Cells that act like unique, adaptable organisms...

[Simon Adams]

I agree. The question is, in the context of the imagery and parable, what does it truly mean to become "fully aligned" with someone, to become "exalted" to their position out of our humility? Certainly it is more than simple agreement with them or to be given rewards from them for our obedience. Perhaps these verses are also important to consider in that context:

"Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth" (Psalm 46:10)

"Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear." (Acts 2:33)

Times of silence are definitely important, like when Elijah was in the cave, and he recognised god when the wind and chaos had past, and all went quiet.

And yes, the holy spirit is the presence of god that comes into the world, into people if we listen to and follow his words.

In terms of what it means to be “exalted” as you put it, I think it’s about inviting in and being invited in. There is something about this that needs a “contrite heart”, or a “poor spirit” as he says in the sermon on the mount. This is repeated through both the old and new testaments, and why I find the ‘testosterone’ christianity you find in some evangelical groups quite strange. That said, I’m still working out what this means myself. I don’t think it means dull or serious about everything. I think it’s something like a combination of taking small things lightly and with good humour, and having quiet courage with the big things, which leaves a lot of work for me at least!

“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool;
what is the house that you would build for me,
and what is the place of my rest?
2 All these things my hand has made,
and so all these things came to be,
declares the Lord.
But this is the one to whom I will look:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit

[AshvinP]

I agree. The question is, in the context of the imagery and parable, what does it truly mean to become "fully aligned" with someone, to become "exalted" to their position out of our humility? Certainly it is more than simple agreement with them or to be given rewards from them for our obedience. Perhaps these verses are also important to consider in that context:

"Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth" (Psalm 46:10)

"Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, [Christ] poured out this which you now see and hear." (Acts 2:33)

Times of silence are definitely important, like when Elijah was in the cave, and he recognised god when the wind and chaos had past, and all went quiet.

And yes, the holy spirit is the presence of god that comes into the world, into people if we listen to and follow his words.

In terms of what it means to be “exalted” as you put it, I think it’s about inviting in and being invited in. There is something about this that needs a “contrite heart”, or a “poor spirit” as he says in the sermon on the mount.

As clarification, I took the word "exalted" from the parable you linked to - "those who humble themselves will be exalted". Christ himself was "exalted to the right hand of God". I can see no reason within scripture to make our exaltation a distorted shadow or dim realization of Christ incarnate, only reasons within myself which impose such a limitation.

[Simon Adams]

As clarification, I took the word "exalted" from the parable you linked to - "those who humble themselves will be exalted". Christ himself was "exalted to the right hand of God". I can see no reason within scripture to make our exaltation a distorted shadow or dim realization of Christ incarnate, only reasons within myself which impose such a limitation.

That’s definitely not my reading of scripture. There are many times god is very clear about this, including;

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

From Isaiah here.

Probably the best person for us to learn from is someone who experienced this union enough to describe it, such as John of the cross. At the start of this chapter he talks about the way in which god is present in all souls, namely to give each it’s unique being, but then goes on to describe the very different form of union with god which is a transformation to be like god;

In thus allowing God to work in it, the soul (having rid itself of every mist and stain of the creatures, which consists in having its will perfectly united with that of God, for to love is to labour to detach and strip itself for God’s sake of all that is not God) is at once illumined and transformed in God, and God communicates to it His supernatural Being, in such wise that it appears to be God Himself, and has all that God Himself has. And this union comes to pass when God grants the soul this supernatural favour, that all the things of God and the soul are one in participant transformation; and the soul seems to be God rather than a soul, and is indeed God by participation; although it is true that its natural being, though thus transformed, is as distinct from the Being of God as it was before, even as the window has likewise a nature distinct from that of the ray, though the ray gives it brightness.

[AshvinP]

As clarification, I took the word "exalted" from the parable you linked to - "those who humble themselves will be exalted". Christ himself was "exalted to the right hand of God". I can see no reason within scripture to make our exaltation a distorted shadow or dim realization of Christ incarnate, only reasons within myself which impose such a limitation.

