New Age Christianity

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I composed a reply, closed the edit file, and then found I had neither copied nor saved it ...

I cannot count the times, such has occurred, but then - I have dozens of files, many of them quite lengthy - perhaps three for every one that has ever seen the light of day at CR. If I post one fifth fewer in the future, I will feel satisfied.

+++

Originally Posted by Thomas

the dualist traditions of the Middle East which separate the spiritual and the material to such extreme as to render the material realm of no intrinsic value, but merely serves as a stepping stone to a higher plane (and in the worst case scenarios the material realm is considered an evil, albeit a necessary one, or the abortive creation of the demiurge).

No, I can't deal with strict Manichaeism, and while I value the Gnostic Tradition, I truly believe that every single particle of matter - must literally be precious to God ("Not a sparrow falls ...").

That said, when the proper time has come, stars more or less wink out (from the physical plane, at least), so the very Love of God then expresses as the work of the Destroyer. So much for happy visions of some kind of Divine embrace - unless we can fathom that we also/already exist on the other "side" of ... the planet, star or cosmos that has just "died." As above, so below. Death on a larger scale, etc.

Originally Posted by Thomas

In such view the physical body is purely a vehicle for the spirtit or spark, and plays no further part — the Cosmos is not a theophany — and by extension all description of Mystical Experience is fantasy, as the sensible has no place in Heaven.

Not quite. Or at least, this is not what I believe, and is definitely not the esotericism of HPB's Theosophy, or of any esotericism that I have ever espoused.

Every single particle (sic!) of matter evolves, because - upon reaching its "furthest" point of involution (or involvement with the worlds of form), the atom begins its upward Ascent - back toward the worlds of Spirit. Man is somewhere midway in this process ... although I would suggest our sense of values, or `scale,' is a good bit off. Materially we seem to be fairly close to the top of the pyramid, a little lower than the angels, but Spiritually, even a Master (Human `Graduate') has not the Spiritual Vision to penetrate beyond our own little Solar System. Our sense of scale has to keep getting adjusted, as we progress ...

The duality between Spirit and matter is only a relative one. Each of these terms can only be defined in terms of the other. They are but different degrees of vibration, with the most solid object we know existing only as vibration within vibration ... while even the subtlest, most sublime "breath of God" is yet vibration (or Movement).

I'm not used to trying to contemplate such things. But Theophany, for me, only has its deepest meaning in considering the reconciliation of all exoteric views (Buddha taught that we must "cease to hold these [views]") ... at which point NO THING that I can even possibly consider - does not, in due proportion, constitute a part of the body Logoic.


I may contemplate all this on the level of the density of asphalt/tarmac, or lead, or even the core of a neutron star:

A neutron star is so dense that one teaspoon of its material would weigh 100 million metric tons. (Wikipedia: Neutron Star)

Yet just because this corresponds to some small portion of the `dense physical body' - rather than the Dharmakaya vestiture of the same ... do I believe that God "needs" this physical body any less for [His] expression? [Yes, God literally needs a body, every bit as much as we do. Why?
This is the Hermetic Axiom.]

We approach the subject with different assumptions, different fundamental propositions, or premises. Mine include the `Three Fundamental Propositions' of HPB's Secret Doctrine, yet she did not originate these.

HPB but borrows these from Eastern sources, while also going to great pains to show - in Isis Unveiled, and in The Secret Doctrine - that the ancient Babylonians, Sumerians, Chaldeans, and also the indigenous peoples of Native North & South America, as well as the ancient Britons or Celts ... all accepted the Doctrine of Cycles, or Periodicity.

We may find different applications of this Law, varying interpretations, certainly differences of nuance, but I'm sure you wouldn't suggest to me that the ancient Druids of the British Isles were unaware of the doctrine of rebirth. Nor would you tell me that the Cherokee, or other Native tribes of the Americas, did not believe in a `Great Spirit' ... just as the Hindus speak of Brahman, even while the latter manifests via the Trimurti of Brahma, Vishnu, Siva. And the Buddhists teach of Svabhavat, or Adi-Buddhi ...

Originally Posted by Thomas

Likewise the Abrahamic refutes any mode of monism — pantheism, panentheism, etc., — which implies a degree of relativeness or contingency in the Divine.

This may be the case, yet let us examine the resultant calamity that we now experience, in such a pronounced sense of separation - not just from each other, but from the other kingdoms of nature (animal, vegetable, mineral), and from the planet Itself. If we are not careful, we may soon re-create a disaster on every bit as large a scale (global) as the earlier series of catastrophes which brought an end to the Atlantean phase of civilization and Human development.

Environmental problems are just the surface manifestation of the culture of selfishness which has evolved, psychologically ... not simply as the result of the above derailment that has affected our train, but also just because this is the current stage of the evolutionary (DIVINE!) Plan!!!

