Nontheistic Christianity

[path_of_one]

May I also present this answer as a work-in-progress? I've got half a dozen other routes I want to check out.

Absolutely- thank you so much for taking the time, Thomas. This is very interesting to me and I am appreciative of your effort in this.

Well, my way is to ask not whether or not God is in things, but the way God is in things.

That is an interesting point.

1: God loves himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom.
How do we mean 'God loves himself' — simply that in the Divine self-knowing there is no want nor need of anything other; God can be no more perfect than He is; there is no movement, no passion, no desire in Him that is causative upon Him; He suffers no determination nor delineation ... He is perfectly at peace with and in Himself ... He is without attribute because such would imply a contrary that He lacks. The 'of necessity' is ours — this is the way we must think of God.

For the most part, I agree. But personally, I always experienced God as inherently creative. The concept of God as trinitarian always strikes me as dynamic and relational; otherwise, why not a singularity? It is not that I think God needs to create, or that God desires to create, but rather that creativity is God... similar to saying God is Love. It is not that God desires to love or chooses to love or is forced to love, but that love is fundamentally, God. I think not only of the earth and humanity, but of the entire universe... and likely multiverse. So many entities, constant change, constant dynamism. Why?

I suppose one could say God consistently chooses to create, but then it implies a sort of anthropomorphism that seems to bring up issues for me about my limiting God to what I understand- being human. I used to think this way, but over time, I began to experience God as inherently creative. Not as an attribute of God, but rather that God, through creativity, inherently encompassed both total unity and total diversity all at once.

I'm not sure if any of that makes sense (hard to explain) and I hope you understand I'm not debating with you. I'm more just trying to work out my thoughts about the question. Why would God love Himself out of necessity, yet not create out of the same love? Love in nature yields new creation, and could this not reflect the same principle in the Divine? To me, and this is perhaps only due to my artistic spirit, love always brings creativity, whether in new life or in the creativity and ingenuity of expression of love.

BIG TRINITARIAN ASIDE: God is God — He is at peace with Himself — He loves Himself — in the full and complete knowing of Himself, what He knows of Himself is begotten of Himself entirely and indistinguishably and absolutely; there is no difference nor distinction between Himself and how He knows Himself — He is what He knows, and He knows what He is — He is Father (origin) of the Son (that self-knowing) in the Peace of Himself — His Holy Spirit.

This whole section = awesome. I will need to tuck this away for later. It's really a great description.

God's freedom then is not a freedom to choose, because there is no burden of choice upon Himself, there is nothing other than Himself to choose. God's freedom is freedom to be — the freedom to act or not to act of His own volition.

I'll have to think on this a bit. It would seem that if God's freedom is to be, and this being brings forth all other beings... it would seem panentheistic. Are you saying that God has the freedom to not be that makes Christian panentheism different from other forms of it? That would be an interesting proposition and one I've never thought of. I figured God is and that God has little freedom not to be. Not sure why. It just seemed a given to me. God is the "I AM." But I think what you are saying is that God could just not be?

He suffers no requirement, not even that of His own nature, because His own nature needs of nothing.

I never really saw creating as God needing anything, but rather that creating was part of God's being-ness. I know some Christians who see God as creating humans because He desired or needed love from free beings. I disagree. I think God is love, and so God has no need of love from another source. I don't really think there is another source, because any love we have was already God's to begin with, since God is the source of our own love. So it was more that I think God creates because that is what God does, without need or desire, but just because God is that way.

God is not less than He might be if there were no creation, nor is God more than He is, because of it.

I totally agree with this. God simply is. There is no more or less than. I have a hard time imagining how there could be!

I meant to quote you, Thomas, but the computer ate a section... This is my thought process on creation from nothing...

But what if the Divine Nature never existed before creation? Or, more properly, what if Divine Nature has always existed and has always created? What I mean is, creation of the earth and humanity, yes-- God must have existed prior. But there was always something. Even a singularity is something. In being, God is creating, whether manifesting as singularity or as many, or both at once. I think physics is opening our understanding beyond the boundaries of our formerly limited worldview, and showing us the possibilities of multiverse... which means God could always have been creating, and always would be. If this is the case, then it would not be that Divine Nature has ever not been, and yet it would also not be that the Divine has ever not manifested creativity.


