Reincarnation - Theology Panel
Theology Panel,
I think we will add interest to Crossleft if we proceed to write on the topics Rich has listed. Jim wants to write on meditation.
I would like to write on reincarnation.
Writing on the theological topics will be one way of tuning into the right brain hemisphere.
Supporting social justice and actively caring for others will be a way to activate the left brain hemisphere.
As a woman, I am forever wanting to understand the dynamics behind behavior. I perceive the man as most often wanting to fix the problem, to do something.
We can accomplish much by consciously using the Whole Mind Approach to activities on Crossleft.
Plus, metaphysicians teach that achieving the state of androgyny is essential for progression on the spiritual path.
- NancyDetweiler's blog
- Login or register to post comments
NP
I can do that. Gotta run now, though. So I'll try to put up the text later. And in the future, I'll put up both.
BTW, all you should need to do is click the link, and your computer will do the rest for you. It's just an MP3 file. Willing to try it and let me know how it goes?
Podcasts
Bo,
I certainly willing to try the Podcast ... I have no idea what it is, but I can click on the link. :)
I use the computer like a word processor.
NP
I can do that. Gotta run now, though. So I'll try to put up the text later. And in the future, I'll put up both.
BTW, all you should need to do is click the link, and your computer will do the rest for you. It's just an MP3 file. Willing to try it and let me know how it goes?
(Sorry, double post. Can someone delete this one to keep the clutter down? Thanks.)
When Arnold Schwarzenegger...
...ragged at liberals as "girly men", I wished some prominent Christians would have responded by saying "watch out there, you're talking about Jesus".
I think it's a common theme in our culture that empathy and compassion are feminine. That carries over into thinking that "androgyny" is what's called for. But I doubt that that kind of male/female distinction is all that distinct. (And my impression is that most discussions of androgyny have to do with men taking on "feminine" traits rather than women becoming "masculinized".)
Although I'm all for what's meant by this use of "androgyny", I think the use of the term buys into a too simple oppositional concept of masculine/feminine and left brain/right brain. Regardless of the hormonal differences in men and women, and the related differences in brain structure and function that might go along with them, we all use both hemispheres. And it's tricky to tease out what part is dominant. From what I can gather in trying to keep up with research, the lateralization of brain function isn't simple or clear cut. And the role of culture, as I learned early on from one of my teachers, Margaret Mead, is extremely important. Similarly, early experience shapes the structures of the brain -- the plasticity of the brain is remarkable.
Still, I agree that it probably helps to be consciously aware of the of the process of integrating all our capacities -- call it the "Whole Mind Approach" or holistic psychology or just seeking personal balance. So I see "writing on theological topics" and "supporting social justice" as integrative activities, neither primarily "left-brained" nor "right-brained". The spiritual experience that's the basis for theology is one thing, and the systematic writing about it is quite another. In the simplified left brain/right brain frame of reference, the "-logy" part of "theology" would seem to be "left-brained" while the experiential part is "right-brained". Similarly, the emotional or empathic basis for seeking social justice is one "feminine" aspect of "masculine" activity. It's hard for me to imagine the activity taking place as if it were divorced from some kind of emotional base. And it seems antithetical to fixing a problem if one understands nothing about the dynamics behind behavior. That's what anthropology, psychology, and the social sciences are supposed to be about.
As a strongly left-handed, left-footed, left-eyed, and left-eared person, that should make me predominantly right-brained. Yet, aside from singing, my clearest or most outstanding talent when I was very young was for math, the quintessential "left-brained" activity. (And as my wife liked to point out to her voice students, singing is a "whole-brain" activity, with the coordination of words and music from different sectors. She had a couple of students who stammered, but not when they sang. And she's read that those who stutter when they speak don't stutter when they sing.)
Thus, I fondly remember a university toilet stall graffito that I saw in the 60's: "To do is to be" - Camus. "To be is to do" - Sartre. "Do be do be do" - Sinatra. In that context, I'm for being a Sinatrist. And for discussing and trying to integrate everything.
Bill
Margaret Mead
Bill, were you literally in a clasroom with Margaret Mead as your teacher or are you refering to her as your teacher because you read many of books, admired her thinking and modeled some of your teachings after her?