Note, that while we can certainly witness a myriad more dire consequences and negative effects of the materialistic tendencies of Western society upon Planetary Life - even to the point of threatening Human survival, globally speaking ... it is absurd to even suggest that precisely the present scenario could not be envisioned by a Creator Deity.

[This is not about responsibility, as I'm stating it, just about VISION. Deity possesses both of these, and so do we. Traditional Christianity may assume de facto that "God is all-seeing and all-knowing." New Age Christianity, I might say, leaves room for one aspect/Level of Divine Consciousness/Being where such "Omni/Omni/Omni" qualities exist, as I like to call them, yet also a level where God is literally undergoing a process of learning, of growing, of INCREASING the Divine Vision, and Responsibility, just as Humanity is.

The challenge, according to such a presentation, is especially great for (this Level of) Deity ... because not only is growth progressing in the "Vertical" direction upward, but Deity is also required to move OUTWARD, or "Downward," toward Humanity. For Being(s) Whose nature is more fundamentally Spiritual than material, this takes the form of what we can only understand as Sacrifice. It has to do with moving AWAY from a "Spritually Higher, or Greater Estate" ... and accepting a temporary appointment with a Humanity whose increased Vision, and greater Responsibility, is ummm - not exactly being warmly welcomed, and happily embraced?

Yet such continues, and if it did not, Humanity could not move forward in its Spiritual development. The notion of a Living, Loving Christ - and His Representatives - Who is every bit as ROCK-solid, so speak as the Traditional Christian Christ ... yet also undergoing very much the same Learning and Growth Experiences that we are - just on a higher turn of the Evolutionary Spiral ... is quite appealing to me. And I think other people resonate with it, in various ways.

It reminds us that God is Flexible, and that in fact, this flexibility, this Divine Dynamism, is itself - a Spiritual Quality, and therefore something we are all, like Christ, working toward. Even on the little, human scale, we have many opportunities to apply it, every day, and if we are careful, we can span several living kingdoms with the same Love, Care, Nurturance, Guidance, Devotion and Dedication - as is shown by Christ, and His Church.]

~+~+~+~+~

I don't think it could be emphasized enough, that the Theosophical framework does its best to underscore how NECESSARY certain stages of Planetary Evolution are ... both for Humanity's (collective) sake, and for the sake of all other Kingdoms of Live evolving upon our planet - including the DEVA, or Angelic (who outnumber us more than 2:1, if we count Individualized "Souls").

The bottom line, in terms of relevance upon a `New Age' Christianity, is that I hear people saying things like, "this is meant to be" ... and, "this is what we/I have chosen, AS A SOUL." Such statements, even if they are somewhat vague affirmations, do emphasize that there is a PURPOSE for the present crisis now affecting our planet - and therefore, presumably, also a THREAD of PURPOSE for all such previous crises, as the `Flood Disaster' (Atlantis, memorialized in accounts such as the Popol Vuh, the Story of Noah, and legends of the Hindu Vaivasvata Manu, the Greek Deucalion, the Chaldean Xisuthrus, etc.).

The real Power of the Campbellian Mythology is that it brings us one step closer to "getting at" the underlying, truly Archtypal ... WORLD Soul, World Mythology, World History, etc. - interpreted not simply through the lens of psychology, or religion, or science, but truly, through the lens of Spirit.

Joseph Campbell was one man. Plato (he had those neat IDEAS, the `FORMS') ... was one man. Jung (he had the Archetypes) was again, one man. Christ Jesus, regardless of what Universal Power/Love/Creative Intelligence He expressed for us ... was again, ONE man.

The problem I continue to have, not just with a more rigid, strict-traditionalist, "conventional" (and usually dogmatic) Christianity ... but with ANY equivalent religious system stemming from within any other culture (as mainstream Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.) ... is that the end result, for many of the former/would-be adherents/practitioners, is that we still exist largely within a domineering, wanna-be overarching and thus ultimately Spirit-STIFLING framework, instead of a LIVING, LOVING COMMUNITY.

The letter of the law supersedes the Spirit, and every day people prove that they do not understand how truly, religion was made for man, not man for religion. New Age Christianity doesn't seek to reinvent all Christian teachings in a form that just happens to be more comfortable, or convenient, it actually seeks to discover a NEW meaning for today, even if it turns out that that meaning WAS THERE ALL ALONG - but has simply been lost, ignored, suppressed, avoided, forgotten, etc., down the ages. And some of the getting off track, as a New Age Christian might put it, was already occurring while Jesus still walked the Earth!!!

Now you see, Thomas, while I can appreciate (believe it or not), how very much the Catholic in you might feel hell-bent on refuting all (or much) of this, so to speak ... I think the proper discussion actually centers around reconciliation. It is not about digging our feet in, and insisting, on the one hand, that "the Church Doctors" have held, and known, and guarded the Truths, and Canons, and proper interpretations all along. After all, Protestant Christianity has evolved largely in objection precisely to this notion!