That’s definitely not my reading of scripture. There are many times god is very clear about this, including;

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

From Isaiah here.

This ties into what is being discussed on the "free will" thread about how we must view the human being and humanity in their evolutionary-developmental context. If we take a static framework for scripture, then none of it will really make sense as a whole. Why did God give Moses the commandments if He knew man could never live up to them and the incarnation of Christ would be necessary? These things only make sense in the developmental perspective.

Clearly there is a shift away from strict obedience and dichotomy of God-man from the OT to the NT. And to be clear, I am not claiming theosis is a merging and smearing out of our unique individuality into undifferentiated whole. You quoted St. John of the Cross, but how about the Gospel of John (17)?

I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me

[Simon Adams]

This ties into what is being discussed on the "free will" thread about how we must view the human being and humanity in their evolutionary-developmental context. If we take a static framework for scripture, then none of it will really make sense as a whole. Why did God give Moses the commandments if He knew man could never live up to them and the incarnation of Christ would be necessary? These things only make sense in the developmental perspective.

Clearly there is a shift away from strict obedience and dichotomy of God-man from the OT to the NT.

That seems to me a very human way of interpreting what god is doing, and not what god says he is doing in the scripture. Yes there is a sense in which god needs to bring us along on a developmental journey, but if you look closely, from god’s perspective the plan is clear from the start. Like with any plan to build something, you start with a foundation. You also have some elements that are part of the construction process rather that what you are building, such as ramps and scaffolding.

Take the two central sacrifices in Genesis, both at a place called Salem (“Peace”) that would become Jeru-Salem (“City of Peace”). The first is the priest and king of Salem called Melchizadek. Untypically for the time, the sacrifice made by Melchizadek was not of animals, but of bread and wine. This story would have been well known to early christians, and would have been in their minds when they reflected on the last supper – where the “Prince of Peace” offered himself as a sacrifice, to become bread and wine to us.

After Melchizadek offered his sacrifice, he made a blessing on Abraham. Years later, god asked Abraham to return to Moria (the site of the future Temple in Jerusalem) to make another sacrifice. Abraham’s son Isaac travelled with him and when they arrived Abraham gave Isaac the wood for the sacrifice to carry to the place where it would take place. When Isaac asked where the lamb for the sacrifice was, Abraham answered “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering”. By itself the story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son makes no sense. It seems strange and cruel, despite the fact that God did not ask Abraham to go through with it. However this is clearly an incredibly important part of the story – this is when god made his “everlasting covenant” with Abraham through which “all nations will be blessed”. As the writer Scott Hahn points out, because the Hebrew text did not contain punctuation, another reading of Abrahams statement to Isaac could be written as “God will provide himself, the lamb, for a burnt offering”.

So from a human perspective, you have this very strange story where god starts something in human history by asking someone he trusts to sacrifice his son, even getting his son to carry the wood for his own sacrifice on his back. God stops him from actually doing the sacrifice, and then says;

By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will multiply your descendants like the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore... through your offspring all nations of the earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

This is not some short term plan where god changes his mind later. You talk about Moses getting the commandments as if this was separate from the overall plan, but this is no different from Abraham’s (almost) sacrifice of Isaac, something a bit like an architect showing the plans on paper (or stone!) beforehand.

God later asks for these stone tablets with “the law” to be put into an ark, with manna (the bread from heaven), and this would be his ‘dwelling place on earth’. Again, by itself this seems like a strange thing, why would the creator of the universe want to live in a box within his creation?

Although the revelation of the overall plan is gradual, comprised of separate promises, each is a very clear and static foreshadowing of an element of gods own telos. Some of these are more obvious, such as the passover lamb, based on gods promise to Moses which freed his people from their slavery in Egypt. For the tablets of the law, god explains in Jeremiah;

I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people

Which is why we call Mary the Ark of the new covenant. She contained the ‘bread from heaven’, by which the laws would be written onto the hearts of those who choose to eat this bread sincerely (as an aside, god was clearly prepared to break the tablets of the law when it’s not sincere).

