Loved Joel Duff’s episode (that I saw) on age of Mars.
Mark,
Thanks for your willingness to continue this discussion. I’ve gone back through this thread and reread all of your posts and replies to try to get a better sense of your thoughts, to see if I could find answers you’d already written that addressed questions that keep percolating in my mind. And I think I found a few, or at least helpful background.
Many times I’ve wondered, if you were indicating pantheism and I noticed this today:
I understand that this quote from over a year ago may only be a snapshot, or may be reflective of your more solidly held views. I think it meshes with some of your statements in this specific discussion with me, including (at least as I think I understand what you mean):
The sacred is something we feel viscerally. A cerebral logos doesn’t work for me.
and a number of places where you’ve discussed the concept of conscience (which would take me too long to locate because the randomness of the random access here nearly overwhelming, when I’m trying to pull many things together, and I am simply too lazy to take notes).
Although, this appeared again by accident:
Understanding that pantheism is part of your understanding helps me recognize why I keep coming up short. I simply have no real concept for this beyond a word with a definition. I am stuck here.
But as the river in the picture above winds around the enormous rock I ate lunch on, I will move around the barrier (for now) and return to this point you made:
Yes, and absolutely, and praise God for it. As a Christian, who believes that the place I share with all of the rest of biology for a short while is very, very old, and the processes that made it and me, were instituted somehow by a God who sustains those processes and is somehow involved with them makes me somewhat aware of my creatureliness. These opportunities (like on the rock) provide times of
I think you and I are fairly unified in our valuing of “older forms of knowing” such as creative activities, reflection and in moments of awe to begin with. We conceptualize them somewhat differently and interpret them perhaps very differently, but find ourselves better grounded through these things in our humanity and connection to our world.
1 Like
I almost added “in prayer” but thought that was better left for someone more experienced to comment. I would usually throw in “inspration” as well but I’d have in mind something nominally secular. I do think the deeper levels of consciousness can give rise to insight whole-cloth which can feel like a gift whether we imagine it personally addressed to us from the divine or bubbling up from the depths of consciousness associated with these bodies which are our embodiment.
I won’t pretend to really understand just what panthentheism is but more and more I do entertain the idea that the sacred and divine are continuous with the entire cosmos. I don’t think I’ll ever really believe that what gives rise to God belief is an undetectable being behind a curtain who occasionally manipulates or communicates with the parts. But I do think it may be advantageous to human beings to address themselves to such a being in some manner. Whatever it (“It”?) may be, It (“it”?) would be different in kind from ourselves. If we really are the image bearers I suspect the likeness is not very good. More likely belief renders God in our likeness to facilitate communication and that would be positive. I had lunch with a Jungian psychiatrist yesterday who had known our friend Bill and I got again the impression that for that approach, suspending disbelief in order to enhance grounding in what is deeper than our conscious minds is embraced so that one can bring to bear more of oneself than just our rational minds. Do we need to hold it consciously as something hypothetical? It probably isn’t optimal at all but may be the best some of us can do.
1 Like
Mark, “inspiration” is fine. I’m perfectly satisfied with you leaving “prayer” off the list. Maybe it should be there, but I’m hardly the person to add it. As I said over in the thread “Is there a Place for Mysticism?”:
Some things can lead me to (inspire me to) prayer. Pulling my mind together in some sort of deliberate, focused way to practice what some people might call contemplative prayer, however, is a wrestling match with short-lived wins. If the interruption is not external, it’s internal. Texts to use for mental guidance help, but the work also has to be done, and I’m distractable. I’m grateful for the mercy and kindness of God, expressed in Romans 8:26-27:
26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.
The work is valuable, but for me, it’s hard, cerebral work. There is nothing intuitive about it in my case.
