5 de Cheshvan 5772
1 de Novembro de 2011
1 de Novembro de 2011
Renuncio como sacerdote Ariel Valdés, el cura santiagueño que enseña que Adán y Eva no existieron “Gracias a Dios, nunca viví de la Iglesia”
Álvarez Valdés, teólogo de prestigio internacional, decidió dejar los hábitos porque recibió presiones de la Iglesia. Hace dos años sus denuncias fueron primicia de Página/12. Enseña que Adán y Eva no existieron y que la Virgen María no fue tal.
Para poder enseñar la Biblia libremente, renuncio a la Iglesia Católica ”, resumió Ariel Alvarez Valdés. El ahora ex sacerdote, teólogo de prestigio internacional, venía protagonizando una controversia con el Vaticano y particularmente con el obispo de Santiago del Estero, Francisco Polti. El conflicto se estancó alrededor de una cuestión puntual: la narración bíblica sobre Adán y Eva, ¿debe considerarse una verdad histórica o un relato metafórico, como tal compatible con la versión científica sobre los orígenes del hombre? Alvarez Valdés no aceptó retractarse de esta última posición y prefirió abandonar la institución que le había prohibido dar clases y publicar libros. En diálogo con Página/12, además de detallar la historia que lo llevó a dejar la Iglesia , el teólogo precisó algunas de sus formulaciones sobre la Biblia : explicó por qué la virginidad de María debe entenderse “no necesariamente como un hecho físico, sino como la fidelidad al marido”; por qué “las apariciones de la Virgen no se producen en el mundo exterior sino en la retina de quien tiene la visión”, y por qué “Jesús nos hubiera salvado aunque no hubiera muerto en la cruz, sino viejito en su cama: nos salva a través del amor, y no del dolor”.
“Desde hace casi dos años, mi obispo me prohíbe enseñar, escribir, dar conferencias. Intenté hacerlo entrar en razón pero no ha querido ceder. Entonces, como no quiero desobedecer a la Iglesia , para poder enseñar la Biblia libremente, renuncio”, explicó Alvarez Valdés. El teólogo, residente en Santiago del Estero, es licenciado summa cum laude en la Facultad Bíblica Franciscana de Jerusalén, y doctor en Teología bíblica en la Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca. Es miembro de varias asociaciones internacionales, incluida la Sociedad Argentina de Teología, y autor de diversos libros en la especialidad.
El 4 de agosto de 2008, el obispo de Santiago del Estero, Francisco Polti, le había prohibido al sacerdote Ariel Alvarez Valdés “dar clase de disciplinas teológicas, incluyendo cursos cortos y conferencias”, “participar en medios de comunicación social incluyendo Internet” y “hacer nuevas publicaciones o disponer la reedición de publicaciones anteriores”. Alvarez Valdés venía enseñando en la Universidad Católica local y en el Seminario de la diócesis.
En ese momento, la sanción establecida por el obispo Polti había obedecido a una disposición del cardenal Tarsicio Bertone, secretario de Estado del Vaticano. De todos modos, “mi obispo, por ser del Opus Dei, tiene una mirada muy conservadora y cerrada; otros obispos no hubieran reaccionado de esa manera, y de hecho en otras diócesis seguí dando clases y dictando cursos”. Alvarez Valdés presentó su renuncia al sacerdocio en julio del año pasado: “En estos meses intenté que mi obispo revirtiera su actitud, pero no hubo caso, y finalmente decidí hacerla efectiva”.
–Usted entiende que la sanción fue una iniciativa del obispo Polti, que el Vaticano respaldó –observó Página/12.
–Así es –contestó Alvarez Valdés–. La medida fue desproporcionada. Y se mantuvo pese a que llegamos a acordar en diversos puntos, salvo la historicidad de Adán y Eva.
–¿Qué sostiene usted respecto del relato de Adán y Eva?
–Que no es un relato histórico. El autor que lo escribió no sabía ni pretendía enseñar cómo apareció el hombre sobre la Tierra. Lo que la Biblia sabe es de dónde provino el hombre: de las manos de Dios. Cómo apareció, si fue o no como lo plantea la teoría de la evolución, es tema de los científicos. El relato de Adán y Eva procura destacar la grandeza de un hombre y una mujer creados por Dios: nadie puede abusar de otra persona, por humilde que sea, ya que en todo ser humano reside la imagen de Dios.
–¿Y cuál es la doctrina oficial de la Iglesia al respecto?
