United With God

[Mendalla]

"One of these (Spiritual Practices) is the practice of silence, or quiet. As a child I was accustomed to spend many hours alone in my rowboat, fishing along the river, where there was no sound save the lapping of the waves against the boat. There were times when it seemed as if the earth and the river and the sky and I were one beat of the same pulse. There would come a moment when beyond the single pulse beat there was a sense of Presence which seemed always to speak to me. My response to the sense of Presence always had the quality of personal communion. There was no voice. There was no image. There was no vision. There was God."

As others said, it neither support nor denies a triune deity. I know the very feeling of which Thurman speaks, too. Where we part company is the interpretation. I don't necessarily attach "God" to the experience anymore, though I did back in, say, my teens and twenties.

 

[airclean33]

You lose me at "who" - a person, a being, a deity...

For those who are not perfectly clear on this, both Unitarianism and Universalism arise from the Christian tradition. Unitarianism is perhaps, the earliest 'heresy'...and it's our trinitarian beliefs that partially keep us from closer communion with our Jewish and Muslim siblings, as they find the God-man and the Satan-god a stretch into polytheism.

- Why would you even think Unitarianism and Universalism has anything to do with Christianity?

As far as Israel is concerned The JEWS are a part of Israel . Muslim are not. As a believe" in Christ Jesus , we are added to Israel through the blood of Christ, We have become Israel . With the promise's GOD made to Abraham. A chosen people Through He that was born a Israelite.

 

[Mendalla]

- Why would you even think Unitarianism and Universalism has anything to do with Christianity?

Did you read the history of UU'ism that I posted after that post of Bette's that you quoted?

 

[paradox3]

As others said, it neither support nor denies a triune deity. I know the very feeling of which Thurman speaks, too. Where we part company is the interpretation. I don't necessarily attach "God" to the experience anymore, though I did back in, say, my teens and twenties.

Here is a very relevant quote from Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi

"Anyone who has had a truly "spiritual" moment, a moment of breaking through our day-to-day reality and touching the divine, knows how difficult it is to communicate that experience to others - or even to recapture it later for ourselves. The mind doesn't have the wherewithal to wrap around what the soul knows. So in come Kabbalah and Hasidism and Vedanta and Vajrayana Buddhism and Christian mysticism, each system trying to give us the language to handle such experiences, each with his own vocabulary."

 

[paradox3]

Typo alert: that should be its own vocabulary.

 

[paradox3]

Yes, Paradox, you did suggest an edit. But Dave wrote the sentence. Writing is deliberate; clearly "who" most closely resembles how he describes god. United with God just seems like another wagon-circling exercise to me.

I wonder if @Dave Henderson would endorse the edit I suggested. You have me curious now. . .

 

[Luce NDs]

You lose me at "who" - a person, a being, a deity...

For those who are not perfectly clear on this, both Unitarianism and Universalism arise from the Christian tradition. Unitarianism is perhaps, the earliest 'heresy'...and it's our trinitarian beliefs that partially keep us from closer communion with our Jewish and Muslim siblings, as they find the God-man and the Satan-god a stretch into polytheism.

Isn't this a dualism ... or metaphorical deuce? Kind 've like a brain with emotions and logical potential ... the latter often suppressed!

 

[airclean33]

Did you read the history of UU'ism that I posted after that post of Bette's that you quoted?

Hi Mandala--Yes you, your self told me were not a Christian. I have no problem with your thoughts , about not being a Christian, and yet believe GOD to be more than humankind can understand. I don't wish to get to deep into this. But in the last number of years , I have come to understand GOD is the Creator" of all life, that also is a part of Him. Because of this I will not kill even a bug , unless I have no other choice.

 

[crazyheart]

Can I repeat this?

I think (not knowing Gretta or her congregation) but from what I have read, that she
likes the power. She likes to write the letter to the Moderator - it gave her power.
Her picture in the paper and articles around the globe admitting she says she is an atheist and
does not believe in God or prayer or in anything the United Church has also given her power.
But when power is stripped from someone, they are nothing.

 

[chansen]

Can I repeat this?

I think (not knowing Gretta or her congregation) but from what I have read, that she
likes the power. She likes to write the letter to the Moderator - it gave her power.
Her picture in the paper and articles around the globe admitting she says she is an atheist and
does not believe in God or prayer or in anything the United Church has also given her power.
But when power is stripped from someone, they are nothing.