Yet I am hardly a Protestant, if even a New Age Christian (in belief, far let alone practice). What I do believe, however, for starters, is that certainly it is it possible to achieve the same exact Enlightenment/Revelation/Salvation without the Church (RCC, or ANY organized version/branch/denomination of Christianity).

I must go one step further, however, and assert that I find that traditional Christianity, given its precise teachings and emphases, has very much gotten a good deal "wrong." And this is where the New Age interpretation will come in, because I may not see things like a Roman Catholic, but nor do I take the typical Protestant stance!

Where then, to whom or to what source(s) do I go, for my guidance, Inspiration, Wisdom, direction/Instruction, and so forth ... and why?

So, here is my opportunity, given my partial Theosophical background, also my esoteric experience and interest along parallel yet somewhat divergent lines ... to avoid the automatic, knee-jerk response, or insistence, that - there are all sorts of secret codes & canons, whose veracity (let alone existence!) cannot be questioned or doubted, since these form the very basis, backbone and Heart of Esotericism!

Unless we both give over to utter & complete subjectivism and relativism, we will always be forced (at worst), stretched and tested - even encouraged, I would say (and this is good!) - to meet in the middle. And that gets back to:

What is New Age Christianity all about ... and looking at some of these difficult questions. I'd better try for a "part 2" ...

+++

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew;

Originally Posted by AndrewX

No, I can't deal with strict Manichaeism, and while I value the Gnostic Tradition, I truly believe that every single particle of matter - must literally be precious to God ("Not a sparrow falls ...").

That's why I can't accept reincarnation – for me it suggests that the sparrow falls, bit no matter, another sparrow comes along ... it relegates the material, and even the idea of the individual, as ancilliary. This identity which the world knows as Thomas, or Andrew, or whatever, is ancilliary to the main act, which is never visibly present in the world ... and by extension then, every sparrow is ancilliary, disposable ...

I know some Russian thinkers are trying to present the idea of Christian reincarnation by viewing the person as 'a work in progress' but they've run into real trouble putting a viable and non-contradictory argument together. Scripture just does not support it, from the orthodox perspective.

My view is along the Orthodox line of theosis, I am one, individual and unique, and my contribution (or lack of it) moves humanity along (or not, or sets it back) towards the realisation of theosis, which is collective, not individual, otherwise the idea of community, of union, is an invention.

So not reincarnation, but a collective effort, across time and space. So rather than me live multiple lives, humanity lives those multiple lives, I am just one, unique, instance, the realisation of a given possibility which will never be repeated.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Every single particle (sic!) of matter evolves, because - upon reaching its "furthest" point of involution (or involvement with the worlds of form), the atom begins its upward Ascent - back toward the worlds of Spirit. Man is somewhere midway in this process ... although I would suggest our sense of values, or `scale,' is a good bit off. Materially we seem to be fairly close to the top of the pyramid, a little lower than the angels, but Spiritually, even a Master (Human `Graduate') has not the Spiritual Vision to penetrate beyond our own little Solar System. Our sense of scale has to keep getting adjusted, as we progress ...

Don't agree. Don't see how the material can be higher than the spiritual. I believe we are potentially higher because we are spiritual and material, which angels are not, and can never be ... angels are just not as versatile as humans, but they are, currently, purer (the good ones, that is).

Originally Posted by AndrewX

The duality between Spirit and matter is only a relative one. Each of these terms can only be defined in terms of the other. They are but different degrees of vibration, with the most solid object we know existing only as vibration within vibration ... while even the subtlest, most sublime "breath of God" is yet vibration (or Movement).

Again, that's why I don't believe in reincarnation. The body is the vibration of the soul. Come back in a different body, then it's a different soul, that's the way I see it. For me the 'person' signifies a unity that is unique and individual, a one-off event in the Cosmos, that's why God cherishes it so much. Reincarnation means that unity has no place in beatitude ... the bit that survives all is not actually human ...

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I'm not used to trying to contemplate such things. But Theophany, for me, only has its deepest meaning in considering the reconciliation of all exoteric views (Buddha taught that we must "cease to hold these [views]") ... at which point NO THING that I can even possibly consider - does not, in due proportion, constitute a part of the body Logoic.

We would have to discuss this much deeper. The exoteric is as necessary in its proper domain as the esoteric. Moreso, in some respects. Giving a thirsty man a cup of water alters the fabric of the Cosmos more than all the knowledge in the world ...

Originally Posted by AndrewX

... do I believe that God "needs" this physical body any less for [His] expression? [Yes, God literally needs a body, every bit as much as we do. Why? This is the Hermetic Axiom.]

Are you sure? Then I would have to say the Hermeticists are wrong. God is Absolute, unconditioned and unconditional. The Arche Anarchos of the Fathers. God needs nothing, wants nothing, everything is Gift — but then, they weren't to know that.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

We approach the subject with different assumptions, different fundamental propositions, or premises.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Environmental problems are just the surface manifestation of the culture of selfishness which has evolved, psychologically ... not simply as the result of the above derailment that has affected our train, but also just because this is the current stage of the evolutionary (DIVINE!) Plan!!!

