Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Howard Brod on 8th mo. 25, 2016 at 2:28pm

Could it be that if what Keith is suggesting is entirely possible, and since Jesus himself provided an example of doing so, and since Jesus held out the probability that others will eventually do so as well - then this is no mere lark.  Rather, it is the whole vision, hope, and purpose of Jesus' whole being that others will be One with the divine as he was (is).

Whenever I doubt the probability or even the possibility "that people can know meaning, purpose, identity, conscious, and awareness without being influenced by or in regard to outward beliefs, systems, and institutions", I remember that Jesus did so himself and said so will others.  Then I realize when I am not in that place in my head and heart, it is entirely my ego that is afraid of letting go of control so I my become a full manifestation of the Light, so that the 'mind of Christ', the eternal Light that is the Source of all creation - can fully fill my being.

To deny that this transcendence can and will occur is to deny the core message and being of Jesus.  Ironically, Christianity has been in denial of his core purpose for being for nearly 2000 years now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 8th mo. 25, 2016 at 3:37pm

Keith, -- First I say that I'm not convinced that something can happen; and then you say that therefore I'm convinced that it can't happen.

~C(SH)  == C(~SH) ?

No, the logic entirely escapes me.

------------------

Meanwhile Howard Brod sayeth that Jesus was in precisely this condition, that "being one with the Divine" means "being entirely without ideas-about 'being one with the Divine'."

No, "being one with the Divine" is hardly the same thing as "having ideas about" -- but clearly doesn't preclude such ideas, unless you want to say that Jesus spoke about being one with God entirely without thinking anything... (which would suggest that God has no ideas either?) Where did you say the idea came from?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 8th mo. 25, 2016 at 4:30pm

Forrest it is clear the witness is unlikely and undesirable to you as you indicate yourself. I am willingly to concede that, while you currently find the witness unlikely and undesirable, you are open to it being likely and desirable. In any case, I appreciate your honesty that you currently find the witness unlikely and undesirable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David McKay on 8th mo. 27, 2016 at 11:53am

Then they (the "magistrates") ran into many words; but I told them they were not to dispute of God and Christ, but to obey him. [1650] - George Fox.

Context:  he is street preaching again and someone (an "officer") drags him before the magistrates. He speaks to them which results in an argument with him about his beliefs and the above is his response. It results in a 6 month sentence (which he serves). At the end of the sentence he is hauled before the magistrates yet again and offered his freedom if he will sign a document promising to take up arms against Charles Stuart should he invade England to take back the throne.  He declines and is physically assaulted by the judge who then orders him re-imprisoned for his insolence.

Seems to me this is proper salt and light to this particular thread.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 8th mo. 27, 2016 at 12:29pm

If I remember this rightly (from his _Journal_) what he says is that they offered him a commission; he wasn't so much supposed 'to sign a document promising' as to actually take command of a group of soldiers & lead them off to kill people in a still semi-active war. He then tells them what they can do with their commission.

Some people think that disputing is a bad; and some think it's sometimes a religious duty (Jews & Tibetan Buddhists according to Rodger Kamenetz); and I just says, "a person's gotta do what a person's gotta do." Whether or not one looks good in the process.

A lot of disputing falls into an adversarial mode which sheds all the light of an octopus fight; but if the people involved really want to get to the How-It-Is of a matter, exploring disagreements should be helpful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 8th mo. 27, 2016 at 3:04pm

Here are a couple larger chunks of text relating to David's post.