I could go on with many examples through the old testament to show that none of this was a trial run that had to be updated. It was all a very deliberate plan. It started as early as it could in human history, just before the crossing from pre-history into history, so that it could be recorded. It culminated at a place and time of the roman empire, of diligent and independent record keeping, where there was a context that could stand the test of time. You can learn a lot just by thinking of all the ways it could have been done differently. It clearly was important that the birth of the creator of it all was humble, not in a palace but in a stable in a backwater, but equally it seems deliberate that the death was open, visible, and witnessed by an independent and educated arm of a highly literate empire. If the culmination of the revealed plan had happened in the desert with only Moses and the Hebrews present, it would have been very different.

So I don’t see any trial run, followed by a change of plan because it didn’t work. I see a very deliberate plan from the start, to create a narrative that is open, clear and self evident as soon as you give god the benefit of the doubt.

And to be clear, I am not claiming theosis is a merging and smearing out of our unique individuality into undifferentiated whole. You quoted St. John of the Cross, but how about the Gospel of John (17)?

I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me

Amen, the culmination of the plan from the start

[AshvinP]

Simon,

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But the "plan" you outlined only makes sense if what is revealed is the Spirit's descent into the world and the evolutionary progression of humanity from dependent group consciousness to sovereign ego consciouness and eventually integral consciousness; from infancy to adolescence and eventually adulthood.

Otherwise it is just a series of arbitrary and unnecessary foreshadowings constructed by non-human Deity of himself, while commanding slaughters in the meantime. I think we already agreed before that the Fall is connected to self-awareness. That is the key to a basic understanding of the events we sit in remembrance of this weekend.

We must view these events from a human perspective because we are human and the story is precisely that of God becoming human. It is not a plan that was devised by God to coincide with important developments in human history. It is the actual revelation of human history itself. It is an unbroken progression with Christ incarnation in the center, the baptism of Jesus, and it did not stop 2000 years ago but continued on.

[AshvinP]

Simon,

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. But the "plan" you outlined only makes sense if what is revealed is the Spirit's descent into the world and the evolutionary progression of humanity from dependent group consciousness to sovereign ego consciouness and eventually integral consciousness; from infancy to adolescence and eventually adulthood.

Otherwise it is just a series of arbitrary and unnecessary foreshadowings constructed by non-human Deity of himself, while commanding slaughters in the meantime. I think we already agreed before that the Fall is connected to self-awareness. That is the key to a basic understanding of the events we sit in remembrance of this weekend.

We must view these events from a human perspective because we are human and the story is precisely that of God becoming human. It is not a plan that was devised by God to coincide with important developments in human history. It is the actual revelation of human history itself. It is an unbroken progression with Christ incarnation in the center, the baptism of Jesus, and it did not stop 2000 years ago but continued on.

I also want to be clear that I am not claiming to know the full depths of what is revealed in scripture, not even close. But I think I have basic intellectual understanding of what we are dealing with. A very helpful resource for me was Edward Edinger's Ego and Archetype: Individuation and the Religious Function of the Psyche, a Jungian analysis. We can get a start by thinking of the OT as revealing human ego formation and subsequent 'encounters' between the ego and the collective subconscious. We can imagine that it is telling us the developmental history of our own individual progression through life from infancy to adulthood. Again, this is definitely not the sum total of what is being revealed and it could be misleading if we are not very clear to ourselves that this conception is just a simple heuristic device.