–La inmensa mayoría de los teólogos sostienen lo que acabo de decir. De hecho el Vaticano me envió una carta donde reconocía que mi posición era correcta pero cuestionaban el hecho de divulgarla al gran público, en vez de circunscribirla a libros técnicos de difícil acceso.
–O sea que la Iglesia mantendría dos discursos al respecto.
–Es de lo que yo me quejé. Si se puede escribirlo en los libros de teología, ¿por qué no va a ser posible decírselo al gran público? Pero le tienen miedo al escándalo, siempre lo mismo. Mi obispo, en los considerandos de la prohibición, aducía que mis afirmaciones causaban “perplejidad” a la gente”. Pero el Papa también causa a veces perplejidad. El mismo Jesús, según cuentan los Evangelios, dejaba perplejos a sus discípulos.
–Otros puntos de discrepancia se referían a la figura de María...
–No es cierto que el ángel Gabriel se le haya “aparecido” a María, como un señor que entrara volando por la ventana: si así hubiese sido, María no habría tenido oportunidad de expresar su fe; si hubiera visto realmente al ángel, no se trataría de fe. En realidad el ángel simboliza la voz de Dios en el corazón de María.
–De todos modos, la concepción de María en tanto virgen implicaría ya una intervención sobrenatural.
–En la Biblia , la virginidad no necesariamente debe interpretarse como hecho meramente físico. La Biblia entiende por virginidad el hecho de la fidelidad a una misma persona. En el Antiguo Testamento puede leerse: “Feliz de ti, virgen que has concebido a tus hijos...”. En este sentido una virgen puede tener hijos con su marido, porque la virginidad no concierne a la biología sino a la fidelidad.
–Muchos católicos no suelen entenderlo de ese modo...
–Pero estas cosas ya han sido aceptadas. Ya no me piden que me retracte en esos puntos. A lo largo de estos dos años, me aceptaron éstos y otros puntos. La única exigencia de retractación que no levantaron fue sobre Adán y Eva. Y dije que no: ¿con qué cara podría mirar a mis alumnos después de decir semejante barbaridad?
–Otro de los puntos era su negativa a admitir “apariciones” de la Virgen María.
–Los muertos, según la Biblia , no pueden volver a la Tierra. El que murió no vuelve, y el que volvió nunca ha muerto. Esas historias que recopilaba Víctor Sueyro, de túneles, luces y música, corresponden al más acá: nadie vuelve del más allá. Entonces, la Virgen María no puede “aparecer”, no puede presentarse físicamente a nadie. Alguien puede tener una visión de la Virgen María , que ocurre en la retina de la persona pero no en el exterior.
–¿Cómo distinguir estas visiones de las que conciernen a la psicopatología?
–Son auténticas si los mensajes que trasmiten coinciden con la Biblia. El 90 por ciento de los mensajes que se atribuyen a la Virgen María están contra la Biblia : se dijo que la Virgen de San Nicolás había contado que el nacimiento de Jesús fue como cuando un rayo de sol atraviesa el cristal de la ventana sin tocarlo ni romperlo, pero la Biblia dice que Jesús nació como un hombre, es decir, como nacen todos los hombres.
–También planteó usted que los denominados estigmas no son signos de santidad ni provienen de Dios...
–Lamentablemente, muchos creen que son signos de santidad enviados por Dios. Pero no pueden venir de Dios, porque duelen mucho. Un estigma es terriblemente doloroso, es un boquete en la mano. Dios es amor y bondad y no puede mandar lastimaduras a la gente. Los estigmas vienen de los desequilibrios mentales de las personas: científicamente, la mente humana puede tener un poder despótico sobre el organismo. De igual modo, mucha gente sigue pensando que Jesús nos salvó con su muerte en la cruz y que, si no, no nos hubiera salvado. ¿Quiere decir que El contrató a Pilatos para que condenara, a Pedro para que negara, a Judas para que traicionara? ¿Si Judas no lo hubiera entregado, El no nos habría salvado? Jesús nos hubiera salvado igual aunque hubiera muerto viejito en su cama. Porque nos salva a través del amor, no del dolor.
Tras dejar los hábitos, Alvarez Valdés, de 52 años, se propone “crear un instituto bíblico para acercar gente a la Iglesia Católica. Ya que no puedo como cura, porque mi obispo me lo prohíbe, doy un paso al costado y lo hago como laico”. En cuanto a sus medios materiales de vida, “afortunadamente vivo en la casa de mis padres, que me apoyan; he publicado algunos libros; gracias a Dios, nunca viví de la Iglesia ”.