Gretta does not have power. She leads one congregation. What power she has is derived from the attention paid to her by Christians. If Christians stopped shaking their little fists in her direction, the media would stop caring, and she'd be anonymous.

But when power is stripped from someone, they are nothing.

Same thing with religion, CH. Simply saying you don't believe, and that there are no good reasons or evidence in favour of belief, strips religion of a little bit of its power. People pointing out that the emperor has no clothes is exactly what religions do not want. They need a critical mass of believers, or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. The cracks have been appearing for years with more and more people willing to say it out loud. But a minister saying it? That's bigger still.

The church has the power in this case to remove Gretta. They need to remove her, not to strip her of her power, but to preserve a bit of their own.

 

[Dave Henderson]

Most of us seem to be seeing through Paul's glass darkly here, which means we are being honest in our faith journey. People are inquiring about what I believe - and I sense there is a tendency to label me a conservative, or even a fundamentalist. This would set me nicely into a box that would explain away my beliefs, as in, "Oh I get it, he's one of those." For the record, here is what I believe: I believe that God is the Great IAM, a robust, sentient, living God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, who can and does intervene in the affairs of humanity. Further, my greatest experience of the divine is the articulation of God as Father/Mother, Son and Holy Spirit, creator, redeemer, friend. But before you put me in a box, please take note that I am aware that others do not perceive God as I do. Does my friend Mendalla perceive God in a radically different way? Yes, he does, and his way of articulating it is such that the term "God" may be an inadequate term for his faith stance. So yes, we have radically different perceptions of God and the nature of God. Yet Mendalla and I converge, at least I am assuming from his posts, on the existence of God, however God may be defined. Yes, I am proclaiming God in the United Church of Canada, and doing it from the perspective of my faith community, which is belief in the triune God. It has become a joyful experience for me. So yeah, let's brew a pot of tea and talk (squabble?) ;-) about how God is perceived and experienced. And hey, I am just as interested in talking with folks who don't believe in God at all. And I will talk with you from the perspective of my belief, perception and articulation of God as seen through the lens of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as articulated by this United Church I love so much.

 

[chansen]

Most of us seem to be seeing through Paul's glass darkly here, which means we are being honest in our faith journey. People are inquiring about what I believe - and I sense there is a tendency to label me a conservative, or even a fundamentalist. This would set me nicely into a box that would explain away my beliefs, as in, "Oh I get it, he's one of those." For the record, here is what I believe: I believe that God is the Great IAM, a robust, sentient, living God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, who can and does intervene in the affairs of humanity.

Excellent. Get him working on electricity costs in Ontario, please.

Further, my greatest experience of the divine is the articulation of God as Father/Mother, Son and Holy Spirit, creator, redeemer, friend. But before you put me in a box, please take note that I am aware that others do not perceive God as I do. Does my friend Mendalla perceive God in a radically different way? Yes, he does, and his way of articulating it is such that the term "God" may be an inadequate term for his faith stance. So yes, we have radically different perceptions of God and the nature of God. Yet Mendalla and I converge, at least I am assuming from his posts, on the existence of God, however God may be defined. Yes, I am proclaiming God in the United Church of Canada, and doing it from the perspective of my faith community, which is belief in the triune God. It has become a joyful experience for me. So yeah, let's brew a pot of tea and talk (squabble?) ;-) about how God is perceived and experienced. And hey, I am just as interested in talking with folks who don't believe in God at all. And I will talk with you from the perspective of my belief, perception and articulation of God as seen through the lens of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, as articulated by this United Church I love so much.

What of those people for whom "God" is a metaphor for the wonderous or unexplainable, but not an attempt to explain the unexplainable through the conjuring of one being that is also three?

That is, if God is a metaphor, what then? Christian? UCCan-worthy in your view?

 

[Ritafee]

God is Love is the best articulation I have ... oops wrong thread.

 

[GeoFee]

Thanks for this:

"Anyone who has had a truly "spiritual" moment, a moment of breaking through our day-to-day reality and touching the divine, knows how difficult it is to communicate that experience to others - or even to recapture it later for ourselves. The mind doesn't have the wherewithal to wrap around what the soul knows. So in come Kabbalah and Hasidism and Vedanta and Vajrayana Buddhism and Christian mysticism, each system trying to give us the language to handle such experiences, each with his own vocabulary." Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi

Jung speaks a very similar language. It is challenging to give a clear representation of inner experience in a context seeking proof. The God I encountered while alone on foot in the Rocky Mountains stands beyond the threshold of definition. By analogy... we naturally notice light as a spectrum from red to violet. That we do not notice ultra-violet and beyond in no way proves that the spectrum does not extend beyond the limit of our perception.

