Muzi Cindi – A postmodern nigger in the woodpile

Talking About God Thinking About GodAs epiphanies go, Muzi Cindi’s stands way out. As a preacher and churchman of some 25 years standing, God appeared to him in 2007 during a Radox moment in the shower. So far, only slightly unusual. Then, God actually spoke to him. That deserves, I suppose, a hearing, even in this day of revelation overload. But the clincher is the message, and it was this: “God does not exist”.

But instead of creating a debilitating crisis of faith for Cindi, this subversive “a-theist” anticreed has become his catharsis, motivation, and passion. The evangelical zeal which was his all along merely adjusted to a new message and is as far as one can tell, as strong as it ever has been, and certainly no less radical. The outcome of his visitation is now available as a book, “Thinking about God, Talking about God”.

Well, maybe I should say that it’s not so much a conventional book, as a documented process, largely unedited, full of spelling errors and dubious assertions, brimming with contradiction, but ultimately held together in a burning vision. Lordy Lordy Hallelujah! this is surely a testimony for the postmodern age.

As a text, and because this is a review, let it be noted that the index of howlers is unusually high, the problems ranging from simple spelling, incorrect word usage, to un-researched shortcuts, and the appropriation of whole chapters from other sources. This I am sure is due to the fact that this is an entirely self funded enterprise, and therefore wholly sidesteps normal publishing channels; but this is part of the “Thinking about God” charm. To stop at such nitpicking would be to miss the point.  

Cindi’s essential point is this: the Christianity he was brought up in, is not only unsustainable and discredited, but already defunct. “The Christian world is disintegrating, because the story on which it is based is losing its power.” He supplies abundant (though somewhat chaotic) data to support his claims. But his offering is essentially a visionary one, involving wide theological, philosophical, and scientific thought. He seeks to address the seeming incompatibility of a deep love for his evangelical tradition – and his faith in Jesus – with his philosophical embrace of the new atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.

And this embrace extends to just about everything that contributed to the end of the modern era, from Copernicus and Galileo’s pioneering cosmologies, Darwin’s evolutional insights, Einstein’s discovery of relativity, Paul Tillich’s theological atheism and Karen Armstrong’s religious demythologising.

DoNotBelieve“Don’t believe what I believe” is one of Muzi’s rallying cries, and I look forward to the T-Shirt. In case this gets interpreted as mere reactionary anarchy, he explains to us the apophatic (negative theology) traditions from where he draws his succour: Meister Eckhart, the 13th century mystic, Paul Tillich, and Don Cuppit. And he gives credit too to all reformers – Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, the evangelical fathers Wesley, Edwards, Moody, and the South Africans such as John G Lake and Nicholas Bhengu. And references are not just to Christianity: universal, ecumenical appeals to the wisdom of all the worlds’ faith traditions pepper the book.

One of the most curious questions I have about Cindi’s explosive energy its relatively sparse dealings with the question of African roots, and bringing in more post colonial thought to buttressing his extensive postmodernism. Where, for example, are the fathers of the African revolutions, where is his own South African literary tradition amongst the plethora of first world sources? I do not want to prescribe who he should be, but it is a little vexing that the vast majority of his thesis of a post-God God is found in European and American thinking. I’d be delighted to see him take on African traditions with the same zeal he has taken on his own Evangelical roots, and even further to see him unpack an authentic Ubuntu as part of the rebuilding of Christianity.

I find myself identifying with Cindi’s vision, including his passion for knowledge, his hermeneutic of suspicion, his honest confusion, and his pariah status. At the same time I share his love for the evangelical tradition, and the ancient way of Jesus. He affirms, “A redefined Jesus still stands at the centre of my God experience”. Furthermore, I broadly concur with his inclusivity and embrace of all wisdom traditions as a way forward in a post Christian age. “Thinking about God” is flawed and fabulous, a headily chaotic brew, diverse, divisive, and delicious.

Muzi Cindi is a self confessed heretic, and draws strength from making peace with heterodoxy. The book is prefaced with an unattributed quote, “For every orthodoxy was once a heresy, and every heresy is fated to be orthodoxy. All countries were founded by traitors. All our churches were founded by heretics. The patriotism of today glories in the treasons of yesterday.” But to accuse him of lack of accountability would be short-sighted indeed; in addition to his relational ties to his mentors, the book is remarkable for its sheer range of references.

MusiHis vision is no idiosyncratic delusion, but rather an extension of a variety of well acknowledged intellectual and spiritual traditions. And we need his energy and his attempt to reconcile the old and new views of God and the cosmos. Despite his rambling style, I do not believe that this is a “mish-mash” of thought, so much as an emerging, integral vision.

Overcoming the taboo associated with thinking outside of our boxes, especially our religious ones, is a foundational shift which requires great courage; as Seal sings, “We’re never gonna survive, unless we get a little crazy”. Cindi is not shy of being regarded as a holy fool, and having recovered from the fear of asking questions, the potential for “error” appears to have no limit. And yet, all progress, and all evolutionary shifts, require these chaotic conditions. With startling audacity, Cindi has created them.

His life’s work, I intuit, will be to ensure that this chaos does indeed lead to a sustainable spirituality. Perhaps chief amongst the questions will be the one “Where, now, is our authority?” which emergent thinkers like Phyllis Tickle have been addressing.

If the world is to remember Muzi Cindi the author, he will have to employ a good editor. And if it is to celebrate his personal legacy, he will have to help those still ensnared in modernistic thinking, to emerge. He will need to fully develop his empathy, creating sound bridges for others to cross. And he will have to gain the trust of those who not so long ago, would have gloried in his immolation at the heretic’s stake.

Muzi’s Website.

Published by Nic Paton

Composer of music for film, television and commercials.

67 thoughts on “Muzi Cindi – A postmodern nigger in the woodpile

  1. I like this guy!! He is my hyper-extroverted doppleganger! Your review of his book here reminds me so much of the post Christian “theology” of J.S. Spong. Anxious to hear more on Cindi.

  2. Thanks Don – hopefully Muzi will drop by for a comment soon, (or so he promised). Have any questions for him?

    We all look forward to the ruckous his book will cause.

    Hoping you are well, we think of you often..

  3. Nic, thanx for opening this conversation for me. I’m a businessman who enjoys the money I make from my business. The book itself is self-funded, self-published, and self-edited by the nigger (using the Queen’s language). I do not make a cent in profits out of it. It is a way of sending forth the message just like Moses did. I apologize for the few spelling mistakes and language structure. Let us now leave the side issues and concentrate on the main issue – The God concept!
    I call myself a postmodern mystic and i join the mystics in saying that I think I am part of what God is. God lives in me, loves through me and empowers me to escape that drive to survive that is in every living thing in order to give my life away. That is the Christ role and I think it is also the role that, we as his disciples, are called to model. Am interested in hearing more on the God concept. For now, may we leave side issues aside please!

  4. I think the fact that you are not beholden to anyone gives you a freedom others do not have.

    Muzi, your thought is travelling at, well, faster than light… For example you hardly mention being a mystic in the book, and I think that its an important point to make. Mysticism gives us something of a cushion when it comes to controversy.

    OK – I hear you now – the main issue is “The God Concept”. Most Moderns are not going to get this, because they do not see other concepts as having validity.

    I’d love to interview you and focus on this more.