Is it. According to your plan, then. Such is not according the the revelation of the Abrahamic traditions.

In our book man is 'free' — the ontological reality of which is, free to accept the Will of God, or free to refute it. Man continually chooses the latter, God continually tries to show him the error of his ways, without revoking that freedom. In the end, all will be well, and all manner of things will be well (julian of Norwich) ... but until then, oh dear ...

Originally Posted by AndrewX

[This is not about responsibility, as I'm stating it, just about VISION. Deity possesses both of these, and so do we. Traditional Christianity may assume de facto that "God is all-seeing and all-knowing." New Age Christianity, I might say, leaves room for one aspect/Level of Divine Consciousness/Being where such "Omni/Omni/Omni" qualities exist, as I like to call them, yet also a level where God is literally undergoing a process of learning, of growing, of INCREASING the Divine Vision, and Responsibility, just as Humanity is.

Then your God is subject to change ... and in our Book God is Absolute, Infinite, All-Possible, beyond subtraction or detraction, addition or diminution, increase or decrease, growth or decay ... so I think we have radically different ideas of what the term 'God' means.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Yet such continues, and if it did not, Humanity could not move forward in its Spiritual development. The notion of a Living, Loving Christ - and His Representatives - Who is every bit as ROCK-solid, so speak as the Traditional Christian Christ ... yet also undergoing very much the same Learning and Growth Experiences that we are - just on a higher turn of the Evolutionary Spiral ... is quite appealing to me. And I think other people resonate with it, in various ways.

How truth appeals to the individual is immaterial, from the standpoint of truth. The above might appeal, but does not make it true. I happen, for reasons explained, not to hold that view.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

It reminds us that God is Flexible, and that in fact, this flexibility, this Divine Dynamism, is itself - a Spiritual Quality, and therefore something we are all, like Christ, working toward. Even on the little, human scale, we have many opportunities to apply it, every day, and if we are careful, we can span several living kingdoms with the same Love, Care, Nurturance, Guidance, Devotion and Dedication - as is shown by Christ, and His Church.]

I think you have over-anthropomorphised God by projecting your own ideal onto Him, in effect endowing God with human fallibility, which you then claim back, as proof of your intrinsic divinity.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I don't think it could be emphasized enough, that the Theosophical framework does its best to underscore how NECESSARY certain stages of Planetary Evolution are ...

According to your doctrine.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

The bottom line, in terms of relevance upon a `New Age' Christianity, is that I hear people saying things like, "this is meant to be" ... and, "this is what we/I have chosen, AS A SOUL." Such statements, even if they are somewhat vague affirmations, do emphasize that there is a PURPOSE for the present crisis now affecting our planet - and therefore, presumably, also a THREAD of PURPOSE for all such previous crises, as the `Flood Disaster' (Atlantis, memorialized in accounts such as the Popol Vuh, the Story of Noah, and legends of the Hindu Vaivasvata Manu, the Greek Deucalion, the Chaldean Xisuthrus, etc.).

Really? I read it as self-justification, and a rather gross assumption. Surely you don't mean everybody does what they do because that's what they were meant to do? That's rather a grand allowance for anyone to do what they feel like, is it not?

Originally Posted by AndrewX

The real Power of the Campbellian Mythology is that it brings us one step closer to "getting at" the underlying, truly Archtypal ... WORLD Soul, World Mythology, World History, etc. - interpreted not simply through the lens of psychology, or religion, or science, but truly, through the lens of Spirit.

Joseph Campbell was one man. Plato (he had those neat IDEAS, the `FORMS') ... was one man. Jung (he had the Archetypes) was again, one man. Christ Jesus, regardless of what Universal Power/Love/Creative Intelligence He expressed for us ... was again, ONE man.

I don't hold Jesus Christ and a pop-philospher as the same at all. frankly I don't think Plato would be happy in such company, either, and Jung certainly not.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

The problem I continue to have, not just with a more rigid, strict-traditionalist, "conventional" (and usually dogmatic) Christianity ... but with ANY equivalent religious system stemming from within any other culture (as mainstream Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.) ... is that the end result, for many of the former/would-be adherents/practitioners, is that we still exist largely within a domineering, wanna-be overarching and thus ultimately Spirit-STIFLING framework, instead of a LIVING, LOVING COMMUNITY.

Again, I think you're blaminbg religion for human fault.

It's a common error of modernism to blame 'institutions' as if they are intelligent entities, and not collections of people. I don't hold the Church responsible for the faults of her members, any more than I hold a German responsible for the Third Reich, or a Jew for the Crucifixion.

It's all too easy to stand outside and criticise, but then the critic does not have to bear the responsibility, and no institution is perfect, because man is not perfect.

