Why do you view horizontal and vertical transcendence as polar opposites that are inconpatible, since neither term is meant literally? 

Welcome, Andrew. This is an interesting project you've embarked on. I am not a theologian, so I am not comfortable being the first lemming over the fence!...But I will give it some thought, and will be interested to read and perhaps contribute to the discussion as it goes along.

Hi AndrewG. Welcome to wondercafe.

I think horizontal and vertical transcendence are the same.

In my world view, God is the totality of being. Thus, when we transcend our egocentric indvidual selves and connect with everyone and everything (horizontal transcendence), we also connect with God (vertical transcendence).

Arminius...do you think God connects others with him through us through time, through thoughts and ideas, and emotions, and the expression of them, and through DNA...all weaved together...sort of like stringy glue...horizontally...like a web weaved between branches that will eventually make one complete tree will that will all make sense? When I think of verticle transcendence I think of "sky-daddy", but I don't really feel that way about God..only in that God is the totality of everything.  God is something more whole and all encompassing than what I view the concept of verticle transcendence to be unless I've got the concept wrong, so the verticle transcendence idea makes sense.

Arminius,

When you continually say that God is the totality of all being, you seem to be implicitly assuming a contrary view that God is NOT the totality of all being.  But even the traditional view claims that God is the source of all being; so the totality of all being would in that sense be manifestations of God.  The question is, can God create freely conscious beings, who are part of God, and yet, capable of denying God's will that we express pure unconditional love?  Put differently, is there a commonly held view of God that you think denies your premise?   

Such conflicts drive observers, outside the faith (that all is known) into questioning the possibility of bent space ... thus enabling the focussing of light into the brae 'n. Now there's a way to get light into a dark place (Joseph Conrad). Sort of "out-there" approach ...

Then Bishop Ambrose, like a lot of church fathers, felt that common folk shouldn't know anything or question nuthin ... thus leading to the Lush Ambrosian See ... where mankind finds themselves senseless as they arrive. Hopefully they'll learn something during the dip ... and the old GUI will still ask the question from inner space: "My child what didjah learn out there?" Being that intellect is beyond (myth) the body in will, does it give yah the willies to go there ... out-of-the-box we call church ... overly confined in all degrees of magnitude ...

• Don't look Margaret
• Don't listen (to anything beyond the wall)
• Don't speak ovite
• Certainly don't think onite as unknown ...

Makes the devils (dae Mons/de mohs) chuckle over the aberration of democrazy in a world that despises socialism ... too big for the wee centred gods to envision?

Perhaps some balance would be prerequisite. Hebrews defined people as san' ... Luce Lye translated as hate ... the normal case when dealing with overt competitiveness that leads to the Red Lady ... whore/war? Bloody alien in heaven ... it's enough to wake the dead ... Red Skye in the morning .. o-OH chi's goana storm ... the bleeding thing-heh goes on ...

If you put a cross in the san' .. you get sant' meaning healthy ... like a kind word is good for the sol' ... sante clause contrary to the heated word ... too emotional? Tuck ID away in the dark ... the pits of the word will cool eM ... Solomon's Mines ... as ole story of myth of mine d'existing as divine, sect'd. Part absolute and part imaginary? Isn't that sum Pin ... a point to get over like Sysiphus ... sort of like a chill down the spine when yah whet ID ... cold reins of the super m'n ... tis a dark Poe'L ... dah nous ...

@ Berserk,

I don't think they have to be exclusive or polarized and didn't intend to suggest that. As you say, they don't have to be taken literally. Different tools for different trades or directions, so that we can have an opportunity to see things with new eyes... :-)

@ everyone

Wow, I didn't expect this much of a response! Thank you so much. I need a few minutes to catch up and read all these ideas.

Hello AndrewG and welcome to the WonderCafe,ca

Transcendence means "going beyond" and I would think that going beyond would encompass the horizontal as well as the vertical.  So I would think qualifying transcendence (directionally at any rate) would be something of a redundancy.