In all things, it would be that God is manifesting Himself through relationship, a becoming of the Being that always is. I don't know how to explain it. If you think of God as an equation that always is but then also as all the manifestations of that equation (all the points on a never-ending graph)--- one doesn't exist without the other, simply by its inherent nature. The equation describes its manifestations; the manifestations point toward the equation. All the manifestations, infinite manifestations, are not enough to describe the equation, but only point toward it. Yet the equation, by nature, does not exist without creating each of its manifestations of individual truth... not by choice or lack of freedom but simply by nature.

I am not sure what that means relative to what you are saying... it is not that the individual points, say, on a graph are created from nothing. They naturally spring from the equation that governs them. Yet the equation is not the sum total of the points-- it is something more. The two are inextricably bound, but one has to step outside of a single point to even see what they point toward... the underlying principle and governing truth.

I can't really imagine a God without creation, as even nothingness is something. I can't really imagine a creation without a God, as everything springs forth from some underlying force or principle. I suppose I see all of us, ultimately, as the manifestation of God's beingness. It's not that all of us together make up God, or that God is not complete on God's own. But rather that the completeness of God includes all God creates... since God inherently does this. When we recognize this beingness in ourselves, we begin to see the Kingdom of Heaven in our midst. We see the Divine love and creative expression in other beings, and from this springs goodness and grace, peace and forgiveness.

I hope that makes some sense... Maybe I'll better "get it" with more information and the next editions?

Peace,
Kim/Path

 

[earl]

Absolutely- thank you so much for taking the time, Thomas. This is very interesting to me and I am appreciative of your effort in this.



That is an interesting point.



For the most part, I agree. But personally, I always experienced God as inherently creative. The concept of God as trinitarian always strikes me as dynamic and relational; otherwise, why not a singularity? It is not that I think God needs to create, or that God desires to create, but rather that creativity is God... similar to saying God is Love. It is not that God desires to love or chooses to love or is forced to love, but that love is fundamentally, God. I think not only of the earth and humanity, but of the entire universe... and likely multiverse. So many entities, constant change, constant dynamism. Why?

I suppose one could say God consistently chooses to create, but then it implies a sort of anthropomorphism that seems to bring up issues for me about my limiting God to what I understand- being human. I used to think this way, but over time, I began to experience God as inherently creative. Not as an attribute of God, but rather that God, through creativity, inherently encompassed both total unity and total diversity all at once.

I'm not sure if any of that makes sense (hard to explain) and I hope you understand I'm not debating with you. I'm more just trying to work out my thoughts about the question. Why would God love Himself out of necessity, yet not create out of the same love? Love in nature yields new creation, and could this not reflect the same principle in the Divine? To me, and this is perhaps only due to my artistic spirit, love always brings creativity, whether in new life or in the creativity and ingenuity of expression of love.



This whole section = awesome. I will need to tuck this away for later. It's really a great description.



I'll have to think on this a bit. It would seem that if God's freedom is to be, and this being brings forth all other beings... it would seem panentheistic. Are you saying that God has the freedom to not be that makes Christian panentheism different from other forms of it? That would be an interesting proposition and one I've never thought of. I figured God is and that God has little freedom not to be. Not sure why. It just seemed a given to me. God is the "I AM." But I think what you are saying is that God could just not be?



I never really saw creating as God needing anything, but rather that creating was part of God's being-ness. I know some Christians who see God as creating humans because He desired or needed love from free beings. I disagree. I think God is love, and so God has no need of love from another source. I don't really think there is another source, because any love we have was already God's to begin with, since God is the source of our own love. So it was more that I think God creates because that is what God does, without need or desire, but just because God is that way.



I totally agree with this. God simply is. There is no more or less than. I have a hard time imagining how there could be!

I meant to quote you, Thomas, but the computer ate a section... This is my thought process on creation from nothing...