Arthur C. Clarke wrote "The Nine Billion Names of God". There is one life expressed in every person born into the history of our planet. It is expressed in manifold forms; each form constituting a significant contribution to the balance of the whole. Sad to say human being is estranged from its place in the natural order. Tragic in the diverse instances where this estrangement is expressed as hostility towards the natural order.

Vital experience of the numinous cannot be denied by those who have had no such experience. Any disparagement of the notion fails to offer evidence to the contrary.

A serious conversation concerning the subjective experience of God would not hurt the human race. Were civility the natural habitat of such conversation hope would take root. I am free to disagree with any idea put to me. I am as free to examine all ideas and distinguish those which hinder from those which help as I find my way forward.

Two dispositions hinder serious conversation. These are the tendancy to disdain and disparagement. To belittle a conversation partner offers onlookers no opportunity to notice how critical thought, compassionately expressed, is possible and desirable for the advancement of our common good.

George











Jung quote and some commentary.

God as numinous.

 

[Dave Henderson]

Excellent. Get him working on electricity costs in Ontario, please.
I will pray that God brings about a world where people are not put into want by the cost of necessities like electricity Chansen. And pray also that I be given the strength and courage to do what I can to make that a reality.


What of those people for whom "God" is a metaphor for the wonderous or unexplainable, but not an attempt to explain the unexplainable through the conjuring of one being that is also three?

That is, if God is a metaphor, what then? Christian? UCCan-worthy in your view?

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[chansen]

You're the one suggesting people proclaim the existence of God. I'm asking if a metaphorical God will suffice. And that is apparently a pointless question to you.

You're quick to tell us what UCCan members and especially leaders should believe, but you can not, or will not, nail it down for us.

 

[paradox3]

Why is it necessary for @Dave Henderson to nail it down any more than he has done in his Opening Post?

OTOH you are asking a good question about a metaphorical God.

 

[revsdd]

Why is it necessary for @Dave Henderson to nail it down any more than he has done in his Opening Post?

OTOH you are asking a good question about a metaphorical God.

It isn't necessary for him to do that. There's nothing over the top about anything Dave has said. He's basically defended the current statements of doctrine of the United Church. As do I. Frankly, a metaphorical God doesn't suffice insofar as the statements of doctrine are concerned. The statements of doctrine all propose a very real (and at least potentially interventionist, if God chooses to be so) God. But, individual members of the United Church don't have to swear allegiance to the statements of faith. Ordained ministers do have to be in "essential agreement."

chansen might have a valid question as to whether belief in a metaphorical God is "essentially" in agreement with the statements of doctrine. In a sense, even a metaphorical God could be "interventionist" in that your understanding of the metaphor could influence your thinking and actions. I have no real difficulty with lay people who believe in a "metaphorical" God - although my understanding of God is not metaphorical.

The challenge for Greta (to think of that situation for a moment) is, as you've said, that she herself has stated that she's now "post-Christian" and has moved beyond the United Church. There's also her flat out refusal (as a couple of us have pointed out) to accept that her role as an ordained minister of the United Church is "Word, Sacrament and Pastoral Care." She wants the title but she doesn't want to do the job that comes with the title. And there's a double standard that no one else has pointed out yet. As an ordained minister who is relatively orthodox theologically, I wonder how long the United Church would tolerate me if I just decided that I wasn't going to do what I'm supposed to do? ("Are the sacraments regularly and properly celebrated?" is usually in some way one of the issues looked at in oversight visits in my experience as both visitor and visitee.)

 

[Luce NDs]

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Are angels minor things that can get to anything with the point of a pin ... prix? It may cost yah ... some knowledge about the subtle .. you know lessor things ... eM that are small and light ... Eris in the dark formless Ness ... alien tings that must be faced ... if one is to learn beyond that wall ...

 

[Dave Henderson]

You're the one suggesting people proclaim the existence of God. I'm asking if a metaphorical God will suffice. And that is apparently a pointless question to you.

You're quick to tell us what UCCan members and especially leaders should believe, but you can not, or will not, nail it down for us.

Hi Chansen, I'm sorry if I came across as being flip or dismissive. It was late and I was tired. Revsdd wrote a post in reply to Paradox3 that answers your question to me wonderfully well. Please see it as my response to your question regarding a metaphorical God.