"Coming to Derby, I lay at a doctor's house, whose wife was convinced ; and several more in the town. As I was walking in my chamber, the bell rung; and it struck at my life at the very hearing of it. So I asked the woman of the house, what the bell rung for? She said there was to be a great lecture there that day, and many officers of the army, priests, and preachers, were to be there, and a colonel, that was a preacher. Then was I moved of the Lord to go up to them. When they had done, I spake to them what the Lord commanded me ; and they were pretty quiet. But there came an officer, and took me by the hand, and said, I must go before the magistrates, and the other two that were with me. It was about the first hour afternoon that we came before them. They asked me, why we came thither ? I said, God moved us so to do ; and told them, 'God dwells not in temples made with hands.' I also said, all their preaching, baptism, and sacri fices would never sanctify them ; and bid them look unto Christ in them, and not unto men ; for it is Christ that sanctifies. Then they ran into many words ; but I told them they were not to dispute of God and Christ, but to obey him. The power of God thundered among them, and they did fly like chaff before it. They put me in and out of the room often, hurrying me backward and forward, for they were from the first hour till the ninth at night in examining me. Sometimes they would tell me in a deriding manner, that I was taken up in rap tures. At last they asked me, whether I was sanctified ? I answered, yes ; for I was in the paradise of God. Then they asked me, if I had no sin 1 I answered, Christ, my saviour, has taken away my sin ; and in him there is no sin. They asked, how we knew that Christ did abide in us ? I said, by his spirit that he hath given us. They temptingly asked, if any of us were Christ? I answered, nay, we were nothing, Christ was all. They said, if a man steal, is it no sin? I answered, all unrighteousness is sin. When they had wearied themselves in examin ing me, they committed me and one other man to the house of correction in Derby for six months, as blasphemers ..." [pgs. 99, 100]

"The time of my commitment to the house of correction being very near out, and there being many new soldiers raised, the commissioners would have made me captain over them ; and the soldiers cried, they would have none but me. So the keeper of the house of correction was com manded to bring me before the commissioners and soldiers in the mar ket place ; where they offered me that preferment, as they called it, asking me, if I would not take up arms for the commonwealth against Charles Stuart? I told them I knew from whence all wars arose, even from the lusts, according to James's doctrine ; and that I lived in the virtue of that life and power that took away the occasion of all wars. Yet they courted me to accept of their offer, and thought I did but compliment them. But I told them I was come into the covenant of peace, which was before wars and strifes were. They said, they offered it in love and kindness to me, because of my virtue; and such like flattering words they used. But I told them, if that was their love and kindness, I trampled it under my feet. Then their rage got up, and they said, 'Take him away, jailer, and put him into the dungeon amongst the rogues and felons.' So I was put into a lousy stinking place, without any bed, amongst thirty felons, where I was kept almost half a year ..." [pg. 113]

Source: The Works of George Fox, Vol. 1

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 8th mo. 27, 2016 at 3:12pm

Hello David,

Are you using the quote from Fox's journal to say that people should not dispute of God and Christ and this thread is an example of what Fox was speaking out against? I just want to be sure I am clear as to your intent.

Also, Did George Fox follow his own suggestion to not dispute of God and Christ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David McKay on 8th mo. 27, 2016 at 6:26pm

I think that stories can be normative but that we need to be careful when we take them that way. It is in their very nature to be particular and to expand them to the universal often does violence to them. So no, I do not believe that it is always wrong to argue about our faith. And if I were to suggest that Fox never did so I would suspect there are people here who know the early Quaker writings as well or likely better than I do and would flood me with counterexamples.

I think the story I cited can serve as something of a warning however. My reading of Fox and the early Quakers is that they were taking in anti-Augustinian turn. Augustine defined "faith" in terms of propositional agreement — "thinking with agreement". Fox shifts things toward faith as faithfulness (though I suspect he would prefer the term "obedience"). When our arguments go on for too long they can become a substitute for right living. And I think this is what Fox was getting at with his example.

I am remembering a passage from the Imitatio Christi. It is more important to feel compunction then to be able to define it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 8th mo. 27, 2016 at 6:57pm

Propositions can contribute to understanding, but don't constitute understanding.

"Faithfulness" is not "right living" -- and neither of these things are substitutes for what I think Fox was trying to convey,  but natural consequences of it -- of something people have a great many words for -- but no words adequate for wrestling it to the ground. (Jacob got off lightly with that sprained hip, yes?)