  5. Muzi- The God Concept is an issue that really concerns me as well. I view the monarchial, anthropomorphic concept of God as one that severely limits us as believers. It puts us in a position of being beneath, or below God, wondering to ourselves how he could possibly relate to us. The concept of God living in me, loving through me, being a part of me, and I of him is much more comforting to me. I don’t believe that we can ever make progress in presenting of new, Post-modern or Post-Christian view of God until we can successfully view Source in a personal, unified with us, way. I truly believe that I am part of the whole of what God is. Now, just to fully realize what that truly means! Looking forward to hearing more.

  6. Don Roggers is spot on! We need to explore what happens to our western spiritual tradition when the God of presumptive monotheism – the wrathful King made in the image of men – is removed. We will no longer talk about God as a “being that exists”. We will discover God as Being itself. We have no idea of what Being is. It is not, and cannot be an object of thought. Human beings beings will always use the language of time and space to give form to an experience and a reality that is not bound by or within time and space.

    Nic – In chapter 11 of my book I describe myself as someone who has become a postmodern mystic at least three times. Like my ancestors, Aquinas, Eckhardt. Tillich, etc I also have a profound respect for the mystery which is God. God can’t be placed in the category of things that exists. The moment we confuse our metaphors with reality, we create idols. God the Father can be an idol, a false god created in our image. I need to hear more on the God concept!

  7. Muzi – I like what you’re saying (haven’t read your book – just what you’re saying here). The question is, why do we still use the word ‘God’. Wouldn’t it be more helpful to drop it altogether. It has too much history and trying to redefine something with that much momentum seems like an awful waste of energy..

  8. “So an Idol is a created thing usurping the place of the creator. An Icon is a created thing mediating between created and creator. Although it initially appears clear cut, the line between them is surprisingly hard to define once one starts to explore it”. – I’ve just enjoyed this post! Makes me think! Our traditional ancestral worship can then be regarded as icons that mediate between the created and the creator!

    I was raised in a family and ubringing that abhored ancestral worship. I’ve never had time to study the roots of our ancestral worship. All I know is that this practice existed long, long, before Christianity came to Africa. It was Westerners who saw this as Idols as opposed to Icons that mediate! We then joined the Westerners in demonizing it! Thanx for this. I will share with my friends next monday when we next have our ‘monthly church’.

  9. Hey Muzi. First thanks for holding this conversation. I believe this ability to keep talking is a virtue.

    Are you saying you might go against your families anti-amadlozi stance. I think it needs a fair, thorough debate. Another interview?

    Tell us about your “monthly church”…

  10. I don’t if any of you reading this post have come across Žižek, but Pete Rollins who is another of Muzi’s influences, is heavily influenced by Žižek. Now I must admit I have not read him myself, but J Caputo wrote a good reveiw of Žižek & Milbank’s book ‘The Monstrosity of Christ’ (http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=17605), which reminded me in many ways of what Muzi is arguing:

    “Žižek provocatively suggests an odd kind of “positive” unbelief in an undead God, like the “undead” in the novels of Stephen King, a “spectral” belief that is never simple disbelief along with a God who is never simply dead (101). God is dead but we continue to (un)believe in the ghost of god, in a living dead god. If atheism (“I don’t believe in God”) is the negation of belief (“I believe in God”), what is the negation of that negation? It is not a higher living spirit of faith that reconciles belief and unbelief but a negation deeper than a simple naturalistic and reactionary atheism (like Hitchins and Dawkins). Belief is not aufgehoben but rather not quite killed off, even though it is dead. It is muted, erased but surviving under erasure, like seeing Marley’s ghost even though Scrooge knows he is dead these twenty years; like a crossed out letter we can still read, oddly living on in a kind of spectral condition. Things are neither black nor white but shifting, spectral, incomplete. We have bid farewell to God, adieu to the good old God (à Dieu), farewell to the Big Other, Who Makes Everything Turn Out Right, Who Writes Straight with Crooked Lines, who maketh me to lie down in green pastures. Still, that negation of negation does not spell the simple death of belief but its positive mode in which belief, while dead, lives on (sur/vivre).”

    Long may belief in unbelief live on!

  11. Oh holy confusion, now doth thou reign supreme!

    My favourite phrase here is that the negation of negation is “a negation deeper than a simple naturalistic and reactionary atheism.”

    Thanks Mariuarse.

  12. I’ve been starting to read/listen Caputo/Zizek myself the past few weeks. And although I think this line of thinking have a long way to go, I find it valuable, it open my eyes to see some new possibilities of understanding.

    Another South African theologian who I think might help us is Albert Nolan. Jesus Today p146: “For many of us the process of unlearning or unknowing our previous images of God might include a stage of atheism or at least a period of grappling with a de-personalized God. But as our search continues, and especially if we are learning from Jesus, we will come to experience God in personal terms. This will of course be very different from the childish images of a personal God some of us grew up with.”

    1. Thanks Cobus – the more perspectives we can gain the better. The Nolan quote adds a great deal to this difficulat debate. Looking forward to seeing you next week.

      Muzi – have you read Nolan?

  13. I’m reminded of the man who said to Jesus: “Lord I believe! Help my unbelief!” I find Marius’ comments quite profound. Don Cupitts Book – Taking leave of God – is on the same line. Its only at the end of God that God beyond God emerges. Whatever we say about Jesus, let us not in any way diminish or compromise his humanity. I have a problem with a Jesus who is so highly exalted that he becomes an alien being that is not truly and fully human. The debate that lasted 500 years of the early church history has caught up with us again in the 21st century.
    A Jesus who is irrelevant to me, the one who was not a truly human person, has known the weaknesses and temptations of being human, cannot be a saviour for me. It is only a Jesus who was truly man who can push forward the frontiers of the human spirit. This is the Jesus I call my Lord. God was truly met in this Jesus. God is truly met in ordinary human beings who walk in the ways of Jesus. For me, that human being can be anyone, including an atheist.
    Nic – i’ve been told about Nolan and will get the book. We are meeting on monday with a few friends for a conversation on my book. We hold a ‘everything goes’ church meeting once a month where we tell our stories and the story behind them.

  14. Muzi- I love this statement, “Its only at the end of God that God beyond God emerges”.

    Cobus- I, too, find your statement all too familiar:
    ” “For many of us the process of unlearning or unknowing our previous images of God might include a stage of atheism or at least a period of grappling with a de-personalized God.”

    I have been grappling with it for some time now, thinking that I have simply gone too, too hard. Now I understand better my process. Thank you.

  15. That last statement should read: ” have been grappling with it for some time now, thinking that I have simply gone too, too far. Now I understand better my process.

  16. There exist no straight lines in the universe.

    The universe defies measurement.

    You & I defy measurement.

    God defies measurement.

    Thank God for that!

    The Mystery continues…

  17. Well, though, as a Christian I ultimately wish Muzi Cindi, well and (to be fair) I have NOT *yet* read the book he wrote and would like to give it a fair reading from front to back in the interest of fairness …such internal contradictions like a supposed revelation from God that alleges that God does not exist …is quite obscurantist and quite frankly ridiculous .

    Furthermore, we should be wary of the wholesale pluralism that seeks a post-Christian age.

    For too long Christianity—especially the evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic variety— has been saddled with a lot of cultural and theological baggage of a parochial and prosaic sort…not having the rare insight and vivacity of thought that Jesus gave us in the sermon on the mount and in the amazing actions he did in the gospels …the actions of healing and fellowship which also gave a radical message ….