El Obispado de Santiago del Estero comunicó que “con dolor hemos recibido esta petición. Durante mucho tiempo hemos intentado encontrar un camino de solución a la situación eclesial del padre pero, aunque reconocemos esfuerzos mutuos, lamentablemente no lo hemos logrado”.
Um abraço Justiniano. Graça e Paz,
To define a liberal calvinist movement, I must, as a courtesy, let it say what it is. Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger, in their book, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Baker Academic, 2005) define emerging in this way:
Emerging Calvinist churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures. This definition encompasses nine practices. Emerging churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives. Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5) serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual activities.apps/joomla/index.phpINTRODUCTION TO INTEGRAL THEOLOGYSpiral Dynamics and the Biblical NarrativeAs we just wrapped up the first decade of our new millennium, the legacy of religion continues to represent a history of division. As Einstein said, problems cannot be solved at the levels in which they are created, so a fresh search has begun for new vistas from which to see our dilemmas – and solutions – afresh. The Spiral Dynamics model promises to be one such breakthrough vantage point.The study of the Spiral begins with humanity’s most archaic beginnings and traces our historical and cultural development up to the present. The highest level of thinking now observed by Spiral Dynamics practitioners is called Integral (and ‘post’ Integral) Consciousness. A full explanation of this is in our Web section on Integral Theory. Please refer there in order to get the most out of this section.Presence sees the underlying principles of the Spiral Dynamics as having credibility because it mirrors the Biblical Narrative and not vice versa. As such, Presence aims at presenting an Integral Theology and Integral Spirituality point of view originating from seeingGod as “All in All“. We see great potential in employing the Spiral Dynamics model as a further avenue for entering a more transformative experience; it adds greater depth and dimension to God, showing how the diverse fields of philosophy, psychology, education, once and more are pointing toward greater levels of empathy, compassion, and mutual concern. Simply stating that God is “all-in-all” really only begins the conversation. From there we desire to reveal, explore and grow into the infinite tapestry of meanings that may be woven from this simple model of BioPsychoSocial systems.The View from the TopLet’s begin with the big picture of the Spiral as it compares to the Biblical Narrative. The spiral has two main levels of growth that are termed “first tier” and “second tier.” The first tier of humanity’s growth or evolution grew level by level to new stages of understanding, but it could not appreciate the purpose of the previous levels. Across all the stages that comprise first-tier consciousness, you believed that what was in the past had to be removed or torn down in order to establish the correct, improved way of thinking – which of course was what you believed at present! First tier thinking cannot see the value of previous levels of growth.Second tier in the spiral is where truly inclusive thinking debuts. In the second tier one understands both the dignities and disasters of all previous levels. Second tier thinking does not label previous levels of understanding as inferior any more than I consider my first or second grade years as inferior to my high school years. This echoes the apostle Paul’s teaching about being a child and consciously growing into adulthood (1 Corinthians 13:11). Paul can be seen as a second tier teacher who saw first tier as absolutely necessary in order to move on. Paul was not ashamed of being a child. We emphasize this point at the beginning to explain the difference between unhealthy hierarchical thinking and what the Spiral terms a “holarchy”.Hierarchy, Holarchy, or Malarky?Entrepreneur and philosopher Steve McIntosh presents a very good summary of the work of Arthur Koestler, a public intellectual who first saw how nature consisted of parts that were whole in and of themselves but also consisted as part of a self-organizing dynamic system – holons. A holon-based understanding of science (for instance) would recognize that molecules transcend and include atoms, cells transcend and include molecules, organs transcend and include cells. While the atom or molecule or cell exists as an entity by itself there is a greater whole that comes from them all. Of course this doesn’t imply that atoms have less value than molecules; it means they have a different purpose. This ‘transcend and include’ nature of holons, where both what’s transcended and included are seen as different yet valuable, is called holarchy. You can see just by the etymology that it’s different from both flat, artificially-imposed egalitarianism on the one hand and rigid, top-down hierarchy on the other hand. Holarchy is whole, yet genuinely layered.Integral consciousness would reject any God story that seems to value some children higher than others. Integral Theology is seeing the narrative of the Genesis to Revelation canon as a holoarchy. So we will see that “Adam” was an “atom” as we begin in Archaic layers of development, but the trajectory of the Narrative will take us to Jesus, whose body (symbolized by the “called out”) was at the most complex level. The narrative in this light will emphasize