Theologically speaking trancendence is applied strictly to God and contrasted/compared to immanence which is also applied strictly to God.  Looking at Goodenough it would appear that she is using the term in a Philosophical context.

In the human realm we transcend when we move beyond and again directional transcendence seems redundant.  I'm not sure that I buy into the concept of out there (transcendence of the vertical) and in here (transcendence of the horizontal).

Grace and peace to you.

John

I like where the comments are going so far. It's important to hammer out the similarities as well as the differences between horizontal and vertical.

Kimmio and Arminius point out how the two can be similar in that 'transcendence' seems to be about going beyond "our egocentric indvidual selves" and connecting with some "other".

Kimmio's mention of the 'sky-daddy' is important - the vertical direction seems to be commonly associated with that kind of god, whether that's fair or unfair. Horizontal transcendence could very well be useful in portraying a person's god as a more 3-dimensional god then.

To Berserk's question - "is there a commonly held view of God that you think denies God as the totality of being?"

Well, aside from how outsiders opt to define god, there is a commonly held view about separateness. Not all people might be willing to make the connection between the traditional view (source of all being) and the view from Arminius (totality of all being). A source doesn't necessarily have to have all things within it.

This gets into one of Ursula Goodenough's points from the book - from nothing but, something more. Kinda poetic. What she's getting at though is change (or I think she uses emergence). It doesn't mean the source has to intend or plan the next manifestation, but instead provide all that is used for it. The relationship doesn't have to be source = total.

I'm getting off track here though. So I'm going to try to steer this now from one cliff  edge to another cliff edge.

I was looking for specific examples that could be interpreted as horizontal rather than vertical. Two things come to mind and I figure they might be good starts for specific texts -- Genesis and the Iliad. (Hebrew and Greek sources, to hearten waterbuoy, I guess...)

(1) In the Jacob story in Genesis, Jacob has a dream of a ladder ascending into the sky, with angels going up and down. God is at the top. That seems like a clear example of a vertical representation of transcendence.

Later, Jacob meets Esau, bows to him and they embrace once again as brothers. Would this stand as a horizontal representation of transcendence?

(2) In the Iliad, Achilles kills Priam's son Hector and even takes the body so it cannot be buried with proper ceremony. Priam then goes to Achilles and weeps before his adversary, vulnerable. Achilles sees his own father in Priam and weeps as well. He returns the body of the dead son and the two see and proclaim each other divine.

Would this not be an example of horizontal transcendence?

Yes, Kimmio, that how I feel and think about God. To me "horizontal" or "vertical" transcendence are metaphors for going beyond the illusion of seperateness and experiencing the unity of being.

Well, there is the view that God is a supernatural being who stands outside the universe and runs it, the "celestial dictator" that Hitchens and other anti-theists rant against.

Yes, I think we are part of God, but those of us who are not consciously aware of this do not experience the unconditional love that accompanies this unitive awareness. God's love is omnipresent. It is not God who denies us its love, it is we who deny it to ourselves.

[Arminius:] Well, there is the view that God is a supernatural being who stands outside the universe and runs it, the "celestial dictator" that Hitchens and other anti-theists rant against.

Yes, there are unsophisticated Christians who overly anthropomorphize God and transform "Him" into a pretext for patriarchy.  But even they empty the concept "outside the universe" of its meaning by implying divine immanence as well as transcendence.  So I guess the meaninginful question is this: when they insist that God "runs the universe," what is the difference between what they typically mean and what you mean?  After all, if God is All That is, including the universe, then God in some sense "runs the universe", since the universe (= God) runs itself.  So again, other than crude language, what is the substantive difference in conception of the divine?   2 Peter 1:4 teaches that we are all destined to become aware that we "participate in the divine nature." 

