What Happens When You Die?

I've been thinking alot about how I'm going to teach my children about the after life when they are old enough to start asking questions. I've been thinking about it because I do NOT want to leave this up to whatever church I happen to be going to at the time. I think I will use the following parable:

When you die you go to a road that stretches out in two directions. One goes to Heaven, the other goes to Hell. You are free to choose the path that goes to Hell but before you get there you will encounter the body of Jesus blocking the path. You will have to step over Jesus' body and jump into Hell. No one will force you to jump in, but you must step over the body of Jesus and jump in yourself.

If you choose the path that leads to Heaven, then all along the path you will encounter the times you hurt others and hurt yourself. Each encounter will have a lesson for you to learn. Once you have learned all the lessons of all the times in your life that you hurt others or hurt yourself you will be able to enter Heaven.

Evil and The Devil

The Devil has been coming up in different conversations recently and caused me to do some thinking about what I think the Devil is. Humans have always had impulses they have a hard time controlling. Humans will want to do one thing but do another and later feel guilty about making the wrong choice. Before there was the language of psychology and neuroscience humans needed some way to talk about the impulses they had that they found difficult to control. In ancient times they used the language of the Devil and demons. When I hear people talking such a way at church or on TV I usually try to translate it into something that is personally meaningful for me. Probably my favorite way of talking about evil and the Devil is the Jungian idea of the shadow.

I like the idea of the shadow because it allows people to own their own "evilness" without the threat of being squashed by God. It also allows  people to realize their "evilness" is coming from somewhere within and  if they "own" it they can diffuse its power. I think people that are  busy externalizing evilness and sin and condemning it are people that  have not owned their own evilness - i.e. Ted Haggard. (Not that  homosexuality is evil. Ted thought his desires were evil and was not  able to own them so they got the better of him).

I like the idea of the external personification of evil (Devil with  horns and pitchfork) because it allows people to disassociate their  "evilness" if it is to threatening to own it. It also just helps to externalize  things and blame them on something to be honest. The most important thing is for people to begin a dialogue about the evil they see within themselves. The can begin this dialogue just with themselves personally or with someone else. If externalizing evil to a literal sentient Devil is what they need to do to begin thinking about it then I say it is a good idea.

For example if  someone is really self-condemning or just hard on themselves you can  suggest that it is the Devil telling them these things because they  are really meant for great things and when the Devil tells them they  are lazy/ugly/whatever they should tell themselves what a lie that is  and immediately tell themselves the opposite - that they're worthwhile/beautiful/etc.

What are your thoughts on the Devil? Is he a literal sentient being? Has the idea of the Devil outlived its usefulness and is more destructive than anything?

Oranges and Mangos

Thich Nhat Hanh, "Living Buddha, Living Christ".

“It is good that an orange is an orange and a mango is a mango. The color, the smells, and the tastes are different, but... we see that they are both authentic fruits.
If religions are authentic, they contain the same elements of stability, joy, peace, understanding, and love. The similarities as well as the differences are there. They differ only in terms of emphasis”.

I think this is a very good analogy and understanding of Religious Pluralism.

However, this understanding runs into a direct problem, a direct confrontation with Jesus. No, strike that. The problem isn't with Jesus. The confrontation and problem is with mainstream Christian theology, Doctrine, and ideology.

I think the following statement from Pope John Paul II's book, “The Threshold of Hope”, summons up the collective voice of Christendom's concern best:

“Christ is absolutely original and absolutely unique”.

answers Thich Nhat Hanh, "But who is not unique? Socrates, Muhammed, the Buddha, you, and I are all unique. The idea behind the statement, however, is the notion that Christianity provides the only way of salvation and all other religious traditions are of no use. This attitude excludes dialogue and fosters religious intolerance and discrimination.”Thich Nhat Hanh, "Living Buddha, Living Christ".

“Of course Christ is unique."

Christianity will tell you that this position not only denies the divinity of Christ, but denies Christ Himself...
... but I'm not convinced that it does.

I have come to the conclusion that the New Testament as we have it today was shaped by the 1st-Century Church and not the other way around. The 1st-Century Church was not a product of the New Testament.