I rather view it as a greater challenge to perfect the institution/community by change from within, by highlighting what's good and worthwhile, otherwise we end up with baby/bathwater situations. But it's harder.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

The letter of the law supersedes the Spirit, and every day people prove that they do not understand how truly, religion was made for man, not man for religion. New Age Christianity doesn't seek to reinvent all Christian teachings in a form that just happens to be more comfortable, or convenient, it actually seeks to discover a NEW meaning for today, even if it turns out that that meaning WAS THERE ALL ALONG - but has simply been lost, ignored, suppressed, avoided, forgotten, etc., down the ages. And some of the getting off track, as a New Age Christian might put it, was already occurring while Jesus still walked the Earth!!!

I happen to disagree.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Now you see, Thomas, while I can appreciate (believe it or not), how very much the Catholic in you might feel hell-bent on refuting all (or much) of this, so to speak ... I think the proper discussion actually centers around reconciliation. It is not about digging our feet in, and insisting, on the one hand, that "the Church Doctors" have held, and known, and guarded the Truths, and Canons, and proper interpretations all along. After all, Protestant Christianity has evolved largely in objection precisely to this notion!

Nor does it mean I am obliged to accept your doctrine, or your interpretation of mine.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Yet I am hardly a Protestant, if even a New Age Christian (in belief, far let alone practice). What I do believe, however, for starters, is that certainly it is it possible to achieve the same exact Enlightenment/Revelation/Salvation without the Church (RCC, or ANY organized version/branch/denomination of Christianity).

Well you would, wouldn't anyone?

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I must go one step further, however, and assert that I find that traditional Christianity, given its precise teachings and emphases, has very much gotten a good deal "wrong." And this is where the New Age interpretation will come in, because I may not see things like a Roman Catholic, but nor do I take the typical Protestant stance!

That is what you think, and I can accept that fact ... and God bless you ... but don't ask me to accept what you think, because I happen to think it's you who are wrong. Sorry, but there it is.

If meeting in the middle requires me to say you are right and I am wrong, then we shall never meet.

I have nothing against you, Andrew, nor TS, generally. I only speak out when TS interprets Christian Scripture to suit its own ends, and that I think I am entitled to do.

Thomas

[ardenz]

theres a lot of reading here...do you mind if I come back later.?........
.................................................. ...

I wanted to discuss New Age Christianity - This is the first I heard of it here. (Will go off and google a bit and mull over things methinks before throwing self into the discussion)



Ardenz

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

That's why I can't accept reincarnation – for me it suggests that the sparrow falls, bit no matter, another sparrow comes along ... it relegates the material, and even the idea of the individual, as ancilliary. This identity which the world knows as Thomas, or Andrew, or whatever, is ancilliary to the main act, which is never visibly present in the world ... and by extension then, every sparrow is ancilliary, disposable ...

I know some Russian thinkers are trying to present the idea of Christian reincarnation by viewing the person as 'a work in progress' but they've run into real trouble putting a viable and non-contradictory argument together. Scripture just does not support it, from the orthodox perspective.

lol gotta love it Thomas... Scripture does not support it from the orthodox perspective...yup that is clear.

But 'relegates the individual to ancillary' you have this tendency...well if it isn't this then it is worthless... the pendelum doesn't swing it inverts itself.

What of the child that dies of cancer right after birth, or still births? There must be a reason they were conceived, and I just don't buy that G-d decided against them before they were born (as it indicates in the bible)

Would a loving and forgiving G-d think we can attain all this in one lifetime? Especially one short lifetime? Whose sins are they punished for the fathers?

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Who assumes that a dead child is being punished for someone's sin? Not the Christian, Christ refuted that flat out.

We live in a fallen world, we live in a world of possibilities, where possibility will be realised. God no more kills children then pushes people in front of cars, torches buildings, flies aeroplanes into offfice blocks, or staves a continent to death ... these things just happen, it's part of the price of being 'free' ... we could stop it if we want, but we're not bothered enough, so someone else can sort it out.

So someone lives for three seconds ... someone lives for threescore and ten ... to assume the latter is more is a quantific judgement ... some achieve in a few short years more light and life than some who live to a hundred...

So the child who lived for three seconds will be weighed, and found innocent ... three seconds measured against eternity is nothing, unless you are the parent, in which case it's part of the cross you carry, and, sadly, I speak from experience ... but I do not hold God accountable for the loss of my son.

This is a salient point, God does not do life to us ... the message of the Christian God is that he walks the walk with us ... Jesus wept ... and loved us and forgave us because of our ignorance.

He calls on us to lean on Him ... and we still say 'this is all your fault, I'll do it myself, thanks...'

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

He calls on us to lean on Him ... and we still say 'this is all your fault, I'll do it myself, thanks...'

My condolences on your loss, you said you believe me to believe in monism...I do to the extent I don't believe in dualism...I believe it all to be good. As G-d is good, all of creation is good. It is not the happenings that count but our responses and growth that count.