Now if we come back to the stories with that framework, a lot of the OT encounters between God and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the Hebrews, the kings, the prophets, etc. will make a ton of sense and will feel immediately relevant to our daily lives. And we will see how God's 'external' presence and responsibility for creation becomes increasingly 'internal' to the sovereign individual, culminating in the incarnation of Christ. Such a realization initially places a huge burden on our shoulders, because suddenly our current life, i.e. our thoughts, habits, decisions, lifestyle, is judged by the archetype of Christ; the vast potential of what our lives could be. I honestly believe that accounts for 99.9% of why we refuse to see it in that way.

“If people say the world we perceive is a 'construct' of our brains, they are saying in effect, that it results from an inveterate habit of thought. Why does it never occur to them that a habit is something you can overcome, if you set about it with enough energy?”
― Owen Barfield

[Simon Adams]

Yes I pretty much agree with that. You are 100% right that this is not some event that happened millennia ago and was the end of it - quite the opposite. It’s something very alive, real and relevant to our every day lives.

Where I do get a bit confused, is the bit about “the evolutionary progression of humanity from dependent group consciousness to sovereign ego consciouness and eventually integral consciousness”. I do agree that these things have helped to drive an evolution of foundational values. Slavery was common in most cultures in the ancient world, even the likes of human sacrifice was not uncommon. Once you have a core belief system that all men are created equal before god, in the image of god, and that everyone has a moral obligation to treat others fairly, these things become untenable over time. So yes there is a widespread evolution of what is normal and acceptable over time. Its also arguably true that something similar seems to happen when beliefs like buddhism spread.

I guess the bit I feel like I disagree with (which may well just be my misunderstanding of what you’re saying), is that there is a process of the holy spirit coming into the world that you can hook into just by understanding the dynamics intellectually, or even happening automatically to everyone. I would argue that the development of values that are common across most of society is caused by people aligned to these spiritual truths, and this is a continually evolving input whilst a significant portion of society are grounded in these truths. This is also presumably reflected in the collective unconscious. Most atheists nowdays claim to have ‘universal values’ independent of religion, but of course the reality is that these rest on this evolving ‘norm’ in the wider culture. But this process can easily move in the opposite direction, you could argue that this was seen in countries under communism, which still seems to have left a cultural hangover in countries where it ended decades ago. You could argue that the new postmodern ideologies that turn the idea of equality upside down, and focus on breaking power hierarchies rather than aiming for fairness and equal dignity, could result in a similar move backwards in terms of the general evolution of values. Also, there are always people in any society who are cruel and callous, or just aren’t interested in anything other than their own gratification.

To me it’s an individual’s journey that’s important, and I don’t think the Holy Spirit that Jerome and Augustine connected to was any different to the Holy Spirit we connect to now. Yes there is a changed cultural and moral landscape, in a sense our starting point and our context have changed, but I don’t see that anything has really changed since then in terms of the individual journey.

I guess what I’m saying is that for everyone on the planet, it’s was always and still is about individual choices they make. I don’t see there being a universal omega point where everyone will suddenly become self aware decent people who all willingly open the door to god. There will always be people who recoil from the light because it lights up things they don’t want to look at. I think most of us in the west could do with a lot more time in silent contemplation, meditation, mindfulness, and more detachment from the false gods of the world. I also think everyone should aim to be more like christ, as you say, but that’s a transformation that’s part of a real two way relationship that grows over time, rather than something you can achieve by knowledge and willpower alone.

As I said, I may well have misunderstood you and this is all a straw man, but I’m trying to describe the small element in what you say that doesn’t resonate with me if that makes sense?

[AshvinP]

Yes I pretty much agree with that. You are 100% right that this is not some event that happened millennia ago and was the end of it - quite the opposite. It’s something very alive, real and relevant to our every day lives.

Where I do get a bit confused, is the bit about “the evolutionary progression of humanity from dependent group consciousness to sovereign ego consciouness and eventually integral consciousness”. I do agree that these things have helped to drive an evolution of foundational values. Slavery was common in most cultures in the ancient world, even the likes of human sacrifice was not uncommon. Once you have a core belief system that all men are created equal before god, in the image of god, and that everyone has a moral obligation to treat others fairly, these things become untenable over time. So yes there is a widespread evolution of what is normal and acceptable over time. Its also arguably true that something similar seems to happen when beliefs like buddhism spread.