The four canonized gospels were written significantly after the rest of the New Testament books. Is there any way of knowing whether they were written as a supplement to the Pauline Epistles and possibly influenced or tainted by them? Are the four canonized gospels historically accurate or are they a rewritten and reinterpreted history?

I am at a point where I believe the evidence is inconclusive. Although I believe Jesus is the Truth, I no longer believe he is ‘accessible’ through the bible. It is because of the canonized bible that he has become isolated in a hidden and inaccessible part of history.

I believe the eternal and divine "Cosmic Christ" (Logos?) is a projection (and undeterminately a construct) of the church and also (emperically) inaccessible.

The real issue comes down to one's understanding of what the Incarnation is.

John Hick, "The Metaphor of God Incarnate"

"...the idea of divine incarnation,... in which both genuine humanity and genuine deity are insisted upon, has never been given a satisfactory literal sense; but that on the other hand it makes excellent metaphorical sense. When, for example, Gandhi, asked what his message was, said that his life itself was his message, he was saying that his message was embodied, incarnated, made visible, in his life. For a human life can 'incarnate', or live out, truths and values".

Thich Nhat Hanh, "Living Buddha, Living Christ".

"It is a natural tendency of man to personify qualities like love, freedom, understanding, and also the ultimate... The true body of Jesus is His teaching. The teaching of Jesus is His living body, and this living body of Christ manifests itself whenever and wherever His teaching is practiced".

I can say with all honesty and a clear conscious, that I believe Jesus was a perfectly accurate reflection of the divine; a metaphor of God at least/for certain. I can also honestly say I believe the Jewish Rabbi Yeshua of Nazareth was fully, wholly, and completely human.

But was he literally God incarnate? I had struggled with this quesiton for in excess of 8 years.

Must he be literally God incarnate?
I've stopped asking this question. I think the answer to that question hinges soley on choice, is inconclusive, but damningly divisive and destructive. I have come to leave it unanswered.

Many will tell me this means I cannot be a Christain. It isn't a title I've proclaimed nor treasure anyway.

Others will begin launching biblical verses at me, demanding that I account for their meaning while in actual fact, only attempting to defend their personal positions.

Well, what is the most important thing a Christian believes in?
The Bible? A man? His teachings? Or what He represents?

When we force the question of, "Was Jesus literally God" to be answered, we begin a journey down a path that cannot end in any other way but intolerance, discrimination, suffering, and a counterfeit religion. It ceases to be authentic – and some might argue – even valid.

"Worship me or burn" is not the core message.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not denying your Christian God. I am simply not willing to force a belief into a fact.

I'm through with posing, or pretending, or allowing others to think I'm something I may, or may not be.

This is who I am and where I find myself today. I am not forcing it upon you. You can take it or leave it. You can accept me or reject me for who I truly am. But I am what I am and I'm extending to you the open honesty I usually reserve for God alone.

Am I fearful of the possible consequenses? Yes. But I refuse to wear this mask any longer

Windblown

I have never been comfortable with this statement, or profession of “faith”, because it is professing faith in the wrong thing – a book. Not only is it blind faith and circular thinking, it misplaces faith in a book and not God (and I don’t care if it’s the Torah, the Bible, or the Qur’an). It is the first step towards idolatry - biblio-idolatry to be specific.

The fact of the matter is, there are conflicts, inconsistencies, and incompatibilities between the Old Testament and the New Testament (if there wasn’t we’d have never heard of Gnosticism), most especially when Christians narrowly focus only on the bible’s words as ultimate and absolute authority.*

Admittedly there are conflicts and incompatibilities between the Bible and the Qur’an as well*, but, once again, only when viewed (by both sides) through the paradigm of a book as being the source of authority and not God.

The real issue isn’t whether the Torah of the Old Testament and the New Testament are not compatible, nor whether the bible and the Qur’an are in conflict and suffer incompatibility. We are misled and misdirected when we focus on and come into conflict over these issues. We fall victim to pride and seek to answer the question of whose right rather than listening to the voice of the Spirit.