levels of understanding as sourced by the All in All for the purpose of growing all God’s children.The unhealthy understanding of hierarchy is at the root of many conflicts between the religion of Judaism and the religion of Christianity. Christianity uses the terms old and new testaments, which immediately points to new as of higher value. Judaism becomes displaced by Christianity. This is hierarchical one-upmanship, not holarchy. Holarchy recognizes Adam, Moses and Christ as humanity growing from childhood to adulthood. God is the focus of the Narrative and God is the source of all growth. This is the essence of Presence. This idea of Narrative as a single, integrated trajectory will be explored on our web site over the years to come, as it represents part of the evolutionary leap into Integral Theology and Integral Spirituality. Let’s consider a few aspects of biblical-narrative-as-holarchy and its implications.When the biblical narrative is holarchy, the canon would consist of one story, from Adam to Abraham to Moses and the prophets to Jesus. But – and here is the evolutionary leap, hang onto your hats! – Christianity as institutional religion does not complete the trajectory of ongoing second tier consciousness. Now before you run to another web site or unsubscribe from our newsletter, please hear me out: Integral Theology sees theecclesia or called-out (what’s often rendered as ‘church’ in Scripture and contemporary discourse) as an integral part of the holarchy. However, we do not see the ecclesia as a self-perpetuating, on-going religion. How now, sacred cow?Moses and JesusMoses of Mesopotamia and Jesus of Nazareth represent a holarchy of the story of God as received in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Each of them was an instrument of God; neither claimed to be the source themselves. The narrative clearly unfolds Moses receiving the Commandments as God’s spokesperson and Jesus says over and over that all his teachings and works are not of himself but they come from the Father. In both cases the source is God. The unfolding narrative in Integral Theology is a witness to the All in All; both Moses and Jesus are witnesses that point away from themselves and directly toward the One. This picture illuminates the Spiral of human development discussed in the Integral Theory section of our web site, as it sees Genesis through Revelation as an ever-unfolding revelation of God, with each piece critical to the next and no piece having higher value than another.“But isn’t Jesus the focus of the Narrative?” tradition asks. No. Jesus was chosen to represent and reveal the fullness of the Father (Col. 1:19). The Father is the point, not Jesus. Jesus tried to emphasize this throughout his ministry. The Father is the true source of identity, Who transcends and includes all. Are we trying to lower our love for the person and work of Jesus? No. We’re re-framing the narrative to point solely to the One or to the All in All; Being or I am or Presence.In following this concept Moses would precede Jesus as the one who brought that which was in part. In this way Moses was used by God to reveal the stages of first-tier spiritual understanding – what some scholars refer to as the ‘axial age,’ representing a flowering of spiritual understanding around the world in Buddhism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism and prophetic Judaism. Millennia later, Jesus is used by God to reveal the fullness of God’s story. But both the part (as first tier) and the fullness (as second tier) are making up the holarchy of God’s narrative and witness about the divine nature, which is both God’s alone and paradoxically shared by all (hence Jesus as the firstborn of a new order of creation; Jesus never intended to ‘possess’ this glory for himself, but to initiate humanity into a recognition that we’re all children of God – see Colossians 1:15 and Romans 8:29). The fullness of God in Jesus was dependent on the part that came from Moses – God transcended and included. Revelation 15:3 says “and (they) sang the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the lamb.” Both songs made up the totality of the music of God. Both songs were integrally related to each other. But the songs were not about Moses or the lamb. They were worshiping the One. So the ultimate movement in the spiral is into the realm of Spirit; it will take us beyond Moses and Jesus and beyond Judaism and Christianity. This will powerfully lead to an evolutionary leap in our view of what some call ‘Salvation History’ – but that will be addressed in future articles.Let’s now start defining our Biblical terminology as it matches up with the language of the spiral.Copyright Presence 2011
United Church Resources on Sexual Orientation
- Daring to Be United: Including Lesbians and Gays in The United Church of Canada
- Alyson Huntly (Toronto: United Church Publishing House, 1998)
- Stories of hope, change, healing and transformation in the decade from 1988 to 1998.
- Moving Toward Full Inclusion: Sexual Orientation in The United Church of Canada
- (Toronto: The United Church of Canada, forthcoming)
- A history of the United Church’s gradual journey toward full inclusion of all people, regardless of sexual orientation.
- Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth Issues in Canada: Action Resources for United Church Congregations
- (Toronto: The United Church of Canada, 2003)
- A booklet examining issues facing young lesbians, gays, and bisexuals that suggests concrete actions congregations can take to support these members of their community.