I guess the bit I feel like I disagree with (which may well just be my misunderstanding of what you’re saying), is that there is a process of the holy spirit coming into the world that you can hook into just by understanding the dynamics intellectually, or even happening automatically to everyone. I would argue that the development of values that are common across most of society is caused by people aligned to these spiritual truths, and this is a continually evolving input whilst a significant portion of society are grounded in these truths. This is also presumably reflected in the collective unconscious. Most atheists nowdays claim to have ‘universal values’ independent of religion, but of course the reality is that these rest on this evolving ‘norm’ in the wider culture. But this process can easily move in the opposite direction, you could argue that this was seen in countries under communism, which still seems to have left a cultural hangover in countries where it ended decades ago. You could argue that the new postmodern ideologies that turn the idea of equality upside down, and focus on breaking power hierarchies rather than aiming for fairness and equal dignity, could result in a similar move backwards in terms of the general evolution of values. Also, there are always people in any society who are cruel and callous, or just aren’t interested in anything other than their own gratification.

To me it’s an individual’s journey that’s important, and I don’t think the Holy Spirit that Jerome and Augustine connected to was any different to the Holy Spirit we connect to now. Yes there is a changed cultural and moral landscape, in a sense our starting point and our context have changed, but I don’t see that anything has really changed since then in terms of the individual journey.

I guess what I’m saying is that for everyone on the planet, it’s was always and still is about individual choices they make. I don’t see there being a universal omega point where everyone will suddenly become self aware decent people who all willingly open the door to god. There will always be people who recoil from the light because it lights up things they don’t want to look at. I think most of us in the west could do with a lot more time in silent contemplation, meditation, mindfulness, and more detachment from the false gods of the world. I also think everyone should aim to be more like christ, as you say, but that’s a transformation that’s part of a real two way relationship that grows over time, rather than something you can achieve by knowledge and willpower alone.

As I said, I may well have misunderstood you and this is all a straw man, but I’m trying to describe the small element in what you say that doesn’t resonate with me if that makes sense?

Simon - I think you have mistaken an evolution of ideas-values for an evolution of the collective subconscious itself, the latter being what I am referring to as the process revealed in scripture. It is an evolution of how humanity has experienced the world. This process is discussed in the writings of quite a few 20th century thinkers, such as Owen Barfield, Jean Gebser, Heidegger, Jung, Teilhard de Chardin, Rudolf Steiner. Perhaps you are familiar with one or two of those names and can use as a reference point. It can be discerned in the evolution of language, art, science-technology, and culture over the millennia.

A very simple and crude summary - there was a time when humanity did not experience any I/Self, only a group consciousness where psychic processes were dispersed throughout the cosmos and Earth environment. Then the collective subconscious evolved to the mode of ego consciousness, where the I/Self was experienced and sharp distinctions could be made between one's Self and the world (yet there was still a polar unity between Self-World). Eventually we come to the rational consciousness in which I/Self becomes totally detached from the world and is experienced as a completely private realm, while the public realm is experienced as completely devoid of spirit-mind (apart from other private bubbles of consciousness).

Under this view, the Christ incarnation event is a sort of fulcrum point of human history in which Spirit had completed its descent into the 'physical' I/Self and the latter is set to the task of reuniting with the 'astral' Spirit. It is about each individual human experiencing the reality of Christ within, not simply as an intellectual understanding but as a voluntary and fully conscious alignment of will, feeling and thinking. The ideologies you mention seek to find solutions to the isolation-alienation of I/Self and corresponding void of meaning through external powers, or fall into the abyss of nihilism, rather than seeking meaning from Christ within.

[Lou Gold]

I see a perfect plan that was there from the beginning, a plan that is instinctually self-correcting via lots of beings performing the trials-and-errors that result in the corrections.