When we decide to follow the Way of Yeshua (or the Holy Spirit for that matter) we must decide whether

A) we will narrowly focus only on a book’s words as our pinnacle of authority, or

B) allow the principles of the Spirit beneath the words to be our guiding force.

It is these two possibilities that are in conflict. It is these two options that are totally incompatible. There is no happy medium between these two points.

You deliberately follow the letter of the law, or you deliberately follow the spirit of the law. You may only do both incidentally. One will shackle and bind you while the other will set you free – whether Jew, Christian, Muslim, freeman, master, or slave.

And it is important to make note that Yeshua was very specific about disregarding the will and direction of the Holy Spirit.



* I suspect these incompatibilities stem from different and varying authors, historic contexts, and cultures btw.

Jet Li's views on religion

"Is there a religion that is superior morally and spiritually with respect to all others? I strongly believe the answer is no. Sure, religions differ from one another in their outward trappings, in the Gods their followers worship, in the customs and rituals which their practitioners observe. But upon closer inspection, the underlying heart and central principle in every religion is the same. Every religion boils down to love, to a respect for all living things, to choosing peace over violence as a means of resolving a conflict. The essence is universal; it is only the means to the end that varies.

"If intrinsically all religions preach the same thing, then why all the different world religions and their numerous offshoots? The explanation, I believe, lies in the fact that people across the world live under very different circumstances. Depending on the cultural, historical, and geographical background of the individual, some religions are easier to understand and practice than others. An individual may opt to follow a certain religion because it falls in place with the way he or she interacts with society at large. Perhaps the religion helps foster and protect the pre-established living patterns along which the individual is used to following. Or maybe the religion helps the individual confront a longstanding fear or personal weakness.

"I like to explain the technical side of the proliferation of such a wide variety of religions through the concept of Bagua, a Chinese form of mathematics. As I've already pointed out, the common denominator of all religions is the concept of love and forgiveness. A tree trunk grows branches; in the same way, the major world religions (such as Buddhism and Christianity) spring from the root source of love. From these major world religions other smaller sects and subdivisions arise, like twigs from a bough. Populations in different regions throughout the world put a differentiating mark on what is otherwise the same religion and make them into unique ones, out of cultural, moral, or sometimes even political reasons. For instance, the Buddhist sects found in India differ from those, say, in China. And from those sub-religions arise another smaller and more specialized set of other sub-religions. It's an infinite process of divisions and offshoots. But if you reverse the process of proliferation and retrace the paths of all these religious sects, you find that they all boil down to one common root - love.

"Another analogy to religion I always like to draw is that of school. In every school, you have different departments that teach different subjects, such as mathematics, English, history, and science. Within each of these departments, you have another set of divisions. For science, there are the divisions of physics, biology, chemistry, and so forth. And within each of these divisions lie another set of subdivisions, and so forth. Different subjects with different areas of specialization - but the purpose is the same - education.

"Why then, one might ask, are there religions that preach evil deeds? Why has religion, in numerous historical instances, been used to promote and justify the acts of terrorism, political propaganda, cult suicides, and so forth? Here, I think it is crucial to draw a distinction between the religion itself and the way with which an individual or group of people may choose to interpret or use such a religion. Sometimes, for political motivations or for a personal agenda, a group of people in power may choose to distort a particular religion to serve their own self-interest. In that case, the essence of the religion - love- is no longer pure and has been warped by a negative outside factor. In the continual proliferation and outgrowth of so many different religions, it is inevitable that distorting factors such as self-interest are introduced and divorce the resulting new "religion" from its original intent.

"Hence, it is important to remember that religion, per se, is a good thing. When one practices a religion, one should be aware of what it is ultimately about and not be misled into blind practice of its specific tenets. I always believe it is important to develop such an awareness. Rote memorization and recitation of a religion's principles and ideas, and perfunctory performance of its rituals mean little if one doesn't live it. Only through a lifestyle of generosity, kindness, and love, and a positive contribution to humankind can one consider oneself a true practitioner of any religion."
Jet Li

The Unspoken Rules of Lego

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (chapter 26), I like what Pirsig has to say about the Japanese Mu as a “third option”; ”unask the question”; the context of the question asked is in error. The concept itself isn't really new to me, it's just nice to have a word, a name to actually identify it with. It makes the abstract and nameless concept so much more solid and concrete.