I like to pose a similar question when involved in a debate about the reality of a demonic realm.  To me, the stereotype of a demon in red tights with horns and a pitch fork is just a way of ducking the most relevant issue: what does the empirical evidence suggest about disagreements about the reality of personal evil, unjust suffering, spiritual warfare, and possession in our world?  The metaphysical questions are ultimately unanswerable and thus meaningless.  Indeed, the Bible never even explicitly claims that Satan is an "angel."   So debates like these should be confined to the limits and dangers of various threats to positive human experience.   

Just to be clear, I did not mention God in the original post at all. That was deliberate.

Here is a new way to ask what I wanted to ask of the group:

What is your favourite story in the bible about change?

What stories are there in scripture where someone transcends their situation, makes a connection with something or someone else?

What stories in scripture are there about building bridges?

Come on, all you bible-experts! Share that database of scripture in yer heads!

Examples:

1. In the story of Joseph a brother done wrong finally does forgive those that sent him into slavery. He reunites his family and his own children get a blessing from Jacob/Israel. I think this could be cast as an example of horizontal transcendence. The characters are still "going beyond", dealing with change, but it is not into some heavenly direction or lofty tower. It's about giving a family food and a new home and a new future.

2. Elijah being swept up and ascending to the sky is, I think, an example of a story of vertical transcendence, casting aside the earthly realm for something beyond, something supposedly higher. 

I have long thought of sleep as "horizontal transcendence"…

sorry… that was flippant.

Isn't the more" discernible in all of our relationships and interactions at any time? Isn't transcedence an outcomes-independent "greatened" experience of the "now"? Isn't it all about what we attend to? I'm persuaded that trurh is everywhere, if we learn to enter into it. (If, rather, we try to possess it or make it "ours" it crumbles).

My favorite story about change is Matthew'd (and Mark's) story in which Jesus is deftly corrected by the Syro-Phoenecian (Canaanite) woman:

Matthew 15: 21-28 (NIV):

Jesus went away from there, and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.” But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.”But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once.

It's a remarkable turning point in the gospels and the only place in which Jesus is "bested" in an argument, and (intriguingly given the cultural context, it comes from a woman)… it's as though Jesus saw his role more widely after that point… less as a reinvigoration of Judaism than as a universal call to a new spirituality.

When you look at the emergence of the character of Jesus in the Gospel narratives, you certainly start seeing the influences of context and moment: Jesus was not unresponsive and incarnation was NOT like popping a DVD in the player. I have found a lot to discover from the Gospels, reflecting on the interactions, rather than just the actions of Jesus during his ministry period.

While I don't see different spatial ways of thinkinging in any kind of conflict, shifting our perspective (often and deeply) can help us catch fresh insights — in other words, these things are more about us than our "subject matter"… it's us that can turn upside down, sideways or backwards; inwards or outwards …it's still the same universe, the same ultimate mystery, the same necessary one-ness. But, like a coat; it IS different when it's worn, rather than gazed at on a hanger.

The terms are useful as concepts. I was walking at night in a forested area on the island of Montreal close to Lac de deux Montagne. I looked up at the stars. For a brief moment the sky, stars, universe, became animated as though it was all a living being, one cosmic entity made of a host of entities. Not just living but also transmitting a beautiful music, like a symphony, that was the universe. I was part of that, not separate from it. I still retained a sense that I was observing, hearing, sensing, but I was almost lost in this grand symphony but it didn't matter if I was so small because I was eternal too. (If you're eternal you're "big" no matter if you're small because you are forever!) It, the Universe, was Eternal and so was I. There was no death. Death is an ego expereince only. There was no ego.This also happened in South America as I was going over the Andes. I was looking up at the stars. They were not simply dead points of light from mere bodies of fire as stars are supposed to be. They were living entities and part of that grand cosmic symphony. Like gods or angels. It was an orchestra!

I think these may be vertical experiences. Sounds silly maybe but... I was looking "up!"

Sometimes I get a sense of history that is very powerful. It is somewhat transcendent as its a sense of something bigger than me of which I am a small player.  Its very linear but almost timeless but in a different sense than above its full of timefulness. Is this horizontal transcendence?