    Yet rushing headlong into some sort of syncretist…wholesale pluralism that wants to marginalize the messiahhood of Jesus and the role of God the Father (which granted should not be conceived of in sexist terms since God is beyond gender …and fatherhood in the divine sense involves more conceptual subtelty than often that which is extant in the societal mileu) ….is a rather spiritually dangerous way to go . One does not have to be a fundamentalist to sound that notion of caution *against* wholesale religious pluralism that goes beyond a willingness to learn insights from other religions (which given some caveats can be quite a good approach) to a sort of open ended notion that any god or messiah is about as good or right for someone as any other …

    Though what Jesus stated about being ‘the way, the truth, and the life ‘ has far more depth / more conceptual subtelties than the usual evangelical presentation …we still must come to terms with centrality of his role as the divine Logos …the ordering principle who had a hypostatic union with an infant child born of Mary (Miriam in Hebrew) was born in Bethlehem and was a carpenter and a rabbi in Nazareth , Isreal .

    It was that same Jesus who died on the cross and was ressurrected to defeat death and redeem us from sin .

    That centrality should *never* be marginalized for the sake of pluralism …much less the notion of “thinking outside the box”…a phrase that is so bandied about in the present media influenced age .

    One point of order, it is somewhat disconcerting to see Paul Tillich listed as an atheist theologian in the essay above. (Perhaps in all fairness , you meant in a hyperbolic sense designed to prod the reader out of the usual ways of thinking about God) .

    Yet Tillich (despite him having the theological error of thinking of God as “totally other”—he was wrong on that …God is other yet is otherness is not of some far removed sort ) was NO atheist . Tillich did seek to move beyond crudely anthropomorphic conceptions of untimate identity …yet according to Tillich , God was , ‘the ground of all being’ ..and very much existent .

    Tillich did not claim that God was nonexistent …nor was he from what I have read a “God is dead” sort of theologian .

    Much work has yet to be done…yet a notion of caution must be sounded regarding the somewhat nihilistic sort of theological praxis that Mr. Cindi apparently is on about…

    One hopes that Mr.Cindi has at least a better approach than the sensationalistic claims of John Shelby Spong — the latter who is NOT a theological liberal but, instead, more of a politically- correct sensationalist .

    New ways and revived old ways of thinking about God and the significance of holiness ought indeed to be sought , yet it is important that we do so with consistent reasoning and discretion .

    One of the most amazing descriptions of God comes from the book of Jeremiah which describes God not as the man upstairs nor as a being but as ,

    ‘the fountain of living waters ‘ .

  18. Well well J! You have just admitted that you have not ead the book but you are already passing judgement on somethging you have not read. Your remarks on Paul Tillich are totally innaccurate. Was it not Tillich himself who made this most famous and controversial quote: “God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him…God is ‘being itself’, above and beyond the mere fact of a particular being…” I would advice you read Tillich’s Systematic Theology and then make your own observations. I woyld also suggest you do some studies on apophathic theology. As for your comments and subjective comments on John Shelby Spong, I would rather comment after I have heard exactly what your gripe is with him.

  19. Mr.Cindi ,

    I have made a rather large gaffe here…It has been since 1995, since I perused the pages of the text of ‘Systematic Theology’ by Paul Tillich, and so I must have either missed or forgotten that quote.

    What I recall most about Tillich was him referring to God as ,

    ‘the ground of all being’ and alternately ‘The God beyond the God of personal theism .

    Holy cow! (that’s an expression we use in the vernacular here in America to indicate suprise) I stand corrected in light of that apparent quote .!

    I must confess that I am puzzled as to how God can be both the ground of all being AND “beyond existence and essence” and therefor not existing …and I wish that Paul Tillich were still alive so I could ask him …

    ‘The ground of all being’ as an Entity one would think would have ontological permanence— IF Tillich is using the term ‘being’ with regard to lexical …dictionary meaning of the word ‘being’…but then again… perhaps he uses the term in a more hyperbolic sense ….you are apparently more well versed in Tillich than I am in light of that exhaustive quote . (A quote I had either overlooked or forgotten ) .

    As for apophantic theology, I wish I had more resources in regard to what the proponents of apophantic theology maintain . I have read some of the writings Dionysius the Areopegite …who was a supporter of apophantic theology…but I have not read much of the other apophantic theologians .

    Incidentally, where could I buy a copy of your book so I could give it a more comprehensive evaluation ?

  20. Here’s a comment by one of the Apophatic theologians, Peter Rollins;
    “The primary problem with idolatry is not that it falsely claims to have a connection with God buth rather that it falsely claims to understand the God it is connected to…If we fail to understand that the term ‘God’ always falls short of that towards which the word is supposed to point, we will end up bowing down before our own cenceptual creation forged from raw materials of our self-image; rather than bowing before the one who stands over and above creation.
    I’m quite interested in exactly what J has against Bishop Spong. It is not enough to just say He is sensational. Was Jesus not a politically- correct sensationalist when He turned over the tables? Or when He made the revolutionary noises He made? Noises that got him killed by the Romans?

    For those interested in my book, please reply with your postal address or send a mail to info@muzicindi.net. In my touth day I used to distribute free gospel tracts, now I distribute free gospel books.

    1. Hello Mr.Cindi ,

      I would be immensely greatful if you could send me your book for free..since I am a very poor fella, here in these United States, whose meagre bank account is dwindling.

      I don’t know my country’s postal code but I could, sir, send you my mailing address here in Florida of the United States, along with the zip code in a private message …

      What do I have against John Shelby Spong ? Well, a number of qualms.

      For one, (if memory serves rightly…years ago I read he accused) St.Paul of being a homosexual.

      And I do *not* dislike homosexual people (whatever reservations I have about the sexual activities they engage in… I am willing to admit that many show good qualities as persons independenty of any sexual proclivities) , but since there is nothing in the epistles we have of St.Paul that indicates explicitly that Paul favored a sexual attraction towards other men …nor (unless someone can cite some other historical document that states to the contrary he harbored such proclivities) , it comes across as some sort of half-baked reading between the lines for Spong to alleges that .

      John Shelby Spong has aired doubts about the veracity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth …I recall him airing such a doubtful stance back in 1994…and moreoever, in the interviewe where he aired such doubts he did not air such doubts in a cautious or tenative way…but as I recall he aired them in a way that seemed rather cavalier and not very persipacious (to say the least) .

      That Jesus was actually brought back from the dead is a central tenet of Christianity .

      It is NOT some dubious and marginal area of doctrine such as the ridiculous Calvinist belief in predestination or the fundamentalist belief in the innerrancy of scripture (the belief in innerrancy of the Bible being itself an unbiblical doctrine and nowhere taught in the Bible …not in 2 Timothy 3:16 nor anywhere else in the Bible… despite how the fundamentalists have loosely interpreted the word ;inspiration’ to signify inerrancy …which it does not) .

      The belief that Jesus on the third day rose again is a seminal tenet of Christianity as both the gospels , the epistles , and the patristic , and even some of the
      non-canonical early Christian writings also attest .

      It is not that he merely is alive again in some figurative way in our hearts and minds…the central tenet is that Jesus of Nazareth the messiah was raised from the dead and IS ALIVE AGAIN . Kyrie eleison …as we say in the Eastern Orthodox chruch I attend .

