Very nice singing and playing. Thanks for posting that for us Mark Andrew!

You're welcome Kimmio, I hope you have an excellent day!

Mark Andrew

Kitchener

Hi-mark_andrew78--I have read your other thread.. and lisoned to your song.You an I are on differnt paths I believe . I do welcome you here, and think some here think as you do. You have a nice day . airclean33

Nice!

Thanks for the message airclean. Thank you for your warm welcome, and I honour you on whichever spiritual journey enriches your life currently.

Mark Andrew

The Loving Room

Well done Mark!

Thanks somegal! I'm so glad it turned out well; just used my little digital camera!  I'm so excited to sing it this Sunday at my local Unitarian congregation. The whole theme is honouring sexual diversity and the LGBTQ community, something I strongly believe in.

Greetings!

The song is beautiful, your singing is enjoyable to listen to, your spirit shines through . . .

I think this song will very much fit with the theme.

Hope, peace, joy, love . . .

Two talented musicians. I disagree with most of the theology expressed. I do agree that God loves everyone. The problem, as I see it, is that not everyone loves God.

Thanks for the comment MorningCalm, and I respect it and you.  My first question would be, "What do you mean by God?" What does your mind or heart picture when that name comes  up? A separate entity, a Divine Person, an inner being?  Just curious.

Mark Andrew

Hi Mark.

My heart brings up that God is my Abba, my heavenly father who loves me unconditionally and wants only the best for me and others. My mind brings up that God is a separate entity from that which is not God; that he is the only one who is Divine; that there are three distinct persons each of whom is God within the Holy Trinity; and that while God is omnipresent, he is present in a unique way in Christian believers.

My mind also finds itself in agreement with John L. McLaughlin when he writes, "All metaphors have a 'Yes" and a 'No' with respect; they have continuity with the reality which is God, but no one-to-one correspondence, for no image or metaphor can capture God." (Source: Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 2000) 

What is God like for you?

The self-creative totality of being, of which I am an inseparable part.

<quote>

Hi Mark.

My heart brings up that God is my Abba, my heavenly father who loves me unconditionally and wants only the best for me and others. My mind brings up that God is a separate entity from that which is not God; that he is the only one who is Divine; that there are three distinct persons each of whom is God within the Holy Trinity; and that while God is omnipresent, he is present in a unique way in Christian believers.

My mind also finds itself in agreement with John L. McLaughlin when he writes, "All metaphors have a 'Yes" and a 'No' with respect; they have continuity with the reality which is God, but no one-to-one correspondence, for no image or metaphor can capture God." (Source: Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 2000) 

What is God like for you?

[/quote]

Hello again MorningCalm.

There was a time when the idea of God as my Father, or Abba, meant a great deal to me. The most influential book for me at that time was The Ragamuffin Gospel by Brennan Manning - if you haven't read it, run to the library or bookstore or Amazon.ca to get it. Manning deeply emphasizes the Abba love of God. I think I disagree with you that God is a distinct Being aside from ourselves, and the doctrine of the Trinity is something I haven't thought about for a long time - probably because I've been attending Unity, which does not believe in the Trinity, but in Oneness. Also, from your quote, I agree that no image or metaphor can capture God, and I believe that no one book or religion can contain God either.

To me, at least right now, I relate somewhat to Marcus Borg's term "panentheism." God is the Ground of All Being. In God we live and move and have our being. There is nowhere that we can go where God is not.  I also believe that God is not separate from us, but that we have a part of that divine nature within us. I see God as being more Spirit, not a Person.

Mark Andrew

Mark Andrew

I actually encountered panentheism a long time before I read Borg. It was first mentioned in a university class as an interpretation of Hindu notions of divinity and later in a course on science & religion that touched on Process Theology, which is a panentheistic theology (we have a member here called Panentheism who is a process theologian, BTW). For a while, I was pretty clearly a panentheist and still explore that path but when I actually write out what I currently believe, it seems more pantheist. My religion is an evolving thing, though, and I have been revisiting process in recent months to see if what sparked my interest 20+ years ago is still there.

Mendalla

Thank you for the book recommendation MA. I'll add that to my reading list, but it will be way down there. I don't have much time these days for personal reading. I'm a university student, so all my reading time is spent in school texts.

Oneness of what? Oneness of God and us?

Ooh, I have been warned to not read Borg. I believe that God is spirit, and that he is a person, not a thing or some kind of supernatural energy force.

To be truthful I like the idea of the inner light -- that there is some of God in each one of us. However, I do not see it as being adequately substantiated in Scripture. My understanding from the Bible is that each of us is born in a state of total depravity. Human nature, as I understand it, is wicked and carnal, not holy and divine.

Who warned you not to read Borg? From where I stand as a UU, being told not to read him in all likelihood makes him a must read. That said, I was well on the road to heresy and Hell long before I encountered his writing.

That's where we really part company (and where I parted company with Christianity as a whole). This defining of human nature in terms of it's negative side simply ignores the fact that we, and all of creation, are products of (or part of, if we're talking a Divinely created universe) a universe that is filled with wonder and beauty. That wonder and beauty are a part of us and we participate in them. Total Depravity and related doctrines deny that, IMHO. They essentially enforce this notion of flesh = bad and spirit = good when, in my understanding of reality, the two aren't even separable.

Mendalla

I believe Christ is and represents the light in the heart of humankind that existed since the beginning and is the good within us. He's timeless. He has always existed. The Bible teaches us this, that his light is not confined to particular linear time period. Historically, his existence in the flesh as an esoteric teacher was meant to teach of this timeless and eternal light,  to reignite it in the hearts of those who'd forgotten, and record it...so as to be a tangable example to those who read it, and keep the word alive through it...not dead in our greed and material passions or hiding behind a system of rigorous laws and statutes.  The same light is understood within other religious contexts as well. It is goodness. He's the archetypal perfect person, the perfect Son of God, created in God's image as God intended. He is and represents Adam before the fall. His light is still present in the hearts of good people, and following the way of Christ is following the inner light within us. I am not convinced that those who do not call themselves Christian do not have this inner light, nor can I be because it's not mine to judge. Jesus did say that he came not for the righteous but the sinners.

I heard Borg speak a couple of weeks ago. It was a very intellectual talk, very reasonable, and I learned a lot.  He breaks down a lot of  historical/ cultural misconceptions and misinterpretations of language and context...that's probably why people don't like him...people fear change and remaining open to new ideas (the talks I heard were about gaining a better understanding of some very old ideas...which is new to us--because we've bent some very old ideas all out of shpae over the centuries). It's nothing unusual that the establishement doesn't like to be challenged or encouraged to think differently.

That said, his discussion was more acedemic than spiritual, but I see that we need a solid understaning of the original concepts and their contexts in order to break down prejudices that lead to unfair judgment and all sorts of ill will. To me, there's a very spiritual element to that.

if I just may add to that MC, my 

Amen!

Amen - and remember there is a long history within christianity of this belief in the goodness of creation.  Of course, there is the question why do good people do wrong. The mistake of total depravity in trying to anwer this made it a metaphisical condition not just an epistemological question.  To make it a given as part of what is, is the metaphysical mistake - to say this is a substance - in modern terms our dna- is where it went wrong.  When, as you do, change the metaphysics to creation is good you have to change the epistemology, which you have done.

Thanks