Transcendence with the other? Good sex? When one cannot sense the boundary where I end and the lover begins? Oneness?

Vertical Transcendence in the Bible: The Gospel of John has this up and down theme. Jesus came down and will return, ascend up to the Father. One of its many dualistic themes.

Hi Berserk:

I am not really opposed to the traditional view of a separate, supernatural creator God. God is that, but also more. In my case, my present day view of God encapsulates the old authoritarian God, but around this ancient core concept I built a view of a pantheistic, panentheistic or unitheistic God. Actually, my favourite term is "unitheistic."

On the whole, I embrace process theology, where the definition of God is a creative process in which we all participate. This process is an evolutionary process by which old ideas don't get left behind but are encapsulated by new ideas and carried forward: development through envelopment.

Life can be likened to a building site: we lay new stones on top of those that were laid before us, until the spires of the cathedral of the human spirit touch heaven. Vertical transcendence, eh? But the cathedral has to expand sideways as well in order to carry these tall spires.

But we are sidetracking Andrew's thread. Lets get back to horizontal transcendence in scripture. These new definitions of God that I write about are more like vertical transcendence and often are the result of an experience of vertical transcendence. But, as it often happens—Paul is a prime example of that—vertical transcendence preceeds horizontal transcendence.

Not every mystic becomes a saint (I ought to know :-), but most saints received their impulse to saintly action through a mystical experience.

Natural versus un-natural?

In a   world where hate appears to be the paradigm, is affinitive action super natural or is that just beyond (myth) of the horizontal case. Reminds me of the construct odd super Ego as a myth of the Ego ... unbalanced self-centered ness .. overly aware of the self and nothing else counts? That's very God-like without bede viling thought ... getting out therein ... a stretch of non-essential mined! That's beyond many belief systems that are institutionalized ... stuck inna rut?

It you construct a myth of the soul/psyche/mind in Myers-Briggs fashion of the personality profile (looking at it from outside the sytem?) we have fear and anger on the horizontal axis and curiosity at the foot o'vite ... Joie at the apex ... but then that would be definitive of creating an image of soul out of near nut'in. Serves as a trap ... de Nous ... for collective passions ... takes time and thus the ðt 's mentioned in other string ... al'co hogg 'n as adict shin ... very spiritual Jinn! Anon-essential thing ... but does assist in alternate thinking like Mary Jane used by desert wanderers to assist them in getting bi b'y ... but seldom discussed ... often talked over not through as a woman in the room. Not much reverenced as a sigh in a fabric of black ... hidden stories ... heiros gammos! Mudder of Goad ... like a go'thik idiom ... just symbol of sum thin else aijin!

Hi -AndrewG-What is Vertical? What is Horizontal? We are in movment an traveling all the time.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Complex Motion of the Earth

The Earth spins around its axis as it orbits the Sun. Our entire Solar System slowly orbits around the Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy belongs to the Local Group of galaxies, where it is also moving.


As for builing a Bridge.  How about--------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to Wondercafe Andrew.

Off hand as someone not familar with the language involved in horizontal Transcendence, thus I am not very sure what you are referring to. However I believe one of my favorite stories in the bible from Matthew 15:22-28 and  Mark 7:25-30 can be examined as a kind of horizontel transcendence.  

This is the story where Jesus called a women a bitch.

She had asked for help, and essentially Jesus responed by saying why should I help a dog.  (She was a Canaanite, who were often refered to as dogs)

She reaches out to him, he insults her,  she teaches Jesus a lesson, and Jesus aknowledges this by giving her his help, and healing her daughter.          Both Jesus and the women are examples of what I think you are talking about. 

If it's is not clear why I think so, I can further explain if you need to see the story as I do.

OH Wondercafe is a great example of a community that practices horizontel transcendence, Your request is a good example. We help each by reaching out to each other and are more or less on the same level. We do so by listening, responding, and challenging, and if we are able to  transcend our differences we grow closer to God, (or Gods for some, or a truth(s) for athiests) 

no where in that passage does Jesus call a woman a bitch or a dog, that is also out of character and nature for Jesus towards the simple at heart. The parable is about how some people treat the word of God

Hi blackbelt,

Technically true.  Jesus does not say, literally, "You are a dog" or even, "You are a bitch."