But what if the Divine Nature never existed before creation? Or, more properly, what if Divine Nature has always existed and has always created? What I mean is, creation of the earth and humanity, yes-- God must have existed prior. But there was always something. Even a singularity is something. In being, God is creating, whether manifesting as singularity or as many, or both at once. I think physics is opening our understanding beyond the boundaries of our formerly limited worldview, and showing us the possibilities of multiverse... which means God could always have been creating, and always would be. If this is the case, then it would not be that Divine Nature has ever not been, and yet it would also not be that the Divine has ever not manifested creativity.


In all things, it would be that God is manifesting Himself through relationship, a becoming of the Being that always is. I don't know how to explain it. If you think of God as an equation that always is but then also as all the manifestations of that equation (all the points on a never-ending graph)--- one doesn't exist without the other, simply by its inherent nature. The equation describes its manifestations; the manifestations point toward the equation. All the manifestations, infinite manifestations, are not enough to describe the equation, but only point toward it. Yet the equation, by nature, does not exist without creating each of its manifestations of individual truth... not by choice or lack of freedom but simply by nature.

I am not sure what that means relative to what you are saying... it is not that the individual points, say, on a graph are created from nothing. They naturally spring from the equation that governs them. Yet the equation is not the sum total of the points-- it is something more. The two are inextricably bound, but one has to step outside of a single point to even see what they point toward... the underlying principle and governing truth.

I can't really imagine a God without creation, as even nothingness is something. I can't really imagine a creation without a God, as everything springs forth from some underlying force or principle. I suppose I see all of us, ultimately, as the manifestation of God's beingness. It's not that all of us together make up God, or that God is not complete on God's own. But rather that the completeness of God includes all God creates... since God inherently does this. When we recognize this beingness in ourselves, we begin to see the Kingdom of Heaven in our midst. We see the Divine love and creative expression in other beings, and from this springs goodness and grace, peace and forgiveness.

I hope that makes some sense... Maybe I'll better "get it" with more information and the next editions?

Peace,
Kim/Path

Kim, your discussion of beings as "nodes of God," reminded me of another rather panentheistic metaphor of God I like-God as "field effect:"

Zero Point Field & The Mind of God | JonathanBethel's Xanga Site - Weblog

Christ to me is the doorway-or bridge as you put it, (I tend to think we have a similar view on the nature of Christ), that enables us nodal beings to more consciously "cohere" within that field, to be more attuned more clearly to "God." earl

 

[taijasi]

sonoman, I want to say something like, "I don't think you understood a word of what I said" ... but, I can see that you do understand it, you just can't imagine what would happen.

The reason for this is that you begin with an assumption. You have allowed yourself to make the assumption that the Masters are frauds. You believe that anyone who claims otherwise ... is therefore deceived.

Try setting aside your assumption for a moment. THEN go back and read my last post. Try considering that the Bible has some words of Wisdom for you, but that you haven't quite gotten to the bottom of it.

THEN you might understand what I have said about the throngs that would seek to engulf the Masters were the latter to walk out onto the streetcorners and simply start demonstrating their magic tricks.

HPB was given permission, for a time, to show her followers the SIMPLEST, the merest of the lower siddhis -- purely superficial or common, ordinary psychic powers which she herself was BORN with, and which you can find demonstrated all throughout India ... sold to the visitor's curiosity for merely a few rupee.

What happened in her case? Those who would otherwise at least THINK a little about theological or philosphical matters, became all too ready to just fall in ... and make of HPB a GURU. Instead of their curiosity becoming piqued, and their minds stimulated to more action and deeper questioning, the reverse results ensued.

The Masters brought HPB's demonstrations to an abrubt halt.

Friend, I can name a dozen or more Masters, both Eastern and Western, who might materialize in front of your eyes and mystify you beyond your wildest imaginings ... if They happened to catch you off guard, and before you put up the wall, the barriers - of so-called "faith."

And suppose They managed to prove you wrong -- what then? An hour after they left, nay, five minutes, would you be any better for the visit? Would you be convinced, would your life be in any way improved?

Or would you not simply be confused, confounded, your emotions pulled in different directions, your loyalties and assumptions all cast into doubt.