I agree with you regarding the likeness of God in people as “image bearers.” and difference in kind from God or the divine. I think there has been some discussion on the topic around the forum, but I’ve been reading other threads. So, I don’t know what was discussed. My understanding of it has always been fairly vague–those characteristics that make us different from all other animal life, but which are so hard to nail down, although I would include in the list the things you’ve mentioned earlier in this discussion (development to think in abstract and hypotheticals). We are ourselves metaphors of something “god like” but certainly unable to fully express it for many reasons. As I understand it, we are somehow set apart from other living things and are responsible to recognize and honor that “set-apartedness” in other ones like us. (What if those of us who claimed to hold some belief in the Image of God in humans, actually did value humans accordingly?) Additionally, we “image bearers” are recipients of grace and mercy because we need it in ways that no other animal life does. If this all sounds very vague, it is.
Your point that “more likely belief renders God in our likeness” is always a concern for me. The concept of idolatry is a reality for me, something that I take seriously. Our imaginations, another feature I see as part of the concept of Image of God, can do all sorts of mischief. I’ve mentioned guardrails elsewhere. This is probably one of the areas I am most likely to feel the need for them. I suspect that sounds completely boxed in to you. However, when one “has a god” and loves that God, that god/God gets to define him-/her-/itself.
(Just skimming here to find some hooks to hang on to, regarding Jung. )
So, in regard to your mention of Jungian psychiatry, are you asking the questions about “suspending disbelief” and “holding it consciously as something hypothetical” regarding god beliefs?
I’ll just leave your last few lines for you to help me with. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Thanks.
1 Like
Since he is personal and we are too, your suspicion is unfounded.
Yes, rather. But he humbled himself to become like us.
You will not succeed in your secular quest to find “what gives rise to God belief”, and I am having a little difficulty not being offended by your characterization of Maggie’s God that way. (Too late – I failed.) We have objective and detectable evidence of what gives rise to belief in the God of reality. It’s the reality of God.
Time to recall a little Bonhoeffer:
But if you prefer to entertain the mirage of panentheism… (Now recall a child’s onomatopoeic sound of a train whistle.)
1 Like
I was reflecting more on why that is offensive, and it has to do with love. How would you like it if I referred to your wife an it (It?)? One of the more significant verses in the Bible (maybe not for those who want to “unhitch” the OT from NT) is Psalm 18:1¹. It is the only place in the whole Bible where anyone says an unsolicited “I love you!” to God.
Christians of course should be sensitive to the greatest commandment, and I’ve mentioned it before, but I had read through the Psalms a good number of times before I realized that I had not owned that verse for myself. (Psalm 23², for instance, is one that Christians over the centuries own for themselves quite quickly, or at least they should.) So my immediate prayer was, “Do I love you, Lord?” It wasn’t long before I could affirm it positively and my prayer became, “I love you, Lord – help me to love you more!”
That is still my prayer, and not as frequent or emphatic at times as it should be. I can imagine Maggie’s heart swelling and being overwhelmed with love when she was so wondrously delivered of her multiple dilemmas in such a short time! Christians should feel a distinct affection towards God, and if they don’t, they should certainly desire it³!
¹When looking up the link just now I was reminded from the prefatory remarks that it was also a song. That in turn reminded me of Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19, and also of Paul and Silas in prison.
²Not only are we to be childlike, but lamb-like before God. That is an exercise in humility, because, boy, are sheep dumb! We had a pair once for the warmer months of a year, decades ago, so I know from experience! ; - )
³That reminds me of the twin parables.
1 Like
If she made as few appearances or attempts to communicate with me as the Christian God has, I’d probably refer to her that way myself. But she is readily available to see, touch and remind me what I probably forgot that I never have to wonder whether she exists or, if so, what she is and what she might want from me. My misses isn’t shy on that score.
1 Like
Some have more experience with God’s providential interventions than others, too. Remember George Müller? And good relationships are a two-way street. Your judgement of God is woefully inadequate and nearsighted.
I don’t think fortune or misfortune makes any difference in what I believe. In some ways it is the misfortune I’ve experienced which gives me the most peace of mind and confidence going forward. Had I been more fortunate perhaps I’d be less satisfied with my circumstances and more insecure about my prospects. Fortunately misfortune has contributed its share to my progress.