- Of Love and Justice: Towards the Civil Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage
- (Toronto: The United Church of Canada, 2003)
- Developed in response to the resolutions passed by the 37th and 38th General Councils. This resource offers four workshops to help a congregation or a group within the congregation to explore civil recognition of same-sex relationships from a faith and justice perspective. It also offers a process for congregational decision making on same-sex marriage.
- Passion and Freedom
- (Toronto: United Church Publishing House, 2003)
- A faith-based resource that addresses all stages of a committed life partnership, both heterosexual and same-sex. Offers an overview of pastoral issues, some orientation to common underlying patterns, and practical ways to encourage couples to find and live out their call from God in the world.
- Together in Faith: Inclusive Resources about Sexual Diversity for Study, Dialogue, Celebration, and Action
- (Toronto: The United Church of Canada, 1995)
- Designed to assist congregations who wish to examine what it means to become more inclusive of gays and lesbians, including the possibility of developing and providing services for same-sex couples.
The Consciousness Within
Science, Religion, and the Consciousness WithinBy Tim King“One of the strands of integral theory is particularly concerned with the reintegration of spirituality and science—or science and religion/theology. The beginnings of the reuniting of science and spirit are a reflection of the new consciousness movement and point towards increasingly integrated future cultural developments.” Jennifer GidleyIntroduction:For all our advancements, many questions persist—we wonder, for instance, what makes us who we are, both individually and as humans. Finding the answer to such a question, and living accordingly, may determine the success or failure of our species at large. For this reason I hold great hope for the unfolding discipline of integral theory and its potential to unify the best of scientific and religious thought and theory to promote a greater understanding of both the internal and external universe at large.One of the challenges we face in such an endeavor is that as with competitive siblings, the battle for supremacy between science and religion is often contentious and currently shows little sign of waning. In the quest for supremacy, science and religion seem to be speaking past each other as they claim exclusive rights to the domains of truth andmeaning.It is illustrative of our quandary that when physics has done its work in the quantum world and biology has carefully parsed the DNA of the human genome, when neuroscience has provided us with its best theories on how brain cells function and our brightest theologians have put forth their best insights (all-too-often apart from science), many of the same deep—but at the same time elementary—questions persist.Deepak Chopra reminds us that:…viewed together, [science and religion] fall short of a common factor that guides every moment of daily life: consciousness. The future of spirituality will converge with the future of science when we actually know how and why we think, what makes us alive to the outer and inner world, and how we came to be so rich in creativity. Being alive is inconceivable without being conscious. ‘I think, therefore I am’ is fundamentally true, but Descartes’ maxim should be expanded to include feeling, intuition, a sense of self, and our drive to understand who we are.For some, science alone offers the way forward. Somewhere in our cells, or at the subatomic level, or in stellar nurseries of deep space, lies the answer we seek. Philosopher Ken Wilber feels such an approach is too limited. “In that extraordinary journey from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit,” he writes,“scientific materialism halted the journey at the very first stage, and proclaimed all subsequent developments to be nothing but arrangements of frisky dirt. Why this dirt would get right up and eventually start writing poetry was not explained.”How then, do we approach the issue of consciousness and its place in our world and in ourselves? Should one of these, science or religion, win out? Do they constitute what Stephen Jay Gould calls “overlapping magisteria,” in which there is no clear winner and each claims its own truth? Is there some way to combine the two? What is the history of this great debate between these two competing siblings; why such animosity? How did we arrive at the place we find ourselves today: a seemingly hostile impasse between science and religion in the continuing search for truth and meaning?The Way Things WereIn his book The Marriage of Sense and Soul, Wilber makes a compelling case for why (and how) science and religion should be re-integrated for the good of the planet. Wilber does so by tracing important movements within history.Following Huston Smith’s work in comparative religion, Wilber notes that prior to the Enlightenment virtually all of the great wisdom traditions honored what is known as The Great Chain of Being (see fig. 1)Without obsessing over the particulars, the basic concept (of this oversimplified and somewhat clumsy model) is that reality as we know it comes to us on many different levels—levels extending from matter to body to mind to soulto spirit. As such, we might see it as a nested chain wherein, as Wilber puts it, “each senior level ‘envelops’ or ‘enfolds’ its junior dimensions…so that every thing and event in the world is interwoven with every other, and all are ultimately enveloped and enfolded by Spirit, by God….”Wilber calls this dialectic “transcend and include.” While each level retains the stuff of the previous level, it adds to it, but the result is more than the sum of its parts, so to speak. The bodies of living