I reply only to show you that I can, that the conversation could continue -- but that there is no point. It is time to let sleeping dogs lie, and I am happy to do this.

I know your assumptions to be incorrect, your conclusions to be premature. So do others here at the forums, and they may have the gift that I don't. They may know how to dialogue with someone who has the windows nailed shut, the door barred fast.

I have already tried to explain both the reason for the choices of the Masters, and their followers, as well as the meaning of the very passages you quote ... in support of your own position. But so long as those passages mean to you only what you have made them out to mean, can you blame me for throwing in the towel? Can you blame me for shrugging my shoulders, and leaving well enough alone?

You say you seek, or believe in, the CHRIST as your Master. Isn't that good enough? Shouldn't that mean that you will turn to Him for your inspiration, for your Illumination ... and Guidance?

How is that, how could it be, in any way wrong, or unhelpful?

It only becomes unhelpful if you try to tell me that I am wrong, or if I try to tell you that you are wrong - so to seek your guidance there. If we both agree simply to disagree, yet also to do our best to set differences aside, where possible ... then our discussion can continue, and we can overlook these minor points as the insignificant details that they are.

Namaskar

 

[sonoman]

I am a follower of Christ, the Spirit of the Father. For me, there is no one on earth you should call "Master". When you let yourself become enthralled with a guru you can only learn what that guru knows and in my life experience it is the rare individual who seeks a master who does not become a parrot of that master's ideas about things, i.e. at no point will he become authentic to himself until he searches his own mind and uses his own resources and that takes a lifetime in itself. If you allow yourself to fill your head up with a guru's ideas then you are only putting more outside stuff between you and a personal relationship with God and your authentic self.

And really, I am not at all interested in guru magic tricks. If gurus had enlightenment for the world that was real, that could heal the sick, open the eyes of the blind, release those in prison, and care for orphans and widows made that way by war and poverty, then India would lead the world. If if India does not lead the world and yet has the most gurus per square mile of any nation on earth, either these gurus are extremely selfish with their saving knowledge or they are frauds. The wisdom of Jesus is to look at the fruits of the tree.

I am a religious ah, um, zealot I guess could apply. I am not very much into ecumenicalism as I see no purpose to multiple choice spirituality. I do see a need to unify peoples' notion of who and what God is and what constitutes "Golden Rules". But if you can accept a Christian believer who is solidly convinced Jesus is the only way to true spiritual knowledge of God and humanity then we can dialogue without calling in the refs I think.

 

[wil]

...But if you can accept a Christian believer who is solidly convinced Jesus is the only way to true spiritual knowledge of God and humanity then we can dialogue without calling in the refs I think.

Namaste Sonoman,

If that is the case then you should pick carefully the threads you decide to participate in.

While we can except your belief as true for you, a little quid pro quo must go on should you decide to venture out of that confined nature.

ie you must also accpept that others believe otherwise.

 

[taijasi]

I am a follower of Christ, the Spirit of the Father. For me, there is no one on earth you should call "Master". When you let yourself become enthralled with a guru you can only learn what that guru knows and in my life experience it is the rare individual who seeks a master who does not become a parrot of that master's ideas about things, i.e. at no point will he become authentic to himself until he searches his own mind and uses his own resources and that takes a lifetime in itself. If you allow yourself to fill your head up with a guru's ideas then you are only putting more outside stuff between you and a personal relationship with God and your authentic self.

I think you have some valuable points here, sonoman. Thanks for sharing them.

Christ walked the Earth. Some think he still does. You would not call him Master? Were his ideas not worth repeating, in addition to pondering ... even putting into practice?

On a thread about non-theistic Christianity, I would be interested to hear more of your ideas about how `the Father' might differ from the familiar, conventional views ascribed [to the Being/Beingness behind the idea `God'] by so many Christians.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Sonoman,

You said,

"...But if you can accept a Christian believer who is solidly convinced Jesus is the only way to true spiritual knowledge of God and humanity then we can dialogue without calling in the refs I think."

--> I can accept such a thing quite easily -- having a solid respect for other people's religion is my first rule. And, I think it is possible for you and I to have meaningful religious discussions, even though I am just as solidly convinced in the opposite direction. But the difficulties of such an arrangement are obvious.

