Christianity teach us about consciousness

[soma]

It would be nice if Christianity would teach us about our individual consciousness and how we can experience it. It think it would make us better people, Christians and closer to God.

Unfortunately, most people, not only Christians identify with the body and neglect the consciousness within. They have concentrated all their energies on the superficial beauty of the vehicle, completely neglecting the consciousness inside. The body is meant for the use of consciousness: our consciousness is not meant for the beauty of the vehicle. Some people care for their minds in the same way, feeding it art and literature. They identify with the mind and give it food for thought, stimulation and knowledge with scarcely any energy going to the soul, which is distinct from the body or mind. We should take care of our bodies and our minds, but we must also understand the importance of life. Life develops with the awareness of undistorted pure consciousness so our consciousness should not be neglected as it offers the highest benefit, which is happiness and peace of mind. Let us not misuse our life in the vain pursuit of physical and mental gratification, but to pursue a better life within and without.

http://thinkunity.com

 

[sojourner]

Christianity does teach that, but one usually has to "dig" for it. Roman Catholic monastics (for example), as well as Anglican monastics, have continued the practice begun by the Desert Fathers.

 

[soma]

Thanks I will look.

 

[sojourner]

You can begin with Henri Nouwen and Thomas Merton. There is also a real heplful book entitled "Soul Friend," by Kenneth Leech (Harper/Collins). Additionally, "Landscape of Prayer" by Murray Bodo (St. Anthony Messenger Press). Julian of Norwich would be a good read, too.

 

[Random]

I started off as a Christian mystic initially as it actually has a fantastic esoteric heritage, but the modern Church isn't interested in teaching this.

It's unfortunate, but I agree Christian spirituality would benefit its followers greatly by opening up the door to Christ Consciousness in everyday life.

 

[SageTree]

I think a more mystic 'curriculum' could be just the thing to 'save' Christianity, so to speak. More and more, this is the light in which I am finding people 'feel' their connection to God, and it's true they don't know where to begin. This is exactly how I entered and grew into the practice and understanding I have now. Buddha eventually 'talked' me into examining even the faith I grew up with and felt at odds with. A little beginners mind applied liberally and what do you know, after a long while, I've been attending Anglican Mass for the last 2 months!!!.... and Enjoying it!!!!

Hooked by Buddha, worked for me, lol.

 

[autonomous1one1]

It would be nice if Christianity would teach us about our individual consciousness and how we can experience it. It think it would make us better people, Christians and closer to God. ....
http://thinkunity.com ....

Greetings. The site you link, thinkunity, is very nice and another example of movement towards Christian mysticism, and mysticism and spirituality in general. There are a number of threads in RF on the mystical union with God; and in one there were participants that wrote of the Greek Orthodox theology and theosis as the single goal. Theosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think a more mystic 'curriculum' could be just the thing to 'save' Christianity, so to speak. More and more, this is the light in which I am finding people 'feel' their connection to God, and it's true they don't know where to begin. .....

There are many who agree with you and this seems to be a greatly increasing movement. It brings to mind the collaboration between Ken Wilber (an ex-Catholic) and Father Thomas Keating (famous for Centering Prayer) who put out a DVD on the Future of Christianity. Future Of Christianity | Integral Life.

 

[SageTree]

Greetings.
There are many who agree with you and this seems to be a greatly increasing movement. It brings to mind the collaboration between Ken Wilber (an ex-Catholic) and Father Thomas Keating (famous for Centering Prayer) who put out a DVD on the Future of Christianity. Future Of Christianity | Integral Life.

Thank you for the kind words. I feel if more people were aware of such a practice that many would perhaps see a piece of this in themselves. When so many young people, who have only been exposed to Christian teachings go searching, The East and thusly meditation is the seemingly other side of the coin and many people do find refuge in these paths.

During a talk I was listening to the Teacher said about a man who went to a Buddhist Master and asked him to teach him. The Master replied that this man should first go understand the religion in which he was born first. This wasn't exactly what I wanted to hear, but never the less I aspired to this goal.

Through years of searching and learning Mysticism is the thing that would most closely describe how I felt as a Christian growing up. And I as looked further I started seeing theologies that looked mighty eastern that is, felt close to how I understood and related to the Path of Buddhism of which I an engaged.

In an age when young people aren't filling the churches full of older folks, perhaps this practice would be found appealing for them as well as people who don't connect with regular worship or the 'praise'/'contemporary' services and perhaps a 'contemplative' service could be added?