Christ did refute the understanding that the child was not being punished for a sin in his previous life nor for the sins of his father's. This statement is a strong indication that a. reincarnation was a commonly discussed thought and b. that Jesus was not refuting that thought. He did refute a karmic response though...hence a forgiving, a cleansing occurred...we start over.

We don't have to go to far from the garden to see issues....When the son of Adam and Eve killed their other son what percentage of the human population was wiped out with that incident?

Have we learned from that lesson?

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Originally Posted by wil

... you said you believe me to believe in monism...I do to the extent I don't believe in dualism...I believe it all to be good. As G-d is good, all of creation is good.

Thanks Wil. Twenty three years now, and they say time heals all wounds. Perhaps one day...

Anyway, I too believe God is God, and Creation is good (I am not a dualist); but I do not believe Creation is God, or that anything in the material realm (or spiritual, for that matter) shares a common essence (and thus nature) with the Deity — that is the monism that was refuted.

Originally Posted by wil

Christ did refute the understanding that the child was not being punished for a sin in his previous life nor for the sins of his father's. This statement is a strong indication that a. reincarnation was a commonly discussed thought and b. that Jesus was not refuting that thought.

I would argue that though. I don't think the Jews ever considered reincarnation seriously, but they did consider a form of karma, or heredic guilt — their idea was Sheol, the dead have no more a part in the affairs of the living — the Psalms offer evidence of that.

The Wisdom literature of the OT traces the appearance of the idea of life after death in Jewish thought, but not reincarnation.

What the Jews did believe was in the descent of the spirit, hence 'some say you are Elijah...' which is to say 'some say you say the same things Elijah said... ' Perhaps bananabrain knows better, but if reincarnation is not in Judaism, it's not in Christianity.

And Jesus did refute any notion of hereditary karma — see St Luke (13):
13:4: "Or those eighteen upon whom the tower fell in Siloe and slew them: think you that they also were debtors above all the men that dwelt in Jerusalem? No... "

Originally Posted by wil

He did refute a karmic response though...hence a forgiving, a cleansing occurred...we start over.

Indeed. And amen to that.

Originally Posted by wil

Have we learned from that lesson?

Oh Wil, Oh brother, have we learned from any of them?

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Oh Wil, Oh brother, have we learned from any of them?

I think an amazing amount...not near enough, not even close to our potential...but we've got all this material stuff, this beer and circus and gravity maybe not holding us back but providing a darn good excuse.

two steps forward one step back and vice versa! In one arena, in one instance the light goes off we excel in another we stumble...and then we make a mistake and realize it...ah realization the first step. I lived a large share of my life realizing nothing I was doing was out of step...once I made the realization I didn't enter the whoa is me...but opened my eyes to the lesson....and then the next and the next...it is a joy...and we are not alone on the path!!

Our successes in any endeavor bleed over to our brother thru our actions thru us reaching out our hand in support!

We've come a long way...the brass ring is in sight is it not?

[AndrewX]

My point is that man is to Christ, as acorn is to oak.

And many steps there are along the way. The transformation does not occur overnight.

So much of this thread interests me, but I'll try for just a few highlights:

Originally Posted by Thomas

That's why I can't accept reincarnation – for me it suggests that the sparrow falls, bit no matter, another sparrow comes along ... it relegates the material, and even the idea of the individual, as ancilliary. This identity which the world knows as Thomas, or Andrew, or whatever, is ancilliary to the main act, which is never visibly present in the world ... and by extension then, every sparrow is ancilliary, disposable ...

I didn't originate the idea that the true Self is not the man looking in the mirror who calls himself Thomas, or Andrew, or wil, etc. But in my own experience, I have found - that the `little self' (ego) masquerades as its greater, parent Soul. Most of what we know as `intellect' is actually just a reflection of Higher Manas into the lower mind. This gives us the sense of "I," with which most people are more or less comfortable, despite an inner gnawing or nagging (more or less subtle, depending on the person's evolutionary status as a Soul).

Thus, the "you" (or "me") that wants to feel so special, like it has changed the world for the better ... or which can even berate itself for some kind of shortcoming or another - this is the chimera. It is not that personality, or `little self' is an illusion; just that little self apart from Soul - is illusion. The sparrow does not exist apart from the rest of the flock, the totality of which is ensouled by ONE evolving entity. Our eyes .... deceive us.

All Souls know themselves as cooperative members, or denizens, of `One House.' That House is not divided (against itself). Thus, there is a Synergy, which often we as yet lack because our attunement, or at-one-ment with the Soul is not complete.

We are somewhere along the way, and an honest life, well-lived, wherein all our talents are well-invested, is all that is asked of any of us - broadly speaking. The standard against which progress is judged - THAT is Divine. And one Humanity means one Standard.

But since Karma is not blind (God is a God of Compassion, or Mercy ... of Justice, or Fairness and Equanimity), the Law of Sowing and Reaping is considered as if it might exist for each of us, truly as individuals. The Universal (God and God's Laws) must be flexible, and allow for God's Creation (and Creatures therein) ... if there is indeed such a thing as Divine Order and Balance.