Do you think it would be possible for you and I to have religious discussions that are frank and honest, yet maintain a high level respect for each person's viewpoint?

You said,

"If you allow yourself to fill your head up with a guru's ideas then you are only putting more outside stuff between you and a personal relationship with God and your authentic self."

--> Can you see how couching your ideas in such words immediately stops communication between you and I? Are you interested in re-wording such statements so that we can start having religious discussions that are meaningful for the both of us?

I fully acknowledge the difficulties that I (a non-Christian) have with religious discussions with Christians -- I have had very few such discussions that I would consider to be 'meaningful.' However, there is always hope. Let me know if you are interested in cultivating such hope.

 

[sonoman]

Sonoman,

You said,

"...But if you can accept a Christian believer who is solidly convinced Jesus is the only way to true spiritual knowledge of God and humanity then we can dialogue without calling in the refs I think."

--> I can accept such a thing quite easily -- having a solid respect for other people's religion is my first rule. And, I think it is possible for you and I to have meaningful religious discussions, even though I am just as solidly convinced in the opposite direction. But the difficulties of such an arrangement are obvious.

Do you think it would be possible for you and I to have religious discussions that are frank and honest, yet maintain a high level respect for each person's viewpoint?

You said,

"If you allow yourself to fill your head up with a guru's ideas then you are only putting more outside stuff between you and a personal relationship with God and your authentic self."

--> Can you see how couching your ideas in such words immediately stops communication between you and I? Are you interested in re-wording such statements so that we can start having religious discussions that are meaningful for the both of us?

I fully acknowledge the difficulties that I (a non-Christian) have with religious discussions with Christians -- I have had very few such discussions that I would consider to be 'meaningful.' However, there is always hope. Let me know if you are interested in cultivating such hope.

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, 'Do you believe in the Son of God?'
He answered and said, 'Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in Him?'
And Jesus said to him, 'Your have both seen Him and it is He who is talking to you.''
Oh, no, Lord, you must not say such things. Who do you think you are? It's against the rules to hold strong opinions and even worse if you speak them in public. Our masters know everything there is to know and you can only become one of them as an equal--those are the rules since you have nothing new to say or bring the world that our old masters haven't already thought of and did. Look around you, young man, and see that the Temple and the masters, the rabbis, hold all the spiritual truth our masters tell us we need. We are self-sufficient and God is with us and not these pagan Romans who will be vanquished with God on our side.

 

[wil]

namaste sonoman,

so I take it the answer is no.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Sonoman,

Thanks for having allowed me to have a discussion with you.

 

[sonoman]

Arise, young Nick and help US pilot the Ship of Light to the yonder shore.

Hey, I'm a human being and I eat, sleep, and crap just like all of you. See that avatar of mine? It's a Jerusalem Cricket and those of us who suffer from Jerusalem Cricket Syndrome think we are the 2nd Coming of Jiminy Cricket and the Conscience of all wooden-headed puppets who want to be real human beings. So give me a break and let me work without snide remarks on OUR tiny ego.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

I think this is the crux of it to me...

I no longer see the creator or any being loving itself. I see love, I see the ethers, I see the 'tissue' that connects us all. I see G!d but not a deity. To me it is like a super computer: G!d is the ethernet; Jesus is the modem; we, rocks, trees, are terminals.

to quote Eric Butterworth ~ God is in us, not like a raisin in a bun but like the ocean in a wave.

I'm still working on a response to Path, but this came into my mind whilst I was doing it ... I would ask, does that not mean God has no existence outside of relationships? If God is the ethernet, but no-one's online, does God still exist?

That makes God more contingent, more relative, more ephemeral than anything else, doesn't it?

If God is defined purely by relationships — and I could argue the Christian view of God is strongly built along these lines (that's what the Trinity expresses, as Path touched upon) — then is God is not the producer of things, but the product of things ... God is not a cause, but an effect?

(There was a play on the radio a few years ago about a telephone network that became so complex it evolved its own consciousness, and began ringing people up to have its own conversations!)