I had studied some of Mead while still in high school, on my own , no high school class in anthropolgy was offered, and thought I would probably major in Anthropology in college. Then I got to college and had a professor who demanded we memorize all these layers of the soil, all these historical periods, and if memory serves correct, most of the bones in the body.Anthro I & II were so sterile and rote I lost interest. If I would have had some better guidance, someone would have told me what I wanted was cultural or social anthropology and I just needed to hang in there until I could get into the good stuff.
re Margaret Mead
Jim, I was fortunate enough to be in a classroom with her -- after I had read her books and decided I wanted to do "culture and personality" anthropology.
When I started college, I hadn't heard of anthropology. I was headed for either mathematics or chemistry. Then I read Ruth Benedict's "Patterns of Culture" in one gulp, staying up all night to finish it. My first "conversion experience"! Decided on the spot that anthropology was going to be my thing.
I was lucky in that my college didn't offer anthropology way back then, so I switched to the English Department where there were some first-rate "New Critics" and I learned how to read. That is, I learned close textual analysis. That was some of my best anthropological education.
Then I dropped out of college and went to NYC. After a while, I started at Columbia's night school and took almost nothing but anthropology courses. Mead was an Adjunct Professor. She was an exciting teacher, full of stimulating ideas and suggestions for research. When I went on to grad school, however, my interests moved away from a primary focus on psychological anthropology. That was influenced in part by another round of dropping out, in which I learned about the investment business and the facts of life of corporations. Although I didn't do very well on Wall Street, that Wall Street experience was also some of my best education in anthropology. It made me think about psychology in relationship to technology, economics and institutional structures.
Too bad about your Intro to Anthro courses. It sounds as if your professor was slavishly following the outline of the Four Fields: first Physical Anthro, then Archaeology, then Linguistics, and only then Cultural Anthropology. You would have liked my Intro to Anthro a lot better. I first taught it in Mississippi, so I had to deal with issues of Race right away, which gave an integrating framework for discussing Physical Anthro and Cultural Anthro together, with some Linguistics and Archaeology thrown in to illuminate some points. It's good to start with a problem rather than with an "Introduction to the Survey of the Principles of the Basic Facts". Granted, one has to do some of that, but a little bit of relevance does make the medicine go down.
Bill
Oh!
I know that song...
Scooooby Dooobydoooooo, and Scrappy Doo too. (or something like that)
Oh? No.
Hey Bo -- The Scoobydoo show started in 1969. The voice for the theme song wasn't Sinatra's -- and I think he never sang it.
The "do be do be do" of the graffito was meant, I'm sure, as a representation of Sinatra's rhythmic riffs -- his mild version of scat singing.
The earliest versions of the graffito much predate Scoobydoo. Sometimes it's Camus, sometimes it's Plato or Descartes, but it's always Sartre and Sinatra, although Sartre can be given either line, the "to do is to be" or the "to be is to do", since their meanings are flexibly construable.
I sure appreciate search engines. It cuts down on field work. No need for checking out a lot of toilet stalls. Actually, I think I've seen that one two or three times.
Bill
Oops
Sorry, failed joke. :(
oops for not getting it
Ah, I can take things too literally some times.
Sorry,
Failed Visiting Lecturer.
"And I did it my way!"
Bill,
And I love Sinatra's theme song "I Did It My way!" because I feel confirmed in being the unique individual I am and all of us are. That and "The Restless Wind" are my theme songs. :)
Crossleft certainly offers the opportunity for us to appreciate the uniqueness of all people. The more personal story segments bloggers share, the more light I feel on the website. What an interesting group of people!
"My way or the highway"
Nancy - Yes, let's hear it for uniqueness.
We all have different contexts for responding to things. Although I admired Sinatra for his musicality and impeccable phrasing, and for his great ability as an actor, I quite disliked his pst-bobby-sox-era public persona. I always heard "I Did It My Way" as an echo of some notable egotists/narcissists that I had the misfortune of knowing and having to deal with. Pathological "chairman of the board" types.
I have lots of much-loved theme songs. The peacefulness of Shaker music appeals greatly to me. If I had to name one song, it would be "Simple Gifts":
'Tis the gift to be simple,
'Tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gained,
to bow and to bend, we shan't be ashamed
To turn, turn, will be our delight,
'Til in turning, turning, we come round right.