There is, however; an inference that the Syrophoenician woman is numbered among the dogs.

The woman makes a request of Jesus, a request which is not atypical of the requests made of Jesus.  She asks Jesus for help in driving the demon(s) from her daughter.

Jesus responds with the line, ""first let the children eat all they want, for it is not right to take the children's bread and through it to the dogs."  Which reads much differently than say, "I'd be happy to help your daugter."

The inference is that the Syrophoenician woman (and thus her children) are not counted among the "children" but are rather numbered among the "dogs."  Dogs being a derogatory term for Gentile.  Hence the note in verse 26 that she was "a Greek".

The woman is not repulsed by the exclusion.  Indeed she embraces it and runs with the imagery by responding, "Even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."  Which is the woman agreeing that she is not one of the "children" and is one of the "dogs."  By pointing out that the dogs eat the crumbs she is asking only for the grace of God that is thrown discarded by the children and swept onto the floor.  A crumb of grace will be sufficient for her need.

Jesus, commends the woman's faith and the demon is cast out.  The woman is still not one of the "children" she is content with the crumbs in much the same way a family dog, will wag its tail when offered crumbs.

Not so out of nature that the conversation didn't happen apparently.  Dogs being sustained by crumbs is not out of keeping with the notion of Jews being a blessing to all nations and the scraps of God's grace which his chosen people sweep off of the table to the floor still have powerful impact upon the dogs who find them.

The genre here is not parable.  Nor is how people treat the word of God the message.

The text most strongly resembles (from where I sit) prophetic literature.  It aligns fully with the notion that salvation is offered to the Jews (children) before it is offered to the Gentiles (dogs).  

The woman makes a request.  Jesus essentially says "It isn't your turn" and the woman essentially replies, "a crumb then until it is my turn."  Jesus aquiesces and her daughter is healed.

Grace and peace to you.

John

To the powerful of the day ... women were nothing but dogs. There are some that are still all wrapped up in the darkness of the veil when it comes to the metaphor of the myth and the sol' entity. If you cannot observe this spectre (sort of a genre) then you must do some dirty work beneath the tables in the temple ... isn't that sublime ... like bete noire?

Then there remain de-aphe and deb-lined to the order of the wee pieces in the temple of des crypt ... tome for hidden words? Then how many do you know out of the poel 've Magi? It's dark you know ... like th' m ID nuit sun!

Do authorities believe they need to know sacred knowledge ... like baffling word? It is said there are 600,000 minus the 500, 600, or so that the average Joe's aware of ... an unconscious mined of sort ...sol' Ammon in de san ... that's without (like myth)!

If you called  Ephraim of sol ab ithch-Ais ... wod chi bite like an asp? Then they say some people won't address their Pan esh pal ... is it a wonder they don't Ego aboot any intercourse ... so the isolated m'n doesn't hear the depth o'vi dahl!

Can anyone tell me why psyche is considered in myth Toby of feminine genre, and a thought like m'n is considered a pain in the midst of the Sea? That can change to a different type of agitation ... Omi Gaw'd!

Hi revJohn

yes agreed, of course i didnt go into detail of that passage, Jesus use dog as a metafore in His teaching to the woman 

Andrew check out Charles Taylors Secular Age, JesusJazzBuddhism web site - Process and Faith web site.  What you are asking is a theological question - the bible is time bound here, transcendence is up there because that is how they could understand the world, now with a few of interdependent relationality you can now talk of a more to the  horizontial transcendence - that God is in the world and the world is in God and God is more than the world and the world is itself.  There is a web of relationships and God is within it and part of it, and the web is full of individual realities through which Love Supreme works, and those realities  also bring their own information and unigueness.