We are, after all, exploring the human relationship with the Divine, so it's hardly surprising that Christianity expresses itself in relational values, but again we're brought back to the point that does the thing which relates everything to everything else have no actuality of its own?

Everything in creation exists as itself, and subsequently in relation to everything else ... it seems odd to me to suggest the only thing that doesn't possess a sense of selfhood, is God?

I can agree — to a limited extent — that we grasp at understanding God by understanding relationships, and maybe that's all we can understand (who can fathom the mind of God?) ... but to suggest that apart from relationships, there's nothing there ... that sets up some pretty impressive paradoxes, i think.

Thomas

 

[wil]

... I would ask, does that not mean God has no existence outside of relationships? If God is the ethernet, but no-one's online, does God still exist?...

While the analogy might not be completely well thought out. It just seemed appropriate to my fingers as an explanation at the time. But as any G!d description they are all woefully lacking.

But it seems you've answered your own question in this regard. Just cause no one is online does the net not exist? Or is it there available. As I indicated, at this juncture I know longer see G!d as the doer, but more the web that facilitates.

I remember driving down the road a few years ago listening to to science program on the radio where they were discussing string theory, and how while they saw this interconnecting web that touches everything, effects everything, virtually connects everything at this juncture in this science there existed no practical use for the knowledge (ie it benefited no spin off inventions or betterment to mankind) I was beating my dashboard at 65 mph hollering at the radio "It's G!d, it's G!d" Take it away, take away the thread of our universe and we have no fabric, nothing to weave.

(some are now nodding their collective heads, "this explains a lot")

 

[Thomas]

Just cause no one is online does the net not exist? Or is it there available. As I indicated, at this juncture I know longer see G!d as the doer, but more the web that facilitates.

Isn't that what I'm arguing, that God is there prior to the web? If the web facilitates, then someone/thing determined that he web facilitates ...

I'm saying the Kosmos — or indeed all that we can see and know — does not determine all that God is.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Kim —

I was trying to fold responses to the points you raise into this post ... but found myself up too many avenues! There are however a couple of points worth bringing out, so I am treating this as an intermediate step between where we were, and the 'next big thing' in this discussion, the Christian understanding of the human soul, and its relation to the divine.

Actually, I think we are a lot closer than might seem ...

There is one point I want to make a big deal of however, because it's fundamental to the discussion. Consider this: If God 'acts' because it is in His nature to act, does that not logically lead us to say He must act, because He must be true to His nature? This is an important point to get to grips with, because it sets up all manner of ramifications further down the line.

This is the path the Greek philosophers took.

Plato for example, held this principle of necessity with regard to the Deity. Plato explained it in terms of Forms or Ideas — the material things are instances of their transcendantal, perfect and unchanging 'Form' or 'Idea', such as The Good, The True, The Beautiful, etc. These Ideas are in themsmelves then pure essence, and higher than 'God'; The Good is a law that God is obliged to respond to, and thus the Good, possessing its own separate being, is other than the Divine Nature.

Christianity, from Her Hebraic heritage, held a radically different perspective. There is but one God, but there are a number of Transendentals. They saw, rather than God being a nexus of qualities, but no reality apart from them, that God is actually the source of those qualities, not a confluence of them.

(Proclus explored this in modad and henad ... the monad is one, the henads are a number of ones ... )

This is a huge point, because if one believes in God, and that God 'must be who He is', and creation is part of that 'must', then freedom has no ontological reality — it's a fantasia with no foundation in the Real — how can God impart to His creation a quality He does not Himself possess, and how can freedom be conceived of as a good, if it has no place in the order of things?

The Christian response was a solid refutation. The Good, for us, is a quality of the Divine Nature, proper to Itself, and not inherited from nor obliged to respond to what must be another, exterior impetus, an external, a higher-than-God. And this we must do because Christ said: "None is good but God alone" (Luke 18:19).

This tells us two things:
1 — There is only God, nothing higher, etc.
2 — That God is in Himself good, means God does not need to create ... creation does not make God 'better' ...