      I also have heard John Shelby Spong actually disparage Jesus himself in an interview…granted to be fair to Reverend Spong ..the disparagement was not of a grotequely insulting or horrible derisive sort …however, even a little bit of disparagement of Jesus is rather untoward . The context in which he disparaged Jesus was the interlude in the gospel of Mark where Spong says to the Greek woman from the Syrian background when she asks him to heal her possessed daughter , ‘that it is not appropriate to take the childrens’ meat and cast it to the dogs’ , and then she responds as if in repartee ,,’yea, but the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table ‘.

      Spong made statmeents where he indicated that it was remiss of Jesus to call the woman a dog .

      However, an interpretation that gives Jesus more the benefit of the doubt would be that Jesus was wanting to engage the woman in dialectic and see what she would say in response…NOT that he was setting out to be insulting to her out of ethnocentrism or whathave you .

      The rebuttal she presented in response about how the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the masters’ table seems to have amazed Jesus. A parallel version (in Matthew if memory serves rightly) indicates that Jesus was so inspired and amazed by the response of the woman that he said to her , ‘ O woman great is thy faith !’

      Jesus then does …according to the text… heal her daughter .

      I certainly don’t fault Spong for the usual reactionary , culturally conservative purposes… like faulting him for supporting women being in leadership roles in the clergy and so on ….

      However, in regard to soteriological matters I do think it is quite remiss of Spong to marginalize the messiahood and ressurrection of Jesus .

      One of the factors I admire immensely about N.T.Wright is that he upholds the idea of the Ressurrection as an actual veridical event .

      Marginalizing Jesus who is the way, the truth, and the life is not the sort of version of Christianity that is very authentic . Please understand, I do not mean by that I think that people in NON-Christian religions (or even people of no official religious affiliation) are necessarily lost souls as the typical evangelical/fundamentalist spiel would have it …I do NOT maintain that after all Jesus did in John say , ‘and I have other sheep which are not of this fold and I must go unto them ‘ and the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 indicates that there are people who will and do serve Jesus indirectly without realizing it, by serving the least of the bretheren …and hence belonging to Jesus is something that can transcend institutional Christianity …

      Yet Spong …unless unbeknownest to me he has altered such inclinations lately, does seem to be very marginal in regard to affirming the redemptive work of Jesus …not merely objecting to the prosaic evangelical baggage that is often conflated with it ..but objecting to the centrality of Jesus as Messiah and Savior to the Christian faith in any sense …

  21. Thanks Muzi – this Apophatic reflection on idolotory is an important distinction to make. Lets keep on unravelling the meanings of the Apophatic. We might start with its opposite: the Cataphatic:

    “of or relating to the religious belief that God can be known to humans positively or affirmatively”

    How are you living and teaching the Apophatic tradition to those who hold to the idea that God CAN be known (the modern majority)?

  22. This reminds me of a quote from “The Dance of the Four Winds” by Alberto Villoldo :

    “…our rationalization of things ephemeral, our intellectual framing of the transcendent, the thinking brain’s version of the Divine, was just another mask of God. That all expressions of God, like the word itself, formed in the brain of language, were merely thoughts about that which is beyond thought.
    No. Before thought.
    Before consciousness itself. To speak the name of God is to name the unnameable, to carry a concept of the Divine within our heads is to carry a shield between us and the experience of the Divine…… It cannot be thought about. All notions of God are blasphemies. Things that can be known but not told.

    Apophatic theology arises out of a ‘mystical experience’ (for lack of a better term), where one realizes that one cannot say what ‘it’ is. The closest one can come to expressing it is to say what ‘it’ is not.

  23. Jason – thanks for your engagement with this group of postmoderns!

    I find this quote interesting and revealing:

    “I must confess that I am puzzled as to how God can be both the ground of all being AND “beyond existence and essence” and therefor not existing …and I wish that Paul Tillich were still alive so I could ask him.”

    A binary either/or approach that any belief in certainty forces upon us, means we need to chose EITHER “ground of all being” OR “Beyond Existing”.

    As a mystic, I don’t have that trouble – God is both “ALL” as well as “NONE”.

    A good primer on the apophatic tradition is to be found at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

    1. Thank you ,Mr.Paton, for the reply and the hyperlink

      I must state that the both/and approach does (let me make a cosmic understatement ) get me to have severe reservations from the standpoint of logic but will look into that link .

      I also am quite brimming with curiousity to read the book by Mr.Cindi .

      Let me say that though i reject the both/and approach with regard to intrinsically contrary / incongruous/ mutually exclusive positions ….sometimes there is another sort of third approach ..what I would call ‘the neither ‘ ….which is *not* to be confused with the both/and which again I do reject .

      [I have often wondered if there may be some sort of ideatum….or some sort of referent (for lack of a better word) that has neither unity or diversity for example …one of the stranger musings that I am hoping to investigate …]

  24. A good example of the relationship between an apophatic theology and Tillich’s phrase ‘Ground of Being’ can be found in the Kena Upanishad:


    There the eye does not go, nor speech, nor the mind.
    We do not know, we do not understand how one can teach this.
    Different, indeed, is it from the known,
    and also it is above the unknown.
    Thus have we heard from the ancients who explained it to us.

    That which is not expressed by speech,
    but that by which speech is expressed:
    know that to be God, not what people here adore.

    That which is not thought by the mind,
    but that by which the mind thinks:
    know that to be God, not what people here adore.

    That which is not seen by the eye,
    but that by which the eye sees:
    know that to be God, not what people here adore.

    That which is not heard by the ear,
    but that by which the ear hears:
    know that to be God, not what people here adore.

    That which is not breathed by the breath,
    but that by which the breath breathes:
    know that to be God, not what people here adore.

    What’s interesting for me is that the Upanishads come out of the Hindu mystic tradition, and it is in the various mystic traditions where we start seeing this kind of language merging in that it’s not so much driven by a dogma or belief, but rather an experience of …. (I like to use the term Transcendence).
    So you see this emerging in the writings of the Christian mystics as well as the mystics of many other traditions.

    1. Thus have we heard from the ancients who explained it to us.

      ‘That which is not expressed by speech,
      but that by which speech is expressed:
      know that to be God, not what people here adore.

      That which is not thought by the mind,
      but that by which the mind thinks:
      know that to be God, not what people here adore.

      That which is not seen by the eye,
      but that by which the eye sees:
      know that to be God, not what people here adore.

      That which is not heard by the ear,
      but that by which the ear hears:
      know that to be God, not what people here adore.

      That which is not breathed by the breath,
      but that by which the breath breathes:
      know that to be God, not what people here adore.’

      RESPONSE :That is a fascinating postulate . Perhaps if anything could be predicated about such a referent at all …would be that it is a sort of media (NOT to be confused with the use of the word as in news media …which is something infinitely lesser lol) for thought and causality …like unto the utimate proto-causal meta-space .

      It might have a functional dynamic on a larger causal domain like unto the ether postulated by the 19th century scientists …which still has some proponents even to the present day .

      Reminded also how philosopher John Searle proposes that there can be… in addition to the types of causation or causality mentioned by Aristotle …a kind of passive or more indirect causality …and gives the example (if memory serves righly of a checkerboard or chessboard) whereupon though the board itself does not do a lot of moving and acting its role as a domain (with its demarcated areas does) indirectly influence the actions performed on it ….

  25. Gavin – WOW. Absolutely beautiful. Theres a song in there and I want to write it. And I’ll add

    That which is not sung by the song,
    but that by which the song is sung;
    know that to be God, not what people here adore.