1 Like
Still shortsighted, though (although probably presbyopic physically ; - ). Self-satisfaction, comfort and contentment are dangerous in the long-term – I have it on good authority, the best in fact.
Neither fortune nor misfortune makes a difference in what you believe, I can appreciate that. I wish I had a better grasp of James Smith’s philosophical work with desire. That we are not (merely) brains (or eyes) on a stick, but also hearts with desire.
For those who seek after God out of absolute discontentment in a world without him, they will find him.
That which gives rise to God belief, can someone be totally indifferent to it?
1 Like
Never message me again whenever my latest ignore expire or you will immediately go back on ignore for that alone. Go bother someone else. I think differently than you about many things - and I like it that way. If your only interest in conversing with me is to change my views and express offensive they are you that isn’t good enough. If you can’t accept that difference and carry on a conversation in a way that treats my views with respect then you’re no one I’ll waste any more time on.
It seems to me that you initiated this round of unpleasantries by crass insensitivity and calling someone I love “it (“It”?)”.
A bit of irony there.
And my terrible message. 
1 Cor 13
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love is no excuse for reacting the way you have.
God is not offended, neither should you be.
Richard
2 Likes
Look around. Sadly the answer is yes. It is something worthy to be esteemed as highest yet people dismiss it out of hand or reduce it a book full of written edicts to be employed to argue ones own impulses are holy and treatment of others always justified.
No doubt. But ultimately? I often wonder what would happen if on the day of judgement, that if a person agrees with verdict of the judge that searches the heart, that if they are in fact that bad, that if they agree with God (as did I), that they would willingly submit their self to his judgement, and then find a small measure of joy in his glory…
I once heard a conservative pastor a while back, make a reference to some historic figure who I cannot remember at all, about how if he should find himself in hell, he would call out to Jesus, the Christ, and in hell he would experience a measure heaven, and it would cancel out the darkness (or something to that effect).
The other day, while reading and writing, I was utterly bogged down with things that didn’t reflect well in my writing and that did nothing to further a discussion in which you’ve patiently answered loads of questions from me.
I’ll use my most favoritest open-ended question (because I have come to HATE being asked questions where I’m given answer choices that only reflect the thoughts of the questioner):
Could you, please, tell me more about your thoughts on this:
and the connection Jungian psychology?
[I did go search for and find references to Bill, so I understand your reference to him. I’m sorry you lost a friend. He sounds like a delightful person.]
I wonder which Bill you found. This was our Bill.
Honestly not much. It is too new as an idea for me. I had always taken the measurable as primary and assumed that life and consciousness somehow emerged. That may still be true but I’m no longer willing to let the measurable alone dictate how I understand my experience as an embodied subject in this world. Measurement is the Royal road for understanding the world but not for understanding subject-hood. The tipping point came in reading Robert Pirsig’s Lila early during the pandemic when for a while my local library was not available. It was a book I’d picked up ages ago since I’d liked his zen-and book so much. It made me see that there many transitions in the universe necessary to our existence long before humans which seemingly go against what one might expect from a winding down bang. One way to explain it is that an all powerful, timeless being did some quick adjustments to keep the possibility of us afloat But that doesn’t seem likely or satisfying to me. But if consciousness is co-basic with matter then somehow the need for course adjustments can be met by some primordial form of intentionality distributed everywhere. Not entirely a satisfying answer either but somehow more palatable to me than the notion of a master watchmaker working behind a curtain.
Looks like I’ve run out of time for now for the Jungian connection. I’ll have to let that one sit a while longer while I get going.
2 Likes
I can’t speak to the same aspects of this as Mark probably has in mind, but it seems like it might be also be related to Richard Rohr’s recent book: “The Universal Christ” which I have read, and recommend.
While heresy hunters are always itching to pull out one of the pan[en]theism labels about such things, it can also be seen as the meaning and significance of incarnation itself as exemplified in Christ. While this may be significant for believers, Rohr also does a good job (I think) keeping such important truth from becoming too proprietary and parochial. [As one might hope, given the first word in his title.]
2 Likes