I think this may actually apply to the Unspoken Rules of building with Lego.

I've built with Lego and I've watched my children build with Lego. It always begins the same way: with a bag or a box (or possibly a bucket or pail) of blocks. After that, the sky's the limit as to what may be created! Houses, cars, trucks, animals, people, letters, etc., etc., etc.. This is always true, regardless of what the boxed set was supposed to be. Right or wrong, you can still build an alphabet letter out of a medieval castle set. I suppose it could be said that one is only limited by their imagination.

Although I'm not sure what the Unspoken Rules of Lego are, I am sure that they exist. Now, I realize this is free play we are talking about, but what if we were to view playing with Lego as an unsolved problem or question? Say you could not “find” the answer in the almost unlimited varieties of forms. What would the Japanese Mu option be here? What would Lego's Unspoken Rules be?

Build outside the box... literally.
Get pieces from another set. Or, even better yet, try out Megabloks. They are compatible you know.

Let's step away from this analogy. What I am talking about is understanding God. I agree, it isn't enough to say, ”Yes, I believe in God”. It must go one step further and ask the question, ”How am I to know God's will so that I may attempt to follow it?”
Too often this question is assumed to be, how am I to understand the bible, or, more specifically, the Unspoken Rules of understanding the bible. Let's be clear here; I am not talking about interpreting the bible. There are numerous ideas, theologies, and doctrines, all built from the bible. But that is the unspoken rule, isn't it? That the 'building blocks' are all contained within the bible. This isn't a question of understanding and interpreting the bible. This is a question of understanding God.

I've built with Lego and I've watched my children build with Lego. It always begins the same way: with a bag or a box (or possibly a bucket or pail) of blocks. After that, the sky's the limit as to what may be created! Houses, cars, trucks, animals, people, letters, etc., etc., etc.. This is always true, regardless of what the boxed set was supposed to be. Right or wrong, you can still build an alphabet letter out of a medieval castle set. I suppose it could be said that one is only limited by their imagination. What if playing with Lego was an unsolved problem or question?

How big is your bag of Lego?

Care to share your opinions or join the conversation?

Repairing the Torn Veil

Part I: The Bad News First

“… only one conclusion is possible… religion that human beings must get right in order to have a correct relationship with god – is a subject that shouldn’t be given Christian houseroom… There were no works of any kind we had to get right to achieve the relationship; we had only to trust him and be pleasantly surprised at the light burden he had substituted for the iron yoke of religion” Fr. Robert Capon

“Therefore, when Jesus would say to people “your sins are forgiven” (see Matthew 9:2; Luke 7:6-50), he was not just being a source of encouragement to hurting people. He was completely bypassing the religious system of his day and helping people connect with God’s grace, mercy, and forgiveness, directly… So offering forgiveness to sinners directly was, in a way, both a creative and destructive gesture. Creative for the human spirit; destructive for the religious system. At the same moment he was building people up, Jesus was also tearing religion down.” Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion, pg. 135.

Bruxy Cavey quotes William C. Plancher as saying,
“’If you couldn’t buy the right kind of animal, then how could you sacrifice? If you couldn’t sacrifice, why have a Temple? By his actions, Jesus seems to be challenging the very basis of religion’”

Herbert Haag, in his book “Upstairs Downstairs: Did Jesus Want a Two-Class Church?”, shares this same opinion:

“Jesus’ threats of the imminent destruction of the Temple should not be overlooked… When Jesus announces that he will rebuild the destroyed Temple in three days, this can only mean the absolute end of the Jerusalem Temple and of any earthly temple at all, and indeed not just of the Temple as a building but of it as it functioned in the way Jesus had experienced it… [D]riving the traders out of the Temple [and] the expulsion of those selling animals and the action against the money-changers… can only have been directed against the Temple practice of sacrifice…If Jesus drives out those buying and selling animals and overturns the tables of the money-changers – all of which was necessary for the conduct of sacrifices – then he makes the whole traditional ritual of sacrifice impossible, he proclaims it to be over and done with… One should indeed bear in mind “that the Temple ritual was genuinely for Israel a heavenly gift through which God wished to save his people from the consequences of their sins and trespasses… When Jesus started driving the traders and buyers out of the Temple and when he overturned the tables of the money-changers and of the pigeon-sellers, then he was offending against the only thing that could secure the continued existence of the people of God’.” Herbert Haag, “Upstairs Downstairs: Did Jesus Want a Two-Class Church?”, pg. 52-53.