things are made of matter, but they are more than matter. The mind is more than the body but does not exist apart from the body. The mind adds additional qualities such as thought, feeling and emotion. Likewise, beyond the mind is the level of the soul—inclusive of the mind, but with added facultiesbeyond the rational mind, and so on.Subsequently, because each level has a different architecture, each also has its own particular discipline of study: physics studies matter, biology studies life-forms, psychology the mind, theology the soul, etc. And with this way of looking at the world, all things seemed relatively settled—that is, until a major shift of thinking took place in the West, giving birth to the Modern world as we know it. Things have never been the same since.But, as with so many other developments, the birth of the Modern world was a mixed bag—not all bad, not all good…The Quid Pro Quo of Power GamesThere was a time when, in the West, the Church dominated the disciplines of theology, philosophy and science. While there were areas in which this three-fold oversight functioned harmoniously – the development of hospitals and Western medical ethics, for instance – this hegemony of thought also led to some unfortunate occurrences, not the least of which was forcing Galileo to recant his newfound stance repositing the position of the Earth within the solar system, revolving around the sun —understandings any middle school student today now takes for granted.Prior to the Copernican Revolution, Ptolemaic cosmology, long the dominant view in the West, placed our planet at the center of the solar system and the universe itself. We were the stationary, fixed focal point of the cosmos. Copernicus had suggested a different model, one in which the Earth moved around the sun, and Galileo’s observations bore this out, but it meant the unthinkable: the Earth moves.To accede to the movement of the Earth would change everything, and threatened the very social order of their day. If we step back into their life-setting, we can understand why. At the time, the universe was seen as a collection of concentric crystal spheres that moved according to Pythagorean musical intervals (attuning the cosmos to the “music of the spheres”) and society and Church matched this perceived divine framework in a comprehensive hierarchy from serfs and altar boys to the King and the Pope. To accept Galileo’s findings would be to entertain the idea that their entire way of life was suspect. As Brian McLaren once remarked at a conference, “You have to hear the sound of breaking glass.”Predictably, when these new scientific ideas began to encroach upon their story, the Church faced Galileo with a fairly easy decision: recant or die.And so what had been the dignityof a Church seeking the integration of the world via religion, science and philosophy, became the disaster of an all-too-powerful, all-too-persuasive religious monarchy through its rebuttal of a promising new scientific advancement. And once religion opted to suppress science for the sake of its own story and tradition, the battle between science and religion had begun in earnest.In time, as life and society—church and state—evolved, science gained the necessary freedom to do its job without any pressure from above, so to speak. But with a long memory and a sizeable chip on its shoulder, science was only too happy to return the favor by severing itself from the authority of the church.The scientific process was able to deliver a lot in terms of our collective knowledge, and the modern world came to be characterized by scientific materialism and an obsession with technology and technological systems. Overstepping its bounds, science began dislodging ideas about the truth of value spheres—previously the domain of religion—and all-too-quickly jettisoned the ideas of God and Spirit, of morals and art along with the transcendent ideals of Aristotle’s “the good, the beautiful and the true.” These were all collapsed into scientism’s prejudicial eye for reducing the search for truth to the confines of matter itself without remorse for the denial of any reality beyond.Jean Gebser (1905-73), who coined the phrase “integral consciousness” to describe ways of thinking that might move us beyond modern rationalism, calls this move on the part of science aflatland approach: for the first time in history, the idea of stuffing everything into the singular subject of matter had ‘flattened’ a world previously nuanced in its search for what it perceived as the higher values of “the good, the beautiful, and the true.”And so it was, writes Wilber, that “According to scientific materialism, the Great Nest of matter, body, mind, soul, and spirit could be thoroughly and rudely reduced to systems of matter alone; and matter–whether in the material brain or material process systems—would account for all of reality, without remainder. Gone was mind and gone was soul and gone was Spirit—gone, in fact, was the entire Great Chain, except for its pitiful bottom rung [matter].”If religion once overstepped its bounds in a disastrous attempt to rule over science, science has since overstepped its bounds in a disastrous attempt to rule over or even obliterate religion. Nevertheless, this has not been altogether successful inasmuch as science is left with its own set of quandaries. As integral theorist Steve McIntosh observes, “Consciousness doesn’t fit into the conventional scientific worldview because it is nonphysical, and thus the fact that its ‘reality’ can’t be adequately explained by science has been somewhat of an embarrassment.” Additionally, it seems, the idea that all phenomena can be reduced to various laws of physics is, in itself, a metaphysical claim, requiring its own step of faith.Back on the other side, however, this affords little reason for religion to