That is, I think, what we've been arguing "about" -- but I suspect that it gets expressed in a great many ways, that there are many partial findings of it along the various ways that lead in that direction...

& getting stuck in any of these isn't such a bad thing, but is partial.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 8th mo. 28, 2016 at 12:09am

---
Hello David,

I appreciate your responses to the first part of my first question and to second second question. However, I am still not clear on what your intention was in linking Fox's admonishment against disputing of God and Christ specifically with the thread. You ended your initial response to this thread with:

"Seems to me this is proper salt and light to this particular thread."

You seem to suggest that your quotation of Fox is proper seasoning and sheds proper light on the content of this specific or "particular" thread? And in response to my question about the this specific thread itself, I am assuming the content was a response to my questions, you wrote:

"When our arguments go on for too long they can become a substitute for right living."

So, to follow up further on your response: What directly was your intent in specifically linking the words you quote from Fox with this particular thread? In short, what were you trying to convey about this particular thread relative to your citation of Fox?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David McKay on 8th mo. 28, 2016 at 7:30am

I would need to back track and locate the posting I was responding to. It is not immediately visible to me.

I was responding (initially) to a set of postings which seemed more epistemological than theological - about how our beliefs impact/structure our experiences. I myself am something of a social constructivist (i.e., my experience of drinking my morning coffee is socially constructed - even more so my spiritual experiences. But the conversation seemed to be moving into technical areas. It made me think of Fox -- which I had been reading that same morning for totally other reasons -- and the irony jumped out at me.

BBS-style conversations (like this one) approximate but are not identical to real-time face-to-face conversations.  We are not always in the same head space the next day. I tend to respond to overall impressions.  Perhaps I simply sensed more heat than light and incorrectly read the situation. No one else here seems to feel so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 8th mo. 28, 2016 at 11:59am

---
David,

That is fair enough. Thank you.

Your words concerning social constructionism brought to mind the words of William Penn in his preface to George Fox's Journal.

Penn writes:

" ... they [Quakers] equally dislike an independency in society; an unaccountableness in practice and conversation to the terms of their own communion, and to those that are the members of it. They distinguish between imposing any practice that immediately regards faith or worship, (which is never to be done, nor suffered, nor submitted unto,) and requiring christian compliance with those methods that only respect church-business in its more civil part and concern, and that regard the discreet and orderly maintainance of the character of the society, as a sober and religious community."

This little snippet does the subject little justice. I assume you have read Penn's preface.

William Penn was among those whose conscience matched that of George Fox regarding the institutionalization of the Quaker gathering. There were many among the gathering who whose conscience did not match the impulse toward institutionalization. William Rogers was one who spoke out against Fox's "recommendations." Concerning independency he wrote:

"Yes, verily, we are for an Independency, that is to say not to depend on the Counsel of one man, nor yet to depend on the counsel of General, Quarterly or Monthly Meetings, but as there is sufficiency in the Grace of God, that is given unto us to profit withal, so to have a Dependency on that Grace, to teach, direct, and instruct in all things, relating to the inward Man of the heart; knowing that it's against the nature of that Principle in which we have believed, to have a dependency on any thing that is outward."
Source: The Christian Quaker ..." First Part. pg. 38, William Rogers, 1680

I do not share your adherence to social constructionism. There is another way of being in this world that does not reference or participate in the process of being informed by outward social concepts and the social models and language that is fashioned through those concepts. By the power and Grace of the inward Light itself in itself anchoring my conscious and informing my conscience I testify to the witness that there is another way human being can participate with one another and gain meaning, purpose, and identity that rests solely in participation with immanent Presence itself in itself without reference to outward social, political, economic, or religious constructs.

Please know. I do not say this in a spirit of animosity or anger. Nor do I wish to change your conscience on these matters.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page