When you change the theological construct you are more able to read back into the bible a hoziontial transcendence.  The theological construct makes sense of a God who works in the world, which is what the biblical writers we affirming - for example the meaning of transcendence is God is within the world.

Is God a huge encompassing word?

The Hebrews made it all as one word and called it's Torah as mythological in a realm that just burned the mythical nature of psyche ... Roman foot ... nob'nailed sol'?

That's tuff eh ... not what the eternal emotions spoke to Moes's ...

Wow! I have a lot of catching up to do.Thanks for all the responses here and specific references. 

The story in Matthew  ( 15:21-28) and Mark (7:25-30) is now on my list for Robert. Thanks MikeP and Alex and blackbelt and revjohn. John 17:11 is on the list too although I'm not totally sure on the interpretation. Thanks to airclean for that one.

@MikeP - flippancy is warmly welcomed! There are many, many transcendent things that come to my mind when I'm horizontal ;-)

@Arminius - your comment about Paul and " vertical transcendence preceeds horizontal transcendence" is intriguing. In theology that might very well be the case, but I don't think it is always the case. revjohn nailed it above when he wondered if Goodenough was using transcendence in a more philosophical sense rather than theololgical sense. I'll say more about this below to others.

@Darrel - I find the two concepts useful too. Have you read Robert's poem (link in original post)? He plays with those two experiences, in a sense, looking up and looking across times or places. the two are different, but they don't have to be exclusive, right?

@airclean - horizontal and vertical in this sense are not literal. At best they might be metaphorical or literary. Tools, not truth, labels, not actuals. I like the idea of how we are moving all the time. That could be a good illustration on how our we are always in states of transcendence maybe... and it is not in polarized directions...

@Alex - Yes, wondercafe is a great example! That's why I thought I'd try this out on the gang here. 

@Panentheism - this particular project of Robert's is definitely an attempt to map a modern concept on an old book. And so yes, changing the theological construct can help with doing "reading back into the bible", as you put it. Someone else (maybe Hermanson?) suggested The Secular Age to me before. It's on my (ever-growing!) list.

The problem is getting people to change the construct, though. Ursula Goodenough's work is an attempt to see transcendence with new eyes. So far, on this thread alone, transcendence has been 'defined' or 'described' as:

- God is within the world 

- going beyond

- making a connection beyond the self, the ego, and relating to an 'other'

- from nothing but, something more (Goodenough's contribution)

She is an active member in a Presbyterian Church but a self-described atheist. So, it's not a theological thing for her. She is threading the line here between theology, philosophy, and maybe even language (as revjohn pointed our earlier).

Somewhere in the OT, there is a story about a guy with a pet sheep. He treats it like a pet and gets criticized for it. I don't know where to find the passage though. Does anybody know that story? It might be another example of connecting horizontally with nature or some 'other' instead of looking up to connect vertically.

@waterbuoy - do you have a favourite spiritual story about change, or making a connection?

Did I miss anyone? Flame me if I did, I'm sorry. I gotta go pick up the wife.

I like all the stories in the New testament that shows the humanity in Christ, even at it's worse. Remeber the Fig tree story.  Even for those us who profess Jesus as  God, these stories show us his hunanity,. It is in his humanity that Jesus becomes accessible to me and others in a horizontel way.

It is because of those story that I am able to see Christ and the Caaninite women  in other wondercafe members when they  debate, fight, and yes even when we insult (knowingly or not) each other. The humanity of Christ allows me and others to see, because other Gods are only up there and above us. Christ is with us, and among us.

Just because I like to use music, poetry and art to express, what I find I am unable to do with words

Yes, Alex, God is one of us, and God is us and beyond us. Thus, seeing God in everyone and everything, and going beyond the narrow confines of the egocentric self and thinking and acting selflessly, is always a transcendence of the egocentric self into godliness.

Scriptural examples abound, but making it a personal practice is even better.

AndrewG,

My favourite is the all inclusive HO-HO Storah ... putting it all together as expressed in Revelations .. for the story is so pluralized there isn't room for it all on the earth ...