Its interesting that the book’s title questions a two-class system – or more specifically, a priesthood-class; Clergy and laity. It made me question, what exactly did Jesus ‘banish’ at the temple?

“…he was upset with the institution’s financial practices, charging too much money for their services and the like. But the meaning runs deeper than that. A den of robbers is not a place where thieves go to rob people, but where they go to hide out after they have done the robbing. The religious system of Israel (like any religious system today) was repeatedly used as a spiritual hideout for people with a guilty conscience. Rather than change how they lived, the people of Israel simply added a little religion to their lives to keep everything balanced. Like the godfather going to Mass on Sunday morning or going to confessional before returning to his life of crime, religious systems make it all too easy for self-centered people to find comfort in familiar rituals without experiencing a change of heart or committing to a life of love.” Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion, pg. 136-137.

I cannot help but think of Roman Catholicism because of the references to the Mass and the Sacrament of Confession. It has also made me think that the Temple System that Jesus was so set against is very similar to Sacramental Theology. And Sacramental Theology requires a priesthood-class.

It would seem to be that those denominations that subscribe to Sacramental Theology also adhere to the need of those who administer the sacraments. This would specifically be the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and most Orthodox Churches. They would seem to be attempted to repair the veil Jesus torn upon his death. The symbolism is very important because it would be an attempt to undo what Christ had done.

However, before we begin taking the splinter out of our brothers’ eye, maybe we should also check to see if we’ve a log in ours.

Protestantism has done away with the priesthood-class. There are no Protestant priests. Ministers and Pastors, yes, but Ministers and Pastors are not Priests. The difference may be technical or even semantic to some people, but they are not the same thing.

“Some Christians not only call the building they meet in their “church” but they also call a special room where they hold Sunday services the “sanctuary”, a word that means the sacred place where God dwells. And, to confuse our minds just a little bit more, at the front of the sanctuary is often a big table called the “altar”, a word that refers to the place of animal sacrifice in Old Testament ritual.” Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion, pg. 139.

However, Protestantism – for the most part – maintains the tithing system. Tithing is directly linked to a priesthood-class. Although I don’t personally agree with Sacramental Theology, and by implication those that would administer sacraments (a clergy or priest-class), I have to admit, at least the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox aren’t playing both sides of the fence. How can the modern Protestant church seriously justify tithing?

“It is biblical”
No, actually, it isn’t. It was biblical for the support of a priest-class, which Jesus did away with.

“It is necessary to support the Establishment/Institution”
(This sounds dangerously close to attempting to repair the torn veil). This reasoning becomes justification for the price of admission. Therefore church would become a show, a stage, entertainment, a spectator sport. I can understand this logic to a certain point. If I were to frequent, let’s say Good Life Fitness, I should expect to pay its fees or membership fee at least. I am, in essence, a member of a club. Now this is fine and fair, however, this is not tithing and under no circumstance should be called such. Also there is the issue of the exclusivity of being a club member. This would seem to fly in the face of some of Christ’s core teachings.

Or, this “It is necessary to support the Establishment/Institution” argument must be some sort of insurance premium paid. If I don’t buy the insurance policy, I shouldn’t expect to benefit when in trouble or in need. Again, this isn’t tithing. In fact, this is closer to blackmail.

Now, I’m not suggesting that this is actually what Protestant churches are actually doing. What I am saying is that you cannot justify tithing once the priest-class has been abolished.

My point being the “Bad News” is religion itself.


Part II: Now the Good News

“Jesus seems to be saying that God’s presence is best experienced in the sacred space that exists between people when love is offered and received rather than in special buildings or pious places.” Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion, pg. 137.