I feel that possibly that very thing would have held my interest and understanding, those 15 years ago. But I honestly feel I DID make it to the place where I understand and experience joy in the Path of my Youth and it isn't fair to say that it doesn't effect my understanding still.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[autonomous1one1]

Do either of you know who writes for the thinkunity site?

 

[SageTree]

I'm not sure. Soma mentions a book author in another post of his that he started, but I can't recall. Perhaps that is who it's set up through? Have you spent time there? I'm sure there is a contact for the site somewhere abouts on there.

 

[love]

I have had to rethink my view of Christianity many times. It is the religion of my youth.
Since I joined RF almost four years ago I have read many, many different views of God and no God too. I list my religion as a non-denominational Christian. I am not sure I can even call myself that. When I study history and learn some of the hurtful things that men have done in the name of Christianity I cannot see my Christ as being their inspiration.
Most New Testaments are red letter editions and when I read the words that are presented as the words spoken by Christ I feel they have an authority that has never been duplicated. They speak of a love by the creator toward His creation that can surpass our faults.
I feel that Christ opened the door for us to do even greater things than He with His blessings and encouragement.
I have at times inspired to emulate Him but I always fall short.
But still I do not feel defeated. I can only feel that a small step in the direction of His teachings at least keeps me on the path to understanding what real love means.

 

[SageTree]

Here is a video I found of Rev John Shelby Spong speaking to a meeting of the unity movement, the link is in the corner of the video.

1/6
[youtube]TWU3hH9K5gA[/youtube]
YouTube - The Future of Christianity, Part 1

 

[autonomous1one1]

I'm not sure. Soma mentions a book author in another post of his that he started, but I can't recall. Perhaps that is who it's set up through? Have you spent time there? I'm sure there is a contact for the site somewhere abouts on there.

The book and author are mentioned and sold at the site. The site on Christian Mysticism seems right up with the times. Unfortunately, the contact menu choice does not lead to names but thinkunity@such and such.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Here is a video I found of Rev John Shelby Spong speaking to a meeting of the unity movement, the link is in the corner of the video.

[youtube]TWU3hH9K5gA[/youtube]
YouTube - The Future of Christianity, Part 1

Wonderful clips, SageTree. Spong's view is very consistent with the views expressed by Wilber & Keating. Spong mentioned Paul Tillich who as a professor of philosophy and theology wrote a systematic theology that reformulates Christianity into the concepts expressed by Spong in this presentation. God as the 'Ground of Being' and Jesus as Christ who was fully human and fully God and who gives that message for all to realize. Spong indicated that in his opinion this reformulation is the only hope for Christianity's future. The development of consciousness and such realization is the mystical element that Soma addresses so your post is very consistent with Soma's OP and shows there is movement afoot.

 

[SageTree]

Another web site I am on there is a member who has posted these links as his only two replies.

Soaking Up Lies

What’s Wrong With Bishop Spong?

And this quote:

"This redefinition of God is a form of panentheism: the view that God is in the world as a soul is in the body. But ‘the God within’ is no God at all. It is merely another name for one’s own desires and lusts. This is probably the reason that such views are appealing to the unregenerate man: such a ‘god’ makes no ethical demands, and sends no-one into final judgement. However, it is also impossible to derive Spong’s ethics from such a view. If God is within all people, then he is in fundamentalists and all the other people Spong despises. Spong provides no criterion to decide which ‘God within’ is the right one."

I'd be interested to hear comments on this.

Ironically enough the response from Rev. Spong in the first link sounds almost verbatim what I've come to feel on my own exploration and is refreshing to see an Anglican Rev saying such things. I realize he's far out, but I don't think he's off the mark.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[autonomous1one1]

Another web site I am on there is a member who has posted these links as his only two replies.
Soaking Up Lies
What’s Wrong With Bishop Spong?

Namaste, my friend. The Spong letter in the first link is another valuable document, Sage. Thanks.

And this quote:

"This redefinition of God is a form of panentheism: the view that God is in the world as a soul is in the body. But ‘the God within’ is no God at all. It is merely another name for one’s own desires and lusts. This is probably the reason that such views are appealing to the unregenerate man: such a ‘god’ makes no ethical demands, and sends no-one into final judgement. However, it is also impossible to derive Spong’s ethics from such a view. If God is within all people, then he is in fundamentalists and all the other people Spong despises. Spong provides no criterion to decide which ‘God within’ is the right one."

I'd be interested to hear comments on this.