    After that we shall just have to slip into a trance piece sonder woorde, for 72 minutes.

  26. I got this from Mathew Fox on the Breastplate’s soaring call to the universal presence of Christ:
    Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me,
    Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
    Christ in breadth, Christ in length, Christ in height,
    Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
    Christ in the mouth of every man who speaks of me,
    Christ in every eye that sees me, Christ in every ear that hears me.

    He goes on to say:
    See- I am God. See – I am in everything. See – I lead everything towards the purpose for which I ordained it, without beginning, by the same Power, Wisdom and Love by which I created it. How could anything be amiss”…”This I am. This I am. I am what you love. I am what you enjoy. I am what you serve. I am what you long for. I am what you desire. I am what you intend. I am all that is. I AM and I WILL BE THAT I WIL BE!!!

  27. Reminds me of the Navaho song: “Oh, beauty before me, beauty behind me, beauty to the right of me, beauty to the left of me, beauty above me, beauty below me, I’m on the pollen path”
    Where the Pollen path is the path to the centre, and pollen is the life source (from Joseph Campbell’s Power of Myth series with Bill Moyers).

    Which links nicely to how I understand John’s concept of ‘The Kingdom’ or ‘Eternal Life’. When you’re ‘born of the spirit’ your eyes are open to this – you see the beauty of all that is – the Dance.

    So what would you understand by ‘Christ’? Would the term be synonymous with the Buddha?

    Where I am going with this is when one realizes the universality of this experience – why the need to continue with a specific mythology and language? I am speaking from my own experience of letting go of the language – terms like ‘God’ and ‘Christ’ and it has opened things up in a whole new way. So I think I struggle to understand why Tillich, or yourself need to continue to use language that is laden with so much baggage?

    I hope you understand the question isn’t a criticism 🙂

  28. This is my final take on the current round of conversation. I suggest J reads Spong’s book; Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, and then make his own judgement. In the book Spong has suggested that Paul was a repressed homosexual and gave compelling reasons why He is suggesting that.
    I gravitate towards Spong’s SUGGESTION rather than those who say with absolute certainty that Paul was not homosexual.

    I still need compelling refutal of Spong’s reasons as infrerred from Paul’s struggles in Romans chapter 7. What is this struggle all about? What are these ‘members’ of his body that are beyond his control? what of the dislike Paul had for women, etc
    I can’t fault Spong for SUGGESTING that Paul was a repressed homosexual. I will let his SUGGESTION hold until I have a compelling refutal.

    On the issue the synonym between Christ and the Buddha nature I do not have a problem at all. I used Peter Rollins for my chapter on de-naming God. These are only symbols in whom we live, move, and have our being. Other religions have similar symbols. Atheists also have their symbols also.

    God, Jesus, Mary, Ancestors, Buddha, etc will always be holy for me as symbols of mystery into which human beings walk. They will always stand for a transcedent power that is beyond words, beyond meaning, and beyond anything that a human being, limited by space and time, can find out.
    The mystery of God is beyond the beyond.

  29. Mr. Cindi ,

    Sorry , for taking so long to respond, sir . I’ve been dealing with a number of matters online and offline .

    March 2, 2010 @ 10:08 am
    This is my final take on the current round of conversation. I suggest J reads Spong’s book; Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, and then make his own judgement.

    Response : Yes, sir, well I would like to read that book by Spong in order to give a fair evaluation . Just like I would like to read the book you have written and hope you will please, sir, send me a free copy …I have witnessed interviews with Reverend Spong …and what I had heard from him during those interviews did NOT sound very cogently presented to say the least …

    Perhaps the book he wrote may be somehwat better …so I would be willing to read it in full .

    Mr. Cindi Posts :In the book Spong has suggested that Paul was a repressed homosexual and gave compelling reasons why He is suggesting that.
    I gravitate towards Spong’s SUGGESTION rather than those who say with absolute certainty that Paul was not homosexual.

    Response : Well if he was suggesting it merely as a tenative possibility , then I would then be less vitriolic with him on that point .

    (Let me make the disclaimer, that the reservations with the proposal does *not* indicate any hatred from me of homosexual people as a group . Whatever, misgivings I may have about the sexual activities they engage in , I do not dislike them as persons necessarily on account of that . I have had friends of that orientation …and known many of them to have apparent merit and goodness in other aspects of life) …

    MR.CINDI POSTED : I still need compelling refutal of Spong’s reasons as infrerred from Paul’s struggles in Romans chapter 7. What is this struggle all about? What are these ‘members’ of his body that are beyond his control? what of the dislike Paul had for women, etc
    I can’t fault Spong for SUGGESTING that Paul was a repressed homosexual. I will let his SUGGESTION hold until I have a compelling refutal.

    RESPONSE: Allow me , sir, to postulate alternative scenarios as to what the internal struggles that Paul alluded to *may* have been about . It could be that the struggles could have been any number of bodily longings he may have had…such as the desire to engage in physical violence against enemies who had done physical violence to him…if the adreneline of rage was coursing through his veins. Or another possibility was that he may have had heterosexual longings to have sex with women that he had to struggle to repress …

    The dislike he may have had (to some extent for women or for many …though *not* necessarily all women) may have been either an incidental concomittant of those other sorts of personality dynamics mentioned above …and not necessarily the origin / motive of such personality dynamics . Then again IF he had struggles with inclinations to have liasons of sexual intercourse with females …perhaps he thought that they were trying to seduce him …

    Those are just tenative possibilities ….

    There are other plausible scenarios ..homosexual longings are not the only possibility .

    MR . CINDI POSTED :On the issue the synonym between Christ and the Buddha nature I do not have a problem at all. I used Peter Rollins for my chapter on de-naming God. These are only symbols in whom we live, move, and have our being. Other religions have similar symbols. Atheists also have their symbols also.

    RESPONSE: I see. Well, sir, I would have to argue that
    the idea that the divine Logos was manifested in a hypostatic union with Jesus of Nazareth in a unique messianic role for him . He has a soteriological priority of being a far more central manifestation of God that Buddha, Krishna , Mohammed and so on .

    Please understand, however, by that I do *not* mean that those who affiliate with non-Christian religions are
    necessarily in some “unsaved” standing …nor out of favor with God.

    I do NOT interpret the verse , ‘I am the truth, the way, and the life’ , to mean that people in other religions are out of favor with Jesus, as fundamentalists typically tend to do . The clause , ‘no man cometh to the Father , but by me ‘, could well be interpreted to mean that sooner or later everyone has to go through Jesus on the way to the father …NOT that people failing to find the way would be a permanent condition .

    Jesus was revealed to the wise men (mentioned in Matthew) who were apparently Zoroastrian type astrologers from around Persia ..and God revealed Jesus to them within their own religion which was neither Jewish nor Christian …using the association between what seemed like sidereal bodies in the sky to reveal the Messiah to them …as well as dreams .

    However, I do *not* endorse a postion of wholesale pluralism where the role of Jesus is reduced to merely that of a wise teacher among many , or some sort of avatar among many, or a personification of so-called “christ consciousness” . If you maintain otherwise , I still want to read the book you have written and study it fairly, regardless .

    There are insights that Christians can learn from teachers from other religions *without* sliding into a wholesale pluralism that claims that one religions version of the messiah or central soteriological character is as good as any other .

    Jesus taught that , ‘the last shall be first and the first shall be last ‘…and so there are times when a
    non-Christian can sometimes manifest the kingdom that Jesus sought to manifest .