Knowing only the Aaron Copland arrangement of Simple Gifts in his Appalachian Spring, I once bought a tape of instrumental arrangements of Shaker songs to find out more about what Shaker music was like. The first song gave the melodic line to the cello and after the first completed phrase of "I will walk with my children", I felt completely at one with it. like coming home. Love that stuff. Learned dozens of Shaker songs. "Crazy" ideas about celibacy, some strange song lyrics, but a unity of beautiful art with practical design.
Bill
Reincarnation
I would like to hear what you have to say on reincarnation.
Are you done yet? Are you done yet? Are you done yet? Are you.................
Origen: Preexistence of the Soul and Metempsychosis
Ixananarchist,
Are we done yet (w/ Reincarnation?). No, we are just beginning. What Nancy has not yet gone into yet, is the early Christian philosophical view of reincarnation, namely Origen's belief in the concept of preexistence of the soul and metempsychosis. In fact, had it not been for the mad Eastern Emperor Justinian, these concepts would have been one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity.
I am conducting further research this and will post my findings here in the next 2-3 days.
Just because it does not exist in the Christian community today does not invalidate its truths. Please, keep an open mind. Even the Roman Catholic church is re-evaluating the concept.
And as you read my future posting on science and religion you may come to see, I did, there is valid scientific basis for both concepts.
So if you think Nancy is far out, you ain't read nothin' yet!
Stay tuned!
Rich
That's...
awesome! I look forward to reading what you come up with. :)
Can't wait, Rich!
Rich,
Can't wait to see what you have found! Although there is no doubt in my mind that we do incarnate into many physical bodies, it is always interesting to learn more.
Churches could be places of such excitement if they would open up and allow the search for Truth to extend in all directions and routinely share the findings of its members. As one visitor to my website wrote: This (meaning learning more truth) is addictive!
Can't wait for someone to be farther out than me! It can be lonely out here! :)
Are you done yet?
Bo,
I went to your website in search of a name, so you will feel like a real, live individual. I am impressed with your mission to re-invent Christianity.
In answer to your question "Are you done yet?" I have posted three blogs on reincarnation. They are entitled: "Have I Lived Before?" "Who Sinned, This Man or His Parents?" and "SOUL TALK - How Reincarnation Plays Out In Life."
I offer at least two suggestions for re-inventing Christianity:
1. Reincarnation - reincarnation was a part of the early Christian teachings. The Roman Church condemned the teaching in 553 C.E. when it declared Origen and his writings heretical. One of the best books I've seen, especially for Christians, is Herbert Puryear's "Why Jesus Taught Reincarnation." Sadly, this book is out of print, but still available for a price. It may be purchased at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963496492?ie=UTF8&tag=ascension-20&lin...
Another excellent, well-researched, biblically based book on reincarnation is Elizabeth Clare Prophet's "Reincarnation: The Missing Link in Christianity." You may purchase it at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0922729271?ie=UTF8&tag=ascension-20&lin...
There are many books on reincarnation. I recommend the two above as the best I've read in relating reincarnation to Christianity.
SOUL TALK was my radio talk show segment that answered questions about life through the lens of reincarnation. You can tell by reading SOUL TALK that a recognition of reincarnation gives much greater meaning to our lives on Earth.
2. The Essene Teachings - In the 1920s, Edmond Bordeaux Szekely discovered "The Essene Gospel of Peace" in the Secret Archives of the Vatican. Szekely compared, edited, and translated "The Essene Gospel of Peace" from the 3rd century Aramaic Manuscript and Old Slavonic Texts. This gospel reveals Jesus to have been an Essene. You may purchase this series at:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field...
"Essene Gospel of Peace" online
The whole thing is online, free. At least it appears to be the whole thing. I haven't seen a hard copy to compare it to.
It's at http://www.essene.com/GospelOfPeace/index.html
Two points of note: a 3rd century text isn't necessarily a good indication of 1st century teachings; no original text has ever been shown and Szekely didn't even provide a physical description of it, so far as I have been able to find out.
I've read that Szekely first described it as a 1st century text, in his first edition -- which I haven't seen reproduced online.
After looking at a large number of websites, I found mostly citations from enthusiasts plus some debunking from skeptics. I've not yet found any scholarly discussion: evidently there's not really been anything for scholars to examine. There's some sketchy discussion of alleged anachronisms in the contents of these texts.