One need make only one comment: the quote clearly gives indication of complete lack of understanding of Spong's God, the ethics so derived, and the 'final judgement.' However, let more be offered. Realizing God within as the Ground of Being is of the highest ethical quality. Such being must act in oneness with God within all 'others,' thus with universal and unconditional love and action on behalf of the other. Spong doesn't 'despise' people, just some of the fundamentalist thinking - a big difference. For all those acting from the ego to harm others, 'judgment' is immediate, internal.

The clearest evidence for lack of understanding is in the question -"which 'God within' is the right one." To think that God as the Ground of Being varies within a 'fundamentalist' from that within Spong or others is way off the mark.

Ironically enough the response from Rev. Spong in the first link sounds almost verbatim what I've come to feel on my own exploration and is refreshing to see an Anglican Rev saying such things. I realize he's far out, but I don't think he's off the mark.

:namaste
SageTree

AGREE!

Regards,
a..1:namaste

 

[SageTree]

Namaste, my friend. The Spong letter in the first link is another valuable document, Sage. Thanks.

"This redefinition of God is a form of panentheism: the view that God is in the world as a soul is in the body. But ‘the God within’ is no God at all. It is merely another name for one’s own desires and lusts. This is probably the reason that such views are appealing to the unregenerate man: such a ‘god’ makes no ethical demands, and sends no-one into final judgement. However, it is also impossible to derive Spong’s ethics from such a view. If God is within all people, then he is in fundamentalists and all the other people Spong despises. Spong provides no criterion to decide which ‘God within’ is the right one."

One need make only one comment: the quote clearly gives indication of complete lack of understanding of Spong's God, the ethics so derived, and the 'final judgement.' However, let more be offered. Realizing God within as the Ground of Being is of the highest ethical quality. Such being must act in oneness with God within all 'others,' thus with universal and unconditional love and action on behalf of the other. Spong doesn't 'despise' people, just some of the fundamentalist thinking - a big difference. For all those acting from the ego to harm others, 'judgment' is immediate, internal.

The clearest evidence for lack of understanding is in the question -"which 'God within' is the right one." To think that God as the Ground of Being varies within a 'fundamentalist' from that within Spong or others is way off the mark.

Regards,
a..1:namaste

Thanks for the kind words, firstly.

The idea of the 'right god' implies I assume that there must be more? I thought there was One God and that All Truth was God's Truth? Picking a God inside of me sounds more like schizophrenia than a spiritual experience. God is God and there are certainly to be as many ideas of what that means as their are people in the world, or even with in A congregation the answers will differ to a degree, but underlying it is Truth, imo, and how connectedness is described. That is something interesting to me about the Sanatana Dharma's Yogas to reach God realization. Pretty cool stuff.

The other interesting thing are these two links from the first site line I offered.
The irony for me is that in the statement and some teachings on the site, is that certain Gospels and Books are tainted by man and also that the Trinity is a false doctrine. One example they use is from Matthew where it's said 'And Jesus was baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.' Of which they claim the bold isn't in all manuscripts. Which frankly suits me fine, but it certainly seems like that is a redefinition that they so ardently spoke out against in the quote.

I feel close to me understanding and trying to explain this is still confusing that heck outa' me:help:, LOL!!!

The doctrine is worth a full read for sure. Kind of puts the dialog from earlier in perspective. And in ALL fairness I don't know how the articles are in contact with or represent the views of the site as a whole or if the site itself hires writers?

Statement of Doctrine
Site Map

So thanks for reading and talking. I don't mean to sound like I'm back biting anyone here, I'm simply, sincerely interested in how people feel.

Thanks for Sharing You and you all.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[SageTree]

Also I started a thread to talk more in depth about the talk Rev Spong gave.

It sat overnight without much action. Is there a better place to put this?

"The Future of Christianity"

 

[autonomous1one1]

Thanks for the kind words, firstly...(Text omitted for brevity only)The other interesting thing are these two links from the first site line I offered.
....The doctrine is worth a full read for sure. Kind of puts the dialog from earlier in perspective. And in ALL fairness I don't know how the articles are in contact with or represent the views of the site as a whole or if the site itself hires writers?
Statement of Doctrine
Site Map
...
:namaste
SageTree

A quick read indicates this site to be full of the fundamentalist doctrine that Spong objects to. Right? Helps to understand Spong's comments.

 

[SageTree]

A quick read indicates this site to be full of the fundamentalist doctrine that Spong objects to. Right? Helps to understand Spong's comments.

Yea no doubt, but it seems they also agree on a few things as well.

Why can't THAT stuff be brought to Light?

Imo, I wish there was more 'Hey I agree with you' and working with that, instead of trying to figure out why we are different. A negative approach to a Formless Form, while centering around the positives of each individual.

I don't know... could be crazy?!