    Teilhard De Chardin —who has received considerable praise— here did present the good insight…as have other interesting Christian apologists before him, …that the incarnation of God the Son in Jesus imparted a sacramental process of spiritual transformation that extends beyond the institutional christian church …transforming all creation over time .

    That sort of position I find more congenial than the one that relegates Jesus to being somewhat less than pivotal and central figure .

    MR.CINDI POSTED :God, Jesus, Mary, Ancestors, Buddha, etc will always be holy for me as symbols of mystery into which human beings walk.

    RESPONSE : Regarding one’s ancestors …and finding some possible numinous significance in their life I can empathize with . Buddah was quite a remarkable and wise man and can relate to you finding the story of his life edifying .

    MR.CINDI POSTED :They will always stand for a transcedent power that is beyond words, beyond meaning, and beyond anything that a human being, limited by space and time, can find out

    RESPONSE: But if it is beyond meaning itself …that transcendent power …then what can we think as to what its ontological ramifications are ? How does one approach that which is said to be beyond meaning ?

    I am earnestly fascinated by the proposal that there is even an item beyond meaning .

  30. Jason – Thanks for so conscientiously keeping up the dialog. Remember we are all in process, and this include Muzi. Do not take his statements, even his published ones, as some sort of final word, but rather keep engaging and challenging him.

    Please remember that Muzi himself is a highly committed member of his evangelcial fellowship. He may be post-evangelical but he does not in practice reject his “tribe”. I’d also suggest – Muzi are you listening? – that his theological passion goes out ahead of him, while his actual ecclesial and social commitment is more grounded than his “muzings”. I for one rejoice at his energy, and want to be alongside him as a tethering loving brother where we enjoy mutual accountability.

    I think you observation concerning Teilhard De Chardin “that the incarnation of God the Son in Jesus imparted a sacramental process of spiritual transformation that extends beyond the institutional christian church …transforming all creation over time.” is a solid starting point for a christian witness in a pluralistic age.

    1. Yes Mr.Paton ,

      There is much to be discovered in dialogues of this present sort. I am looking forward immensely to mr.Cindi’s book .

      Yes, the insight imparted by Teilhard De Chardin is quite an eye-opener .

      There have been a number of other Christian thinkers from the past who have tapped into a similar realization . Notably the writer from the middle ages Joachim of Flore had a notion which dovetailed with the realization by Teilhard of the Kingdom : who postulated three historical ages each corresponding to the three persons of the Trinity . He postulated that the third : The Age Of The Spirit… was beginning in his own time with the Franciscan and Dominican orders and the efforts to transform the culture of Europe …and that the age of the Spirit would extend beyond the institutional church (at least according to some commentators on what he wrote) .

  31. Thanx Nic. Now Jason – yo book is on the way, sorry for loading you with too many books. I used Peter Rollins book – How (not) to speak of God – a lot in my book. May I give the following quotes to answer your question: How does one approach that which is said to be beyond meaning ?

    “On a more fundamental level, the fact that God’s name is unpronounceable acts as a symbol of God’s otherness. The very fact that the term ‘YHWH’ lacks the vowels needed for pronounciation reminds us that this ‘proper name’ is very improper insomuch as it is impossible to say…the term YHWH preserves the mystery of God…This is backed up with reflections upon YHWH’s invisible nature, inaccessibility, inexpressibility, and unsearchable nature…

    …If we fail to recognize that the term ‘God’ always falls short of what towards which the word is supposed to point, we will end up bowing down before our own conceptual creations forged from the raw materials of ouw self-image, rather than bowing before the one who stands over and above creation.

    Hence Meister Eckhart famously prays, ‘God rid me of God’, a prayer that acknowledges how the God we are in relationship with is bigger, better and different than our understanding of that God.”

    I highly recommend the book

    1. MR CINDI POST :Thanx Nic. Now Jason – yo book is on the way, sorry for loading you with too many books.

      RESPONSE: No problem, brother. I look forward to reading those books. And I look forward to the book you wrote arriving .

      MR. CINDI POSTS : I used Peter Rollins book – How (not) to speak of God – a lot in my book. May I give the following quotes to answer your question: How does one approach that which is said to be beyond meaning ?

      RESPONSE : Yes, please do ..

      MR.CINDI POSTS :“On a more fundamental level, the fact that God’s name is unpronounceable acts as a symbol of God’s otherness. The very fact that the term ‘YHWH’ lacks the vowels needed for pronounciation reminds us that this ‘proper name’ is very improper insomuch as it is impossible to say…the term YHWH preserves the mystery of God…This is backed up with reflections upon YHWH’s invisible nature, inaccessibility, inexpressibility, and unsearchable nature…

      RESPONSE: Well…I do recall, however, reading an article in a publication of the Assemblies of Yahweh sect that there were reportedly ancient stelle insicriptions from Biblical era synogogues and the like where marks denoting vowels were supplied in such inscriptions and appended to the consonants YHWH thus spelling out the name ‘Yahweh’ in those artefacts .

      Granted it has been a number of years since I read that article …and I don’t have the particular magazine at my fingertips …Since I moved / changhed residences from one town in Florida to another back in 2006 a lot of my papers and so on got put in various boxes and bags and stored in a garage ….

      MR.CINDI POSTS :…If we fail to recognize that the term ‘God’ always falls short of what towards which the word is supposed to point, we will end up bowing down before our own conceptual creations forged from the raw materials of ouw self-image, rather than bowing before the one who stands over and above creation.

      RESPONSE : Well, if we propose a via positivia for what God is about , (granted we will never be able to know exactly what it feels like to God for him to be Himself..or to use gender neutral language …Itself ) we could still fathom some sort of conceptual similitude of God that …whatever its supposed shortcomings may be …it would *not* necessarily have to be constructed from our own self image…since there are templates for comparison in the realm of creation that are independent of us …and could be appealed to .

      Take light for example . The epistle of I John chapter 1:5 states that ,

      ‘God is light’ .

      Reportedly the great sponsor of cathedrals in the middle ages , Abbot Suchet thought light was the best image we had of God .

      Further understanding the properties of light may avail us a greater understanding of God . Light is the least physicalized of all “physical” phenomenon (or phenomenon that has physical ramifications as a causal by product) .

      MR.CINDI POSTS : Hence Meister Eckhart famously prays, ‘God rid me of God’, a prayer that acknowledges how the God we are in relationship with is bigger, better and different than our understanding of that God.”

      I highly recommend the book .

      RESPONSE: Well, I would look forward to reading the work of Mr Rollins as well…

  32. “We want to think about God. God is a thought. God is an idea. But its reference is to something that transcends all thinking.

    He is beyond being! Beyond the category of being and non-being! Is He or is He not? Neither is, nor is not.

    Every god — every mythology — every religion is true in this sense; It is true as metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery.

    He who thinks he knows, doesn’t know. He who knows that he doesn’t know, knows.

    There is an old story that is still good; The story of the quest — the spiritual quest. That’s to say, to find the inward thing, which you basically are.

    All of these symbols in mythology refer to YOU. Have you been reborn? Have you died to your animal nature and come to life as a human incarnation? You are God in your deepest identity! You are one with the transcendent.”
    (Joseph Campbell)

    1. MR.MARSHALL POSTS :” All of these symbols in mythology refer to YOU. Have you been reborn? Have you died to your animal nature and come to life as a human incarnation? You are God in your deepest identity! You are one with the transcendent.” (Joseph Campbell)

      RESPONSE: Well, sir, if I had been God I would have done virtuously all the time …and never done anything intentionally bad in the past . I would have never have taunted other children in the neighborhood out of lazy minded sport…who had not been bothering yours truly at the time.