Our Human efforts to reproduce these qualities may not, as yet, be perfect here on Earth, but we have already been taught - very clearly - how to invoke these same Laws, if we will have Them, here within the world of human affairs. The consequence, we often find, of asking God to dish out what is deserved ... is that [He] deliver(s).

Someone at CR mentioned this recently; I just borrowed it.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Don't agree. Don't see how the material can be higher than the spiritual. I believe we are potentially higher because we are spiritual and material, which angels are not, and can never be ... angels are just not as versatile as humans, but they are, currently, purer (the good ones, that is).

Again, we're not speaking the same language. I'm not saying that the material is higher than the Spiritual. It would be there reverse, except that - in very simple metaphysics - matter and Spirit exist everywhere, and everwhere together.

The least expression of Spirit is recognized even by modern science as `energy,' there being four known forces which govern the universe (strong and weak nuclear, gravity, electromagnetic). But matter, in accord with a Grand Unified Field Theory, is increasingly coming to be understood as essentially just vibration - or vibration existing within vibration - which is precisely what ENERGY is (!).

In simplest terms, this means that matter and energy are one "thing." And that thing is vibration. One ether, one Akash, WHO vibrates (from Whose womb was born the Cosmos itself).

And Her name is MATER ... which gives us "matter," "matrix," not to mention "Mother." Here, the Universal, Cosmic equivalent, the prototype, upon which Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is based ... As Above, so Below ...

Originally Posted by Thomas

Giving a thirsty man a cup of water alters the fabric of the Cosmos more than all the knowledge in the world ...

A New Age Christianity will probably look in depth at Luke 22:10, and the Wisdom that is contained therein, just as folks on this thread - especially as interested in reconciliation and Ecumenism - might see much Wisdom in verses 21-27 of the same chapter.

The Christ of tradition says to us, "I leave the Father's home and turning back, I save," while the New Era Christ says to us, "Water of life am I, poured forth for thirsty men."

Originally Posted by Thomas

Are you sure? Then I would have to say the Hermeticists are wrong. God is Absolute, unconditioned and unconditional. The Arche Anarchos of the Fathers. God needs nothing, wants nothing, everything is Gift — but then, they weren't to know that.

We speak of two different "God"s. The Absolute, is the Absolute - and all that you've said applies to THAT, as I see it. When I speak of God, I do not mean `the Absolute.' To speak of the Absolute as God is meaningless. By your own definition, we know, and can know, nothing - about God as the Absolute.

Originally Posted by Thomas

In our book man is 'free'

Yes, this is a difference. I have been taught, and believe wholeheartedly, that man must earn his Freedom. Nirvana and Freedom are not equivalent, but the former does give us a hint as to the latter.

Learning to create, cooperatively, with God, is what I believe it's all about - yet this basic ability already exists, innately within us. What we are all here to do, first individually, then in groups and eventually as a Whole (planet, One Human Family), involves not only actualizing, or developing this creative potential, but also learning just how to apply it.

In a word, we must become adept at transforming Power (pure potential) into the creative results which are appropriate for OUR given stage of the PLAN.

This is not "my" Plan, Thomas - nor one invented by some group which has it in for the Catholics. The sooner such nonsense can be disposed of, the very notion of which is an application of black magic, the better. [Or gray magic, worsening if we fail to guard. ]

Now, if there are questions, then there are. I have plenty. Questions that come to mind, for example, are:

• IF this is so, then HOW do we define what is "appropriate?"
• What is the relationship between such "Power" (pure potential) as it exists within a given human being, and other creative entities? We are told, remember, even in the MOST traditional Christian teachings, that the various orders of Angels are Creative agents of, or for, God. And so, IF there is a Hierarchy - and again, such a notion is not a new one - then what might that look like in terms of a New Age Christianity?

(Other threads have examined a Theosophical Hierarchy, and regardless of where this thread stays or ends up, we should be free to explore how a New Age Christianity regards our spiritual potential, in ways that may differ from traditional Christian models.)

• And in simpler terms, since the word "appropriate" is really a cue here that we are examining ethics ... are there any notable differences (if so, what? and why?) between how a "New Age Christian" ought to behave, and how Christians for 2000 years have lived out the examples that Christ and His early Church provided?

This, of course, is not a new topic, yet if it is approached while allowing more latitude for so-called "alternative" viewpoints, who knows where things might lead? I certainly don't know ... yet here is the perfect place to do it (even if I am, a good few paces behind in pointing out the obvious, and getting around to replying ).

Originally Posted by Thomas

Then your God is subject to change ... and in our Book God is Absolute, Infinite, All-Possible, beyond subtraction or detraction, addition or diminution, increase or decrease, growth or decay ... so I think we have radically different ideas of what the term 'God' means.

No, here I would just point out, again, that "God" is not the same as "the Absolute." Not, at least, unless we wish to set aside TWO words now, instead of just one.

The Absolute? WHAT is THAT?