Bill
thanks Bill
Bill,
thanks for your research and work on this.
in my opinion, for our work to be credible, I agree completely with Gary Vance. As Christians, we have to put a focus on the Bible.
Other texts can help illucidate different spiritual teachings, but I think we really must deal with verifiable sources. Doesn't sound like this Essene thing qualifies.
Not so sure I agree
>>in my opinion, for our work to be credible, I agree completely with Gary Vance. As Christians, we have to put a focus on the Bible.<<
Well, here I may have to disagree (assuming you are trying to say what I think you are trying to say).
As Christians, our central symbol is Jesus, whom we call Christ. The letters give us insight into how the earliest Christian communities interpreted the significance of his person and work for their own lives within their context. The gospels serve a similar function through narrative (and I argue that they were meant to me literary “training manuals for discernment). Of course, there are issues of time lapse when it comes to their dating, and there are issues of narrative versus historical reporting. Alongside that, a minority of scholars would include the Gospel of Thomas in the first century works, which might change our view slightly of Jesus person and work, but the majority of scholarship dates Thomas to the mid-to-late 2nd century, so it seems to fall into another category of text. But overall, the importance of the Christian Testament is that it is the best historical record we have of the person and work of Jesus and how he was significant for distinct Christian communities.
As we now know, there were other Christian communities out there, who eventually were not deemed to be “orthodox.” Thanks to recent discoveries, we are finally able to hear their long-silence voices. Those voices may be helpful to us in our own context as our own voice is a minority voice. Let’s face it; the dominant strain of Christianity (“orthodoxy”) questions the validity of the progressive approach. In a sense, we share in the stories of those theological communities who have been marginalized in the past. Perhaps they have some insight into our own situation, and may help us as we move forward.
When I hear a call to “focus” on the Bible, I hear a possible muffling of alternative historical Christian voices. That concerns me; it’s a justice issue in itself. We certainly need to be in dialogue with the Bible. Approaching it as an authoritative dialogue partner is different in my understanding to focusing on the Bible.
But, I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say. Would you be willing to clarify?
Keeping it Focused
For my part, I think the smartest thing we can do on Crossleft is stay focused on the Social gospel as a basis for political action. That is not saying that writing on a variety of topics, including reincarnation, or whatever topics of spiritual interest people want to write on isn't fine. Go for it. given the progressive nature of the site, we are going to get some non-traditional voices.
It is a difficult enough task to keep Christians from all different denominations together on politcal issues though. The task is formidable.
Besides the Bible, I read or have studied in the past, passages from the Vedas, the Bhagavad-Gita, the teachings of Buddha, A Course in Miracles,The Talmud,Native American teachings, and other spiritual works.I am always amazed at the underlying unity of so many spitual teachings. There might be an occasion to quote one of these works, but basically,this being a Christian site dedicated to politcal action,I am thinking it wise to go with the primary Christian work, The Bible. Between the prophets of the Hebrew Bible,the Psalms, Proverbs, and Christ's social gospel, everything we need is there.
CrossLeft? IPC?
>>For my part, I think the smartest thing we can do on Crossleft is stay focused on the Social gospel as a basis for political action.<<
Well, that brings up the question: is the Theology Panel officially part of CrossLeft or the IPC? If I understand correctly, they have two different agendas. CrossLeft is politically progressive, though not necessarily theologically so. IPC is more of the progressive theological thinktank. There seems to be a conflict of interest here.
The problem as I see it is that the TP (IPC) conversation is taking place on CrossLeft. I don't think it is a good idea to constrain the creativity of IPC by imposing a political agenda. I would urge IPC to have its own forums/blogosphere. Then the TP conversations can take place there, thus insulating CL from the theological edginess. Meanwhile, the TP can offer scriptural/traditional/theological insight to political situations on CL as an IPC service of IPC.
When I dropped my name in the hat for the TP, I mentioned that I need to see more before fully committing. These are the kinds of questions I have. As we’re forming, these kinds of questions will continue to arise (which is a good thing). Perhaps exploring how the TP is related to CL and IPC, and what the agenda is for the group might be the most important topics for our next conference call? This would certainly give me a better idea as to how and to what extent I fit into the mix.