So yes, I see God as inherently creative, but not because He has to be — but because He chooses to actualise that aspect of Himself ... His freedom is not in creat-ion, His freedom is in creat-ing — creation then is a theophany, a manifestation according to an act of the Divine Will.

+++

"Even the tress are sacred" — thus reads (or read) a sign, on a tree, along a footpath on the island of Mt. Athos, the centre and pinnacle of Greek Orthodox spirituality. Panthestic on the surface, let alone panentheistic ... but of course not by intent ... the Greeks are way tougher than the Latins in that regard.

"All that exists outside God is, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God." That is a doctrinal statement and, I hope, can be argued from the points i have made above. Another, following that, states, "God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity."

ASIDE: Suppose for a moment we say God is obliged to create ... He is not obliged to create this particular creation, nor is He obliged to create anything in it ... so even if we allow for a compulsion, for a 'divine necessity', that does not sufficiently explain the Kosmos, or me ... both could have been something other ... God could fulfill His creative urge without either this Kosmos or this person ever being realised ... the fact that we do ... is that not a cause of wonder? and can any argument reasonably say, "Oh, it's not that big a deal, after all, God had to" ... ?

No. It seems to me I am obliged to say that either the Kosmos and I are unforseen byproducts of the creative process (or as the gnostics would have it — a tragic and abortive mistake) ... unlikely and illogical ... or that both exist, as they do, through a free creative act on the part of God of bringing them — both Kosmos and this person — into being out of nothing.

But then I am something of an optimist ...

+++

Creatio ex nihilo
If God is free to act as He wills, and what He wills is born of that freedom, then what is created is born free of any outside condition — which includes any idea of a pre-existing materia or substance that is the 'stuff or 'clay' of God's creation, otherwise the divine freedom would be circumscribed ("Don't blame me," God could say, "I did the best I could with what I had to hand.")

The Greeks had in fact conceived of this. Anaximander famously defined the ideaa of Apeiron, "the Boundless", which is ineffible, numinous, but in which arises the Arche, or Principle (logos) ... but the Boundless suffers no principle other than itself, being beyond principle. The Fathers translated this as Arche Anarchos "Principle without principle" — the Father, and the Arche or Logos, the Principle — the Son.

If this free act applies to the Kosmos, we also hold it applies to every thing that occurs within the Kosmos.

Here we diverged from the Greeks at a radical angle. They held the idea of emanationism — this doctrine has much appeal to the modern mind, but it is a two-edged sword.

The first aspect of emanationism is that what is created is not out of nothing, but is rather proceeds from, and is a mode of existence of the divine, under a self-imposed limitation. This was called the Great Chain of Being, and was often presented as the image of a spring bubbling over into a pool, the pool into a lower pool, that pool into a lower pool, and so on.

Most emanationism is a hierarchical descent, and as each stage is subsequent to its immediate parent, each stage is lower, and lesser, than its parent. This posits a Kosmos with a centre, emanating outward/downward, so that the lower and lesser is further removed from the source, and the way back to the source is back through the successive stages in an ascent. There is never any direct and unmediated experience of the stages above the stage directly above ... it's a long haul back ...

An intermediate form of emanationism envisages the same idea of the lower occupying outer rings, but the spirit passing through the Kosmos like the ripples on a pond, emanating from the centre, and effecting the 'corks' as they float, bobbing up and down, but not altering their physical position ...

Christianity came to reject this view too. As God stands in direct relation to the Kosmos He creates, so also and simultaneously does He stand in direct relation to each and every thing in it — He is Immanent in and throughout creation. Thus there is no hierarchical ascent, and no intermediary states — except one — in the Christian eschatalogical vision, each and every person stands in a one-to-one relation with God.

The obvious intermediate state is the limbic/purgatory state — but this is not really intermediary, as it still marks an order of relationship between the soul and God ... now as a comment made by Pope Benedict last Novemeber has put the cat among the proverbial theological pigeons, I would ask anyone reading this to wait before firing off a response to what they think about what they know of Christian eschatalogical doctrine ... if you want we can discuss this another time.

God's free act of creation is the fundamental principle of everything that exists — nothing exists necessarily for the sake of God, but everything that exists, exists necessarily for its own sake, which is the gift of selfhood that God imparts to it.