      Instead, had I been God I would have endured boredom instead of intentionally getting into mischief in the past . Wasn’t it Blaise Pascal who once wrote of how there would be less evils in the world if men could learn to sit in their rooms .? And as my best friend Zack once said , ‘what is so bad about boredom ‘ ?

      I did know better at the age I had done such murky actions …The usual efforts to exonerate such actions are quite wrong …the blah blah…yada , yada about “you were a kid .kids do things like that ” et al…are quite wrong . For I did know better. (Being that I was quite introspective, and having been aware at the time of the LACK of atempt at any justification in the internal dialogue in the mind at the time …for such heedless actions ) .

      Such actions and the intentions behind them …which were intrinsically and NOT merely extrinsicallly…contrary to virtue were certainly not the actions and intentions of a Divine person .

      I’m reminded of one of the delightfully strange and fascinating comments of St. Paul… in one of the letters he wrote… where he mentions how he was alive and then sin taking advantage killed him and he died …referring to a sort of death of innocence .

      How much better would have been had that never happened ! How much better had it been had I chosen to endure boredom …to *not* be a slave to the desires of the inner affect for stimulation …even stimulation of a chaotic sort ….It would have been an infinitely more preferrable situation had I decided to endure boredom to see where such boredom might lead…what sort of boon for existence (not merely myself) might have been wrought by keeping a vigil of boredom ,m waiting , and restraint …instead of heading headlong into chaotic , mentally entropic activities of a mischief making sort .

      Serendipity is highly overrated , let it be said right away…lest someone should put forth the notion that such misdeeds were some sort of “learning experience” or “growing experience” . There is NOT any net gain ethically ( nor epistemologically for that matter ) garnered from learning from such mistakes ..at the most one breaks even and has the regret to remind one what to avoid …

      How much better it would have been to have been single-minded , quixotically devoted to doing what is right and thinking that which is right… from the get go !

      (And I could have.. That I didn’t…and chose back then a less than good course of action at the time … shows that I am not God … not a a Divine personage …for had I been God I would have done what is right from the get go …And by God..let me clarify that I refer to Deity in the Anselmian sense …as the highest conception of existence in terms of all superlatives… including the superlatives of ethical qualities . I do NOT refer to the notion of some infinitely powerful yet inscrutible being that might have some arbitrary purposes ..as the Calvinists and others have *weirdly* alleged is extant) .

      William Wordsworth, in his poems, wrote of a time of unsullied innocence where every sight seemed ‘apparelled in celestial light’ ….

      I knew a similar time of innocence as a child (..and being that I aspire to be a NON-deterministic rationalist) I maintain that it could have been maintained it could have been never lost …by dint of self discpline …had as I as a child, instead, decided just to slow down and exercise that single minded self discpline …to *want to want to* (maintaining innocence & circumspection) more fervently…

      For free will can be understood in terms of wanting to want to …that if we can want to want *other than* what we want to… as we want to on those times we allow ourselves to be slave to somatic desires for exciting stimulation and so on …

      1. Following your logic – if you were ‘God’ then you would not have created any of this?

  33. J – perhaps the following illustration will help:

    If one draws on a piece of paper one is limited to two dimensions. Now by using various techniques of perspective one can create the illusion of 3 dimensions, but it will never be 3 dimensions because of the limitation of the two dimensional ‘world’. It’s the same when we talk about all of this – call it ‘God’ or ‘Transcendence’ and so on. The language we use is limited and so when one really goes into it it can seem contradictory – that’s because we can only ever illustrate using ‘two dimensions’ (figuratively speaking). It’s kind of like an eye trying to see itself, or trying to find the source of light using torch (the source of the light)..

  34. Actually , Mr.Marshall , I believe that God was hoping that created agents would never have done anything bad to begin with …He was hoping that all created agents would have chosen the good road …as opposed to the bad road…. with each crossroads of potential action ..

    Even now God is hoping that people (and other cosncious agents) will choose the best course of action not one of the bad ones .

    Yes, I do maintain contrary to Calvinists and even the Arminians that are influenced by Calvinism , that God does hope. Even now after the fall I maintian He hopes …hoping that a better timeline …a better course of events will play out …different from the one that does often play out .

    God is hoping that people will choose the good course of evernts/ the good road…hoping that a good alternate future will play out instead of the one that often does play out .

    For there are many futures (futures plural ) to God and not one future. To speak of the future —as opposed to the futures plural—is a misnomer .

  35. A proposed similarity between ontological levels that is like unto a similitude between two dimensional geometric figures and three dimensional ones …where the vestigal form of one prefigures the other …presages it in some rudimentary way …does sound like an interesting proposal .

    One wonders how to mentally unpack whatever specificities are to be found in that other ontological level …if there are any specificities ?

  36. J – it’s really just a mind game to allow one to be open to other possibilities. For instance, someone in this hypothetical 2D world would see a rectangle, another would see a circle. Someone who had ‘drunk of the mysteries’, however, might have had a glimpse of the 3D perspective and comes to the realization of a cylinder. Now to the people in the 2D world, when he says the rectangle and the circle are the same thing this makes no sense whatsoever.

    That said – don’t get too caught up in the illustration. It’s just a mind game confined to the constructs of our language etc. – just like philosophy and theology and all the other fancy words we use (like ontology 😉 ). So this is how we can say it’s beyond being and non-being. Beyond the beyond. And so it’s beyond understanding – you need to EXPERIENCE…

    1. MR. MARSHALL POSTS :J – it’s really just a mind game to allow one to be open to other possibilities. For instance, someone in this hypothetical 2D world would see a rectangle, another would see a circle. Someone who had ‘drunk of the mysteries’, however, might have had a glimpse of the 3D perspective and comes to the realization of a cylinder. Now to the people in the 2D world, when he says the rectangle and the circle are the same thing this makes no sense whatsoever.

      RESPONSE : Well call me a stickler, but I don’t see how someone in a 2 dimensional flat world could mis-perceive a cylinder to be a rectangle …since even a two dimensional rendering of a cylinder would not have the sharp angularity of edges , that a rectangle or a parallelogram would …

      MR. MARSHALL POSTS :That said – don’t get too caught up in the illustration. It’s just a mind game confined to the constructs of our language etc. – just like philosophy and theology and all the other fancy words we use (like ontology ). So this is how we can say it’s beyond being and non-being. Beyond the beyond. And so it’s beyond understanding – you need to EXPERIENCE

      RESPONSE: But can such experience be trusted .?

      Moreover can one say anything about such an experience after one has it other than …I have had an expereince and I don’t know what to make of it or how to put into words . Perhaps the most one can say …barring a new artificial language gets coined …(and yours truly is interested in the prospects of artifical languages that mught be able to better signify unsusal valences of experience …to some extent …and even that is a *maybe*)…….is that the experience is *ineffable* .

      1. As I said – don’t get too caught up with the metaphor 😉

        As for trusting experience and the language to communicate – well this is where the language of mythology and poetry comes in. So you read someone like William Blake: “To see the universe in a grain of sand and heaven in a wildflower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour” or the Upanishads etc. and there’s this sense of “Ah yes – this is how it is”.