Now, many of you may be familiar with the aversion I have to what I usually call The Evangelical One-Two-Punch; First the Bad News and only then the Good News.

The first ‘punch’ is the Bad News – “you’re a sinner and you’re going to hell!” Then the second ‘punch’, the Good News – there’s hope in Jesus Christ. Just come to church and… etc., etc., etc.,… you get the idea.

However, I’m going to come across as a complete hypocrite and actually use the One-Two-Punch method of first the Bad News and then the Good News. However, I am going to use the definition Fr. Robert Capon uses for the Bad News.

“In spite of the fact that the Good News of Jesus Christ (to give Christianity one of its own titles of preference) has been seen as a religion by outsiders and been sold as one by its adherents, it is not a religion at all. Rather, it is the announcement of the end of religion... far from supplanting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Paul actually rescued the Good News of Jesus from the danger of being converted into the bad news of religion... That is why the Gospel alone is Good News and all the religions of the world – whether they're about God or some lesser thing – are bad news.”

Religion itself is the Bad News, and it is Religion itself that Jesus saves us from. Not necessarily from our sin.

But the issue that should actually force us into some serious thought, is when we look at the Bad News as religion itself (and Christianity is a religion), then what exactly does the Good News looks like now?

I will again quote from Fr. Robert Capon:

“...our baptisms (to come finally to the root sacrament of the Good News) do not divide the world into the saved (us, inside) and the lost (them, outside). Baptism – and the church it constitutes – is simply the authentic, effective sign of the mystery of the Christ who has already saved all, whether in or out.”

Once successfully freed from Religion, the Good News becomes a celebration! It becomes a mind-opening experience. It forces us not only to admit, but to legitimately see how 'big', how incredibly huge and magnificent God really is. God's love and mercy and grace no only breaks through the man-made boundaries of Religions – it decimates them!

I realize this concept terrifies many Religionists. I like what passinthru from TheOoze had to say about this:

“Once I realized my box was woefully insufficient, I started to discover that God is in so many places I once thought impossible for him to be. I discovered that when a human being helps another human being out of compassion, that regardless of the face of their faith, God is there. That when a father is utterly devoted to his family and treats them with genuine love, tenderness and respect, that regardless of what name he calls God, God is also there. God is in every true act of charity, in every landscape of breathtaking beauty, in every bar of uplifting music, in every drop of life-giving rain, and in every word on behalf of one who is defenseless, in everything of beauty and worth.

“I'm not saying I'm necessarily a Universalist. But I am saying that I don't believe that all of the actions and words of non-Christians are completely devoid of His nature and His truth.”

This topic can be engaged in conversation at TheOoze's Repairing the Torn Veil.





- continued on Misconceptions - 

A Problem with Religious Pluralism

Many people claim to believe in God.

Are just as many people obedient to God?

How is a Religious Pluralist to be obedient to God? To be obedient you must obey God's will. How are we to know God's will?

To the Religious Exclusivist or Inclusivist this isn't an issue (regardless of whether what they believe God's will to be is right or wrong).

If one is to believe or entertain that certain scriptural writings is a combined effort of God's revealed will and man-made agendas (which I do believe), then how are we to know which is which? How are we to discern one from the other?

This is the problem with religious pluralism. This is a problem I'd be interested in hearing an answer to.

Trinity's End

I had never subscribed to the Trinity as a Doctrine. I was willing to accept the Trinity as a man-made concept; a man-made explanation to attempt to explain, or define, the nature of God. It is a useful tool to help a finite mind grasp an infinite entity and concept, but is, at its core, flawed.