gloat, for if those of us who follow the Christ story choose the religious path of faith alone, we do so at our own peril; we cannot simply ignore the findings of science. Quantum physics and neurobiology are taking us deeper into the reality of our existence, even including the role consciousness would/could/might play in how we not only perceive the world, but actually help to create it.For religion to close its eyes to science and its awe-inspiring discoveries would be tantamount to opting for a faith void of many of the facts that could (and should) be used to bolster such a faith. Alternately, for science to insist on collapsing the entire range of human experience into a flatland materialism, closing itself off to anything other than matter alone with nothing at work beyond it, would be to turn a deaf ear to a world bent on a never-ending search for meaning—one that refuses to settle for less than its indefatigable sense that ‘there is more’ than meets the eye.Perhaps it is again time to embrace the roles of both science and religion, and we can do so by finding ways to bracket each within their particular domains of expertise in the hope of bringing forward the best each has to offer.The Creative Power of ObservationIf we take from science a constellation of methodologies that offer knowledge about theexternal domain of things, and from religion/spirituality/
mysticism practices that offer us purchase on the internal domain of things, we might recognize the large—and common—role that observation plays in each. In integral theory, it is axiomatic that higher consciousness affords the subject higher levels of observation—a key element of both science and religion.On the religious side of the equation, Jesus said, “As a person thinks in their heart, so they are.” This is no mere Sunday homiletic. It is a mysterious affirmation of a creative Presence within—one capable of giving birth to an evolving, Self-created internal universe largely based uponconscious observation. But can and should this spiritual (metaphysical) principle also be coupled with the best of scientific findings?As an example of scientific conscious observation, Max Bohn (1926) demonstrated that unobserved particles exist only as waves of probability; until they’re observed they have no real existence. In this light it would seem that science, too, has much to gain in making room for a type of internal consciousness thatobserves… the very sort of observation wisdom teachers such as Jesus would claim lay at the base of all interior evolution. If so, we’re left to wonder and debate whether such an observing consciousness goes beyond mere matter.Dr. Robert Lanza, speaking as a scientist and a person of faith, writes:…after studying neurobiology…objects, even our own bodies, are nothing but representations in our mind—we can’t see anything through the bone surrounding the brain. We assume there’s a universe ‘out there’ separate from what we are, and that we play no role in its appearance. Yet since the 1920’s, experiments have shown just the opposite; results do depend on whether anyone is observing [and that] quantum reality extends into the macroscopic world we live in [however, an underlying problem persists because] we’ve ignored a critical component of the universe, shunted it out of the way because we didn’t know what to do with it. This component is consciousness—us, the great observer.What Dr. Lanza privileges is a ‘perceptual’ consciousness that stands over-and-against current neurobiological models in which consciousness is primarily dependent on the brain (e.g., matter alone) for its existence.This is an important issue and one that certainly warrants additional attention. As Gidley remarks, “The evolution discourse [has] remained dominated by a physicalist form of biology, such that significant pioneering works on the evolution of consciousness, that were inclusive of spiritual dimensions, were ignored, dismissed or marginalized by the science of the day (Aurobindo, 2000; Bergson, 1911/1944; Gebser, 1970/2005; Neumann,, 1954/1995; Steiner, 1926/1996…Teilhard de Chardin, 1959/2002, 1959/2004).”When it comes to the issue of human consciousness and its role in both the evolution of the internal and external domains, is it possible that religion and science are edging closer toward one another in a somewhat parallel pursuit of truth and a greater understanding of the basis or origin of life?As science leads to greater discovery and the religious provides us with more and more robust philosophical models, we become ever more hopeful that the answer to that question is ‘yes.’A Stable Brain—An Evolving MindA funny thing happened on the way to the Modern world… while in the past ten thousand years the human brain has undergone imperceptible change, the mind has experienced inordinate growth, expansion, added insight and increased awareness. Scientifically, we could call this the mind/body problem; it presents the flatlanders with a significant hurdle: Clearly something greater than the base firing of neurons in a materialbrain is at work.Each of us is aware of a one-of-a-kind inner life or interior world that makes us uniquely who we are. And it is this sense of self-awareness that creates the breadth, depth and expansiveness of our experiences—of our own human subjectivity. According to McIntosh, this is what human consciousness is, it is “our experiential awareness, consisting of feelings, thoughts, intentions, and our personal sense of identity.”The struggle between religion and science occurs because consciousness is clearly not a substance; it is neither material nor purely biological. And yet it is also not an empty vacuum. As well, while consciousness resides within the physicality of the human body, it appears also to be interconnected (or at least highly influenced by) with society at large. In