What? An unearthy portion! That wouldn't be down to earth ... suggestive of something virtually out of here ... like black's myth 'n space?

Cos for a quest, journey, Odysseus, hajji in the unknown dimension of the sol'? Romantic wouldn't go there ... no emotional context to control ... purely intellectual? Sometimes ID's goETh to drift there ... but don't get caught in dah floe ... without a wii desire ... the spark of life in a dead story ...

Hi AndrewG-- I think I understood what you where saying. I tryed to show GODS wonders, that most may not understand.That I think Man is on the path of Transendence. No I don't, I am talking about the Flesh. To dust you were , to dust you shell return. The passage I gave you, In John:  ------------------------------------------------

-To me shows That Jesus Bridges Himself with GOD. That same bridge though Him is open to us.But GOD is not flesh an blood.John : 6-63-- The flesh is of no avail.As God formed the earth , He was not done , and He formed the Galaxies . I Believe Gods plan to be more Than just man. But then I am not God, I just follow Him that said He Was.

Hi AndrewG,

The only bells your description rings are Nathan's confrontation of David after the death of Uriah 2 Samuel 12:  1-5.  It isn't quite the same as what you are remembering so I may be off.

Possibly you are remembering the Passover instructions of Exodus 12:  2-6?

Grace and peace to you.

John

@revjohn - yes, I think that's the one. I think I will adjust my memory to 2 Samuel. :-)

@airclean - Ok. I think the passage might very well be about bridging to God, but then not transcendence in the sense Goodenough is talking about. I'll include it on the list though, and let Robert decide if it works for his project.

@waterbuoy - it's fun to see your meanings are as pluralized as are stories.

@A and A - I haven't listened to Joan Osborne in a long time! I wonder what she's up to now. I've added the unfruitful fig tree story to the list too.

@Panentheism - in a separate search, I found an article by Cornel du Toit entitled, "Towards a New Natural Theology Based on Horizontal Transcendence". He refers to Taylor's Secular Age quite a lot. I'll make sure to include Taylor with what I gather up for Robert.

[oh, and I checked your profile. So you are George? We've talked elsewhere, on another site. Good to meet up once again!]

One last question for all and then we can tie up this thread:

Since Goodenough's use of horizontal transcendence is tied to nature and evolution, are there any scripture stories in which transcendence is specifically of-this-world or initiated between earth-bound inhabitants? Instead of "heavenly risings", are there earthly connections? Any "find God in nature" psalms or the like?

Something as simple as the "love your neighbour" rule seems more horizontal than vertical, for example.

Thanks once more to all that contributed and participated!

To Rev John:

Pretty good crumbs!

Is horizontal transcendence related to God as immanence? I've heard og God as creativit process (top to bottom) and God as evolutionary process (bottom to top). Somewhat like Sri Aurobindo's ideas (as much as I can understand him)

Yes I am George Hermanson - you might want to check Process Studies as she gave a paper at one of their conferences on science and religion.  Again I say that Process Theology solves many of the problems of transcendence and Immanence>  We cannot ask the bible to give us transcendence other than up there - it is their world view - however we can given our world view suggest that the picture of transcendence coming and experienced in this world - like the incarnation in Jesus - can be read from our point of view - the point is we cannot make the writers say what they cannot say given their perpsective, but we do not have to be caught in their perspective - this is what theology does - understand the past and the the present and make connections out of our metaphysics - because in the end that is what is the discussion is about.

Pan,

That was awesome, sort of whets the fire for some ESS Teaming work ...

It's  Nordic tradition after which you douse yourself with snow ... the cool ID tradition that comes with process ... that's th'aught ... nothing to the desires! There is an opposing function of images ... without transcendance .. walking in the other's shoes?

Sufi Odyseuss? Under the fey word ... a wonderer!

Tha's ole man ... like Ja'ZZ Zai ... makes dah 'art leap ... deire meis!