Made in the likeness and image, as Scripture tells us, does not mean made of the same substance, or of the same essence ... but rather made to share in those qualities the Divine possesses ... and the single quality that marks the human as different to all other species is its rational nature, which is an intrinsic necessity of freedom.

On to the soul ... and the person ...

Thomas

 

[sonoman]

I believe the gnostic sysysgies, the pairings of emanating aspects and properties of the Godhead given angelic identification are a primitive attempt to show evolutionary principles that they themselves did not understand. God evolves, or our human conception of God evolves, but without a clear idea of evolutionary change through time, how would ancients describe this process?

 

[wil]

But yes, 'non-theistic Christianity' is an oxymoron. Then again, if you believe in God, you are, by definition, a theist.
How you define the deity is another matter.

I think that is exactly the issue. If you define G!d as this entity that tosses around plagues and droughts and floods...I don't believe in Him. And still in many ways the word conjures up beliefs I don't have. As said by others spirit, source, collective consciousness don't suffice. So to me that Theism of old is just disappearing, all those conventions we held are folding upon themselves. As I don't believe the finger of G!d wrote the book, my current nontheistic beliefs don't detract from my love for the book, and its use in my life today.

Wil,

How does the concept of Jesus relate to nontheistic Christianity?

Jesus lead me to an understanding that I find no where else so complete. I and the father are one. We are all one.

Or, was he just a great teacher like, say, Buddha?

The issue I have here is the word 'just' move it three words down and I can accept the whole sentence. Or was he a great, just teacher like, say Buddha?

I would suggest that what the world seems to want is someone who will listen to their woes, not some abstract entity that has no relation to them and their existence, someone whom they can rely on, believe in ... someone who will love them.

That's why Christ said and did what He did.

Of course, there is a confusion of terms here ... it's not 'nontheistic Christianity', it's more accurately 'non-Christian theism'

And actually, it's just another mode of anthropomorphism.

Thomas

Not another antrhopomorphism, not non Christian. Christ is my savior, not by me saying so, but by me understanding his teachings and following his example.

Yes exactly what the world wants is someone to hear their complaints and someone else to blame and the whole I'm not worthy...original sin yadda yadda...and that is exactly why religions are there. To take away personal responsibility and dealing with nature and life as it is. Yeah He sent the flood to New Orleans because they were sinners (no telling why he saved the French Quarter) He caused the drought we need to pray more and build more churches.

Just because that is what the people want does not make it the truth, it just makes it a capital venture taking advantage, filling a need and making a substantial amount of money...

From One Radical Opinion | A Positive Christian Atheist

It didn't take long to figure out the answer. I made my final presentation into a diorama that compared the five different mythologies I had studied, I presented the story and god from each mythology over a set of seven common themes – "creation myth", "life after death", "flood story", "underworld", "end of the world", "ecology", and "ceremonies". I found my answer as my facilitator (DELV did not have "teachers") proofread my text.
"Oh, you're going to have to change this… and this… oh, you've got one on each panel, don't you?" I thought my poor facilitator would need a defibrillator. She was referring to the comparison to Biblical stories I had done for each of the seven themes. She explained to me in very straightforward terms that she understood what I was getting at and she even commended me for my analysis. I asked, "Why are those mythologies and these religions?"
"Because people who really believed in those gods died a long time ago and won't be around to pressure the school board to shut down gifted programs that mock their religions. Do you understand, Russ?"

Ah yes great answer.
From DT Strains review DT Strain Philosophy Blog: Notes on "Christianity Without God"

• In ‘Christianity without God’ there is no place for the traditional figure of Christ as the divine Savior. Yet there is certainly a place for Jesus the teacher.

I disagree with this notion. In my view of NonTheistic Christianity there still exists the divine....the understanding that we are connected with all, that yoU aNd EYE aRe 1ne, as my license plate says... I and the faher are one, we are all one... Whatever you do to others you do to Me...(and yourself) In his understanding of his divinity he becomes the great teacher, and when we understand our divinity and oneness with all he becomes our saviour.