Make THAT your God, and you've got "nothing" - because you KNOW absolutely nothing about "it." We can pick around in there if you like, but I would suggest it's a waste of time.

Egotistical, "my god is bigger and better than your god," no matter how subtle, and even if unintentional, is the oldest trick in the book. So if the book says we're all supposed to be playing nice here, then please, don't hand me this stuff with a spin on it.

It's okay - if it isn't intentional, or even if it is, really. But frankly, I see right through it. It's that gray again ... and I know it well. You can't stand there, blocking the light, pointing to the shadow being case upon my cloak, and tell me "I don't understand God," and expect me to do any other than smile, and raise my right hand, wherein I hold a Candle, Lighted, Shining - in the shadow.

Nor would I expect you to do otherwise, and certainly it doesn't surprise me when you do this, if I get too big for my britches. The only way to go about this, is to get out of each other's Light. And we cannot do that, while we're standing around arguing about WHOSE Light it really is - or saying things like, "My Light (God) is Greater" ... or, "Your God doesn't mean as much as mine."

To say, "we have different conceptions," or understandings, and experiences, is honest, and fair, and quite helpful. And this amounts to standing, side by side on the Road, sharing the Light - Whose sources are many - while doing our utmost not to block the One, Greater Source.

If we want to entertain the idea of many Luminaries, then so be it. Let's jump on that bandwagon. No, you say? There is only one? Ah well, perhaps we will see eye to eye, after all. But no man - blocks the Light (whatever its Heavenly source) from another, with the ability to outshine the Divine Illumination which still provides the SHEKHINAH around him ...

I like the idea that God is more than Light, God is also Love. And God is more than Love, God is also Power, or Purpose (Will). Plenty of room to explore.

Probably most important, for me anyway, is the point that even were we unable to perceive the heavenly Light of God Transcendent (God's Brilliance can be blinding - did not Moses report?) ... we could still attest to God's Illuminating Presence by remembering to look down, hold out our right hand, and gently - but firmly - envision "this little light of mine."

For when our brother, well-intentioned, but ill able, seeks to outshine the Divine, even our little Candle can help restore the Magic to his eye. It is the eye that directs light, and with it - even light - we can wound. If the laser is not proof enough of this, then we can say no more.

"The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness." (Luke 11:34)

"The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." (Matthew 6:22)

The "little light that shines," in time, becomes the Flaming Heart. The single eye, only, can direct this Sacrificial Love, in service of spiritual Purpose.

An Eye, fully enclosed [hidden, occulted] within a Heart, the latter encircled by thorns, and these two enshrouded by a glow ... especially as surmounted by a Flame, and Cross. If we cannot yet point to the same within ourselves, then we must start wherever we are. From the Cross, work backward ...

[JosephM]

Reincarnation - One life.... many Chapters

JM

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

How truth appeals to the individual is immaterial, from the standpoint of truth. The above might appeal, but does not make it true. I happen, for reasons explained, not to hold that view.

Yes, the "lording it over" just doesn't do too well; that thing in our left hand may appear to be a sceptre, but a club is a club is a club. Lest we injure one another, I can only suggest using it for a candleholder - to raise the light of the right hand on high ...

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Even on the little, human scale, we have many opportunities to apply it, every day, and if we are careful, we can span several living kingdoms with the same Love, Care, Nurturance, Guidance, Devotion and Dedication - as is shown by Christ, and His Church

Originally Posted by Thomas

I think you have over-anthropomorphised God by projecting your own ideal onto Him, in effect endowing God with human fallibility, which you then claim back, as proof of your intrinsic divinity.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion; of course, I disagree. Here is a point worth discussing, at last. If we are not capable to stewarding the lesser kingdoms, as God instructed us to do, then why the injunction to begin with? If our capacity to receive God's Love does not in fact, demand - as in, necessitate - that we also be able to PASS that Love on to our fellow man, and to our animal friends ... then truly, man IS a selfish creature, with no hope of improvement or progress.

I refuse to entertain such a bleak, hopeless outlook on my spiritual future, on Humanity's spiritual future, or on the intended relationship between God and all God's creatures. That is not a God of Love; that is no "god" at all. That is a tyrant.

If the question is one of just what a human being is capable of, then let us hear from those human beings Who have risen to the heights - and remained to Serve. Should no other voice speak to me in the silence, the words of Christ (however doctored) remain to inspire me.

I am still waiting for an interpretation of Ephesians 4:13 which will make me a liar, or a fool ...

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I don't think it could be emphasized enough, that the Theosophical framework does its best to underscore how NECESSARY certain stages of Planetary Evolution are ...

Originally Posted by Thomas

According to your doctrine.

You know Thomas, one of the last fetters an arhat must completely remove before adeptship is irritability. And an arhat does not have the luxury of thinking things like, "I wonder if he intentionally crafted that little jibe, or if it just came naturally." An arhat must remember - these arrows, these little darts - are his reward for service.