other words, we seem to evolve both personally andculturally.Moreover, science is now discovering that some kind of consciousness (no matter how primitive) seems to pervade the entire universe—even to the extent that some string theorists suggest that quarks themselves may demonstrate some sort of will or volition, as if they actuallyfeel all the known forces of nature.Consciousness, it seems, is an all-pervasive force or presence within our universe. Wondrously, human consciousness stands above all other forms of consciousness in its ability to evolve apart from any on-going change or development of its biological host. Why might this be?British biologist Rupert Sheldrake describes the seemingly miraculous evolution of nature through what he terms “morphic resonance,” an idea that not only holds great promise for understanding the interior evolution of the individual, but also the global development (evolution) of cultures and societies as a whole.Sheldrake developed the idea of morphic resonance through the observation of training experiments performed with rats. Sheldrake noted that when a group of rats was taught to perform a specific task, their siblings learned it in half the time. Additionally, subsequent generations learned in half the time as well, even if their parents did not learn the skill in the first place.From this, Sheldrake began to develop a theory that knowledge may be stored outside of our space-time existence in what he calls “morphic fields.” In Sheldrake’s theory, our brains basically act as satellite receptors tuning into the universal resonance of a collective knowledge surrounding us. Could such a theory help to explain the seemingly rapid development of human consciousness?As Jim Marion observes, our earliest human ancestors (we’ll say 300,000 years ago) had an ‘archaic’ consciousness; 30,000 years ago humans exhibited a ‘magical’ consciousness; 3,000 years ago humankind operated at the level of a ‘mythical’ consciousness and by 300 years ago a ‘rational’ consciousness had emerged. Today in the West, if properly educated, a child of 15 years of age will possess a fully developed ‘rational’ consciousness.The evolutionary development of consciousness seems evident. Here is the journey to the rational mind in the lifetime of our species: 300,000 years—30,000 years—3,000 years—300 years… 15 years!Consciousness, it seems, is exploding. And not only could this be good news for the people and cultures of the present—it may be the only hope for the survival of our planet and tomorrow’s species at large!The Importance of Integrating Interior and Exterior DomainsFor years we at Presence International have spoken about the integral nature of all things and how the biblical story (thefulfilled biblical story) reveals that any perceived gap between us and God, self, culture or nature is a human construct and not a reflection of the reality of the completed story wherein God is known as “all in all” (1 Cor. 15).These core interior and exteriordomains are descriptive of the realms also known as the objective, subjective and the intersubjective or nature, self and culture. Again, while science may protest that the subjective and intersubjective domains deal with that which is beyond matter (e.g., the objective) and, therefore, are nonexistently metaphysical—as previously discussed, the claim of science that nothing beyond the material world exists (or is real) is, itself, a metaphysical claim as it also ultimately stands in the category of belief, apart from a concretion of scientific evidence.Regardless of whether we are approaching the realms of the objective, subjective or intersubjective from the vantage point of science or religion, we are dealing with some degree of a metaphysical truth claim. However, once we look at what these categories reveal to us, at most it is what might be described as soft metaphysics (for it does not seem much of a stretch to acknowledge that not only matter, but clearly life, culture and human history all evolve as well).In sum, what we hope to witness by employing various models ofintegral theory is the relational dynamics between the ongoing evolutionary stages of the interior and exterior domains of individuals, culture and consciousness. From this we will examine the basis of human thought, emotion, perspective and the potential cultural and evolutional impact that might proceed from such insights.Something is happening in our day that is both intentional and consequential for our planet and we citizens depending upon it. There are signs within both science and religion that there is more (much more) at work among us than our present theologies and theories postulate. Something is revealing Itself in both the micro and macrocosmic domains; something that is whole, integrated, aware and beckoning us to see and possibly mimic.The domains of the objective, subjective and intersubjective are not distinct and separate, but are whole and integrated. Cultures are advancing. Consciousness is expanding. But still the question of the hour remains: Can such an awakening keep pace with, and even advance beyond, the collective insanity of a world seemingly bent on disintegration and destruction?Is the great upheaval of our day and the universal threat of terrorism in all its madness a sign of the end, or that we are about to experience an evolutionary leap that will forever set humankind on a course of peace, justice and abundance for all?These are the great questions of our time. Through an ongoing discourse in integral theory and the planetary potential it holds, we are hopeful that abundance beyond beliefis at hand… an abundance beyond the beliefs presently witnessed by either science or religion.Consciousness is expanding. And with it, a new and fuller understanding of Presence is arising.Sources:Jim Marion, The Death of the