The closest I've come to understanding the Triune nature of God (or more specifically, Jesus, or "God the Son") was as follows:

I cannot say with certainty whether I believe in Jesus as being truly eternal. It is a difficult issue. To me it is a paradox. I know the Father is eternal: having no beginning and no end. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. I believe He became incarnate in flesh and bone in Jesus, and in that state was a temporal being (bound by the laws of physics and time). Yet He was both perfect Man and perfect God. In essence the Father “stepped into the time-stream”, exiting his state of infiniteness. But on the same note, even if you remove a small piece of an infinitely large being, you are not left with fractions. You are still left with infinite sums. (And similarly, the fraction 'broken' off must in itself remain infinite). Yet the very nature of an eternal being is not bound by the constraints of time. If it ever existed then it always existed.
However, in John Hick's "The Metaphor of God Incarnate" makes an incredibly good point on pg 52 & 53:

"[Jesus]... became conscious of being in a state of mutual I-Thou awareness with the second person of the Trinity. In these moments he was conscious of being in the presence of God the Son and at the same time aware that God the Son was conscious of him. Such a picture would seem to fit the New Testament indications – except of course that the encompassing divine presence of which Jesus was so vividly aware was not the second person of a trinity but simply God, known as abba, father.

"[A] possible way of spelling out a limited access of the human to the divine mind is in terms not of occasional consciousness-consciousness interaction but of occasional consciousness-consciousness unity. That is to say, from time to time and perhaps with varying degrees of clarity, the human mind of Jesus became conscious of its identity with the divine mind of God the Son. In these moments Jesus was consciously divine, aware that he was God the Son incarnate. This is consonant with the picture of Jesus offered in the fourth Gospel - except that there Jesus is depicted as believing that the divine presence with whom he was in unity with was God the Father: 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30), 'he that hath seen me hath seen the Father' (John 14:9)."

What I had understood, or accepted, as the "left-behind", ever-present and eternal part of God, was the Father. Hick clearly makes the point that this belief necessitates this 'piece' as not being God the Father, but must only be God the Son. ... and he's right.

I can no longer accept what I had understood the Trinity - and for that matter, the Triune nature of God - to be. I know many will say or think that I have been unduly influenced by this singular book. However, that would be a wrong assumption. These are thoughts that have been on my mind, in one form or another, for more than 8 years now.

Now combine that with the impossibility of all "two-natured" theses and all "kenosis" theses (all these theses fail or end in heresy), I can no longer accept the concept of the Trinity.

How does one successfully explain, understand, and accept a literal "perfect God and perfect man" without resorting to some loose and undefined mystery? I know the cookie-cutter answer many would offer me: faith. But, again, I am forced to agree with Hick. This formula "is a humanly devised hypothesis; and we cannot save a defective hypothesis by dubbing it a divine mystery."
I am forced to conclude, "...the Christian doctrine of incarnation... has not been found to have any acceptable meaning."

The implications are also far reaching. It confirms something I have always suspected (which I wrote about in Three Syntheses): The bible (the writings of Moses and the epistles of Paul make the greatest examples: see Mat. 19:8 re. Moses, and 1 Corinth. 7:10 vs. 1 Corinth. 7:12 re. Paul) are a mixture of divine inspiration (or 'laws') as well as man-made ideas, theologies, philosophy and 'laws'.


'Seph

What makes a religion a "good" religion?

I don't know if I'm for the idea that "all religions lead to the same place". There just have to be some religions bad enough out there that can be excluded from the "good religions" category, and therefore should be place in the "bad religions" category.

What would be the standard of the "good" category. Good religions tend to have abstract ideologies (which is fine and good). Good religions must also have some guidelines for putting these ideologies into practice. Here are some possibilities (admittedly expressed in Christian terms):

1. Love God - Having some kind of focus on the importance of loving God and worship. Some kind of clarification that worship is a discipline as well as being enjoyable. That act of worship necessitates the believer to receive love from God

2. Love your neighbor - It would have to have some version of The Golden Rule as even atheists agree (Sam Harris, Karen Armstrong) this is the highest form of moral development.

3. Love is the "most excellent way" - The more stuff you do where love is the motivating principle the better. i.e., NOT giving the guy on the corner a dollar if you know he's going to buy crack. Again, this is a discipline as well as something that feels good.

4. Love you enemies - This is probably the truest litmus test as far as practice goes. My personal opinion is that if a religion teaches that someone should be killed or their rights limited because they believe the wrong stuff or the religion identifies their lifestyle as sinful, than this religion fails this test. On an even more practical level is the daily discipline of this guideline. Who will I come into contact today that I must love? Who did I fail to love yesterday and how can I learn from that mistake?