light of the sun, beginning with the brain, filling  your whole body and radiating out even  beyond into the aura of your total being.  Any time during the week ahead that you would like to repeat how you are feeling right now, simply meditate on the golden yellow of the sun. On sunny days, simply glance, very briefly, in the direction of the sun--taking care not to stare at it.

"Now conclude your meditative-prayer by taking a trip to your favourite lake, or to the nearest coast where you can see the blue ocean reflecting the blue of the sky. There you can relax and bring to your imagination the sights and sounds  of that place. I will give you some time to do this ... [more on this later]

 =====================

By the way, I wonder how many Observer readers caught the letter of the Rev. George Hermanson, Burnstown, Ont.? He opens his letter with the question: What is our understanding of God?

He writes about our need for having a new model of God--a differnt image, one that is neither interventionist nor from supernatural classical theism.

Then he proposes: "the model that helps is the panentheistic model. It begins in a relational view of the world. God pervades the universe and therefore ourselves."

THE HOW OF MEDITATIVE PRAYER

If the above is so, prayer then--I like to call it meditative-prayer--is our readiness to be honest, open and willing (HOW) to be open to the all-pervasive Presence of GOD (the which is good, orderly and desirable)--our guide to  peace of mind based on compassion and justice for all.

REDEFINING GOD. See  www.redefinegod.com

NEO: After three Sundays of doing this, I asked the congregation to fill out an evaluation of the process. The only complaint I got, seriously, was: "It is not long enough. Make it a bit longer." I did.

Also, some Sundays I did it just before the sermon,  incorporating points I would present...giving them a nice long sleep.   They liked that too. I will describe how I handled themes like intercession, thanksgiving and confession, later.

I repeat that the Aramaic word, which we translate as 'pray' is slaha. It means to "connect with" to "tune in to",  not to ask for.

PP, your comment: "Although, intellectually, I don't accept that God is a person ..." prompts me to point out that :

The Armaic word, ABAWUN (abawoon), which we translate as "our Father" simply means, "the source from which all living breath (Spirit) comes."

OK, is GOD a person? A He? Or a She?

Without any other reason other than a personal one, here is how I deal with this question: As a male--and with due respect to my father's line--I think of GOD as the feminine line in me. Beginning with my mother, I think of my mother's mother and I go back to the "beginning", whenever that was.

=================================

BTW, mentioning our parents line of descent, this metaphor just came to me: Medidtative-prayer, for me, is like going online and connecting with others on the Web.

This prompts me to suggest: Why not use the Web to do some pneumatological (spiritual) experiments as to which kind of prayers work best.

For example, if God is a person, is it OK to ask "Him":

God, with deep respect, would you please consider opening your own blog?  We, your children, have numerous questions to ask you, please!!!!! get back to WonderCafe. Seriously, we would all love to blog with you.

"I already gave you everything, what more do you want?"

-God

Hi RevKing:

I have posted the following poem before, but you may not have read it.

THE GODHEAD

IT is we; we are IT.

We can't comprehend IT without experiencing IT,

But we can experience IT without comprehending IT—

For we are IT!

IT reveals everything;

IT explains nothing.

The interpretations

Of  ITS revelations

Are our creations.

-Arminius

The pure experience of IT is an experience of the ultimate, actual, and unitive state of being: the Kosmic synthesis! The interpretation is the analysis thereof. The pure experience is whole, the analysis is fragmentary. The pure experience is untitive, the interpretation potentially divisive. The pure experience is subjective, the analysis is objective. The pure experience is absolute, the interpretation is relative. The pure experience is absolutely true, the interpretation an arbitrary creation. The pure experience is a direct experience of God, the interpretation thereof is our personal creation and expression. The pure experience is an experience of God's creation as IT really is, the interpretation is our individually unique creation. The pure experience is primary, the interpretation secondary. The pure experience is real, the interpretation illusiory. The pure experience is the ultimate truth, the interpretation is subordinate. The pure experience conveys ultimate morality, the interpretation is our re-creation thereof. The pure experience is the foundation upon which we create our world of thoughts, and our world of thoughts then becomes the basis for our creative actions. And, lastly, the interpretation should never stand alone but always be subordinate to, and in service of, the pure experience.

The miraculous thing about the two—the pure expereince and the interpretation—is that one enhances and enriches the other. If we mange to transcend the duality between the two, and blend and unite them, then the interpretation will continuously enrich the pure experience, and the pure experience will continuously enrich the interpretation, so that both become ever richer with the passage of time.

Every one of us personally, and each cultural group collectively, experiences and expresses the same God uniquely. Our expressions of God, both individually and collectively, are artistic experessions in the likeness of the master artist who created the Whole thing.

What makes Christian fundamentalism great is its emphasis on the pure experience. What diminishes fundamentalism is its insistence on one absolutely valid set of  interpretations. This is stifling the creator in us and denying our God-like, creative nature.

We liberal and progressive Christians stand to learn from our fundamentalist sisters and brothers when it comes to evoking the pure experience of God. And they stand to learn from us when it comes to the creative interpretation and expression thereof. We both have much to give to each other.

Arminius,

I agree with your comments regarding our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. Their insistence on "one absolutely valid set of interpretations" makes it difficult to dialogue with them.

Like you, I value the part experience plays in their lives. (Although I get a bit anxious when my Pentecostal friend describes when she "talks in tongues").

The church I attend is Progressive in social justice areas - such as accepting gays, women in the clergy, helping refugees etc., but I have noticed a definite reluctance to discuss mystical/religious experiences. Sometimes I think we're in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water when it comes to the issue of experiences.

Experiences will always be important to me - religion would not appeal to me purely on an intellectual belief basis.

Mendalla,

After my " direct experience of the transcending mystery and wonder" I felt the need to return to worship, as I no longer considered myself an agnostic.

As I don't feel that any religion is superior , I considered becoming  a Unitarian. Then I discovered there was such a thing as Progressive Christianity - which ultimately appealed as it was part of my culture and thus, something I felt comfortable with.

But I agree with you - congregations don't pay enough attention to the "direct experience."

I can't help wondering if there's others out there who made the leap from agnostic to a believer - and if that's the case then  congregations should give a lot of attention to "direct experience."