  37. Thanks to you intrepid cosmic warriors for helping go where very few have been!

    The only 2C I can chuck into the circle is my cursory understanding of superstring theory which posits that there are many unseen dimensions. They are unmeasurable because they are so small (or in another order of being – too large?) , perhaps folded up or otherwise hid.

    To me this hypothesis makes sense, as one who believes in worlds I cannot see or directly access.

    But I encourage both of you to keep up your investigations. Jason, I say again that you are extremely original, and if you can articulate your vision in perhaps a more succinct or accessible way, that would be a tremendous credit to others.

    And to Gavin, whose vision is no less compelling, the problem I imagine you having is having to be limited to the medium in which we are now communicating – the blog is a narrowband, literal form of communication ill suited to the reality you perceive.

  38. Mr.Paton ,

    Please say a prayer that I will one day be able to express notions and questions in a way that is more succinct /less long winded and yet without sacrificing accuracy and necessary disclaimers in the offing .

    The quote that Mr.Marshall posted from the Upanishads has me still quite curious ….

    1. Hey Jason, I do pray for this aspect of your life.

      Have you tried proceeding without “disclaimers”? It’s risky I know, but might be liberating.

      Try the “proclaiming” approach – there is generally much more to disclaim than to proclaim.

      And definately, definately keep up the curiosity.

  39. MR.PATON POSTED :Hey Jason, I do pray for this aspect of your life.

    Have you tried proceeding without “disclaimers”? It’s risky I know, but might be liberating.

    RESPONSE: Occasionally (once in a blue moon as they say in American vernacular ) .

    Worried that the risk might injure the knowledge of meaning itself …

    Some people might be inclined to nickname me a worry bird …(that’s another American vernacular expression) .

    1. I’m fascinated by the piece – “Jesus is the image of the invisible God.” I then add unknown and unknowable. Jesus is then the image of the invisible, unknown, and unknowable God. He then is beyond anything a space time, finite human being can conceive.

      We engage in idolatry when we attempt to box God and Jesus into our finite boxes of our worldviews, creeds, traditions, and denominations.The current global Spirituality sweeping the world across all religions just shows us how wrong we were about Jesus all along. It seems like Jesus has just “jumped” out of the boxes we’ve entombed him in for so long!

      1. Muzi, have you read Walter Wink’s “The Human Being: Jesus and the Enigma of the Son of the Man”?

  40. Hello Mr.Cindi ,

    The proposal you propose leads to an interesting question ,

    ‘Do we have finite minds?’ .

    It is often in some religious circles stated that ,’a finite mind cannot understand infinity’ (a claim that can be doubted on several grounds)…and as a corollary of that it is presumed that human beings somehow have finite minds .

    But if we are made in the image and likeness of God (as the Genesis cosmogony states) and since the more plausible interpretation would be that the likeness we share with God is a mental …and NOT a physical resemblance …then it would follow that the minds of people would be infinite as well ..and that we would not have ‘finite minds’ .

    Granted the mind of God would have more of an *actually* infinite faculty about it …and the minds of human beings …be *potentially* infinite …

  41. Immense Thanks To Muzi Cindi .

    The book you wrote arrived in the mail yesterday .

    Thank you , immensely, Mr. Cindi —especially the generousity in sending it to me for free .

    I’ve started on the first couple of chapters . Curiousity wells up within .

    As an aside , I liked seeing the stamps on the package from South Africa. Notably because they had (with the exception of the one that had the image of an Emperor Angelfish) pictures of colourfull birds on it .
    As a birdwatcher, that delighted me considerably .

    The imagery of the purplecrested lourie, and the green pigeon are amazing .

    A blessed and comforting Good Friday to you Mr.Cindi, To Mr.Paton, to Gavin , and to all .

  42. Mr. Cindi ,

    Been reading the book and I don’t mean to be the skunk at the garden party , but I already found some statements that duty obligates for me to disagree with .

    As I read on I trust (and hope) I will find statements in there that I will agree with and put a grin on the old face …I already share the aversion you feel towards fundamentalism …perhaps at times for the same purposes that you do and perhaps at times for different purposes than you do .

    For one , I would dispute attributing the so-called “religious wars” as being motivated by absolutism …ascribing that to alleged motivations of people supposedly thinking that the religious agenda they espouse is totally right without doubt .

    Instead , we should consider the prospect that the so called religious wars are more likely the result of crass motives like greed , and political power mongering …poltical wars in the name of religion INSTEAD OF about even any earnest thought of being right .

    Furthermore, you lament the stigmatization of sex by some religionists . Well liberated sex ought to be stigmatized ….Liberated sex is gross, yucky , repulsive…crass , unrefined , tacky , weird ! Liberated sex has crassened and coarsened the sensibilities of all so many …Sex ought to be for making babies, not for excitement …

    Karl Marx was wrong about religion being the opiate of the masses .Liberated sex is the opiate of the masses and a lousy opiate at that !
    The feminist intellectuals are right to lament and protest against the phallocentric society …

    Folk singer expresses the realization of that insight perhaps with the lyrics of the song titled ‘Sex Kills’ .

    It is very disconcerting to see that the yuppie era , pop culture assimilated new fundamentalists take that verse in the epistle to the Hebrews about the marriage bed being undefiled and LOOSELY interpreting taking liberty with it to claim it somehow means that anything goes in the way of sex like activity …even cretinous , ghastly sexual kinks as long as it is marriage . Though the verse reports that ‘the marriage bed is undefiled ‘..it does NOT say that it is unconditionally undefiled ….

    The old style fundamentalists in my country like the Wesleyans and the Nazarene Church , who are prudes against liberated sex …though I might disagree with the fundamentalists on some areas of theology , I could least applaud for being more authentic in outlook than the pop culture assimilated, trendy , yuppie era fundamentalists who have become weirdly numerous in America in the present era ……

    Another area of dispute is attributing the more vitriolic sorts of fundamentalist commentary to fear and curiousity . Consider that crass motivations and NOT fear may likely be the motivation in many cases …

    1. Hi! Jason,

      Am glad you got the book. Looking fwd to some fruitful engagements from you as usual. Did you really write this line:- …Sex ought to be for making babies, not for excitement …

      Before we even go to other issues you will need to expand further on this. Are we Christians not driving people away from Christ through such utterances? I do not want to make my own judgement and comment further until I hear your expansion on this utterance.

      Maybe there is something deeper than literal being communicated here. I am saying this as a person who last made a baby in 1991.

      Looking fwd to your expansion.

  43. Hi Jason
    Thanks for your thoroughness. I will ensure Muzi gives your critique its due consideration.

    Sexuality is a very big issue for most westerners. I am intruiged once again by your unusually strong responses to this question.

    For a wholesome critique, I think it would be important to bring the question into the realm of experience, and not stay on theory, but this is not easily done, for these are very intimate issues requiring a high level of trust. I’m not sure that blogs are the best place to deal with the issue.

    But rest assured I appreciate your reponses.

  44. Pingback: Sound and Silence
  45. All 3 of the religions that were grounded in the Old
    Testament ideas taken from Egyptian monotheism and tradition by Moses have
    the same teachings and thought on ethically treatment of people.
    ” 32But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery;and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Nevertheless, most of the pastors still felt a general reticence to speak openly and in the name of the Lord on economic matters.

Leave a reply to Gavin Marshall Cancel reply