IPC vs Crossleft
You ask very intelligent questions that aren't easy to answer, but I will try.Excuse the three day time lag, I have been into "busy-ness", something I left civilization to get away from.First off, we are work in progress. That becomes obvious if one hangs around long enough. The theology panel is part of the IPC, since very little blogging action takes place on the IPC website , most of it is taking place here.
Both the IPC and Crossleft are political and spiritual. IPC is designed to be a think tank. It gives Crossleft ideas to be politically active on.
When I made the statement about the social gospel, I meant that as in an official manner or statement. If we are going to issue public statements or put something in our political platform , if we want unity among Christians, I think we need to stick to the social gospel.
It doesn't mean we can' t write about reincarnation, or talk about non-mainstream Christian thinkers, or if someone wants, talk about extra-terrestials.I am merely suggesting some real boiler plate basics, that should appeal to anyone calling themselves a Christian. I am not suggesting any stiffling of intellectual curiosity or censorship on radical ideas. Just some real basic guidelines to be as inclusive of all Christians as possible, and that comes down to social gospel.
If someone wants to quote Gandhi or the Buddha, or the Gospel of Thomas, thats fine.If some want to debate about it or challenge those ideas, I reckon that is the nature of the beast.
Meantime, perhaps we ought to include some boiler plate language about the spiritual aspect of the site.So if someone new to the site comes on ands asks what are these guys all about, where do they fall on the spectrum of Christian beliefs, we have some basics for them. Also, no one died and left me in charge, this is all my opinion and hasn't been ran by anyone on IPC or at a Crossleft conference call. So feel free to counter suggest.
This will all be very interesting
>>I went to your website in search of a name, so you will feel like a real, live individual. I am impressed with your mission to re-invent Christianity.<<
Thank you for the kind words. It's good to see someone actually saw the website. :) Of course it needs to be updated, on both the info and coding sides. Yet, the overall look and feel should remain the same.
Also, thank you for the links. I, too, have thoughts on reincarnation. I want to hear what you have to say before I open my mouth though. Up front, I should say that my deconstructionist bent is no friend to metaphysics. But I also don't think that a metaphysical approach is our only option to reincarnation either.
This ought to be a fascinating topic overall!!!
We trip on words
I think we trip ourselves on "words." They get in the way. Although I can use my "left brain hemisphere," I am growing increasingly impatient with all the categories, titles, and boxes into which we place particular bits of information as if they were totally separate from all other knowledge.
When I meditate, I behold life as a whole. All aspects of life fit together according to an overall plan for spiritual advancement. Intuitive communication is the norm on other dimensions. Hey, Jim, meditation is your topic! I'll hush!
Now here I am, trying to communicate and I don't have the "words" to do so. :)
So, Bo, write your thoughts about reincarnation; I'll write mine; Rich will write his. And then, guess what? I think "reincarnation" is simply the "word" we use to express the way life unfolds within linear time. In the NOW of other dimensions, we are living linear time's past, present, and future in this moment.
See how all of our categories, titles, and boxes lose their meaning when standing within the NOW!
I guess we'll have to settle for "words" for now or else we are left standing in the silence of NOW.
Good Idea
As I look at Rich's topics, the two that stick out to me are:
1. Bishop John Shelby Spong; his books and theology
2. Science and, not vs, theology
In seminary, they rationalize the peace between science and religion as saying that science looks at the factual "how" of the universe while religion presents a narrative "why" of the universe. Personally, I think it's propaganda created to make religious types feel good because they can then have a special role in society. In actuality, science is not just a factual how, but a meaningful narrative in itself. This means, we have rival narratives. Hence, I would not necessarily count out the "science vs. theology" option. Ergo, (now that I've gotten that one out of my system) I'm going to skip over that topic. :)
I'll peruse my shelf and see which of Spong's books I want to address. I will probably go with Why Xy Must Change or Die. That, however, would require that I follow up with A New Christianity for a New World.
By the way, I put up a podcast on A Postmodern Family Romance. I wasn't thinking about RSS feeds though. Would it be better if I added text as well? The problem is length. It was nearly 2400 words long, which would be almost 10 pages. What do you all think the best way of presenting things is? (I'm going to be doing the podcast anyway, so the real question is regarding the text and its possible presentation.)
Podcast
Podcasts must be great for those who use them, but those of us who are techno-ignorant and/or using old computers do not have access to them.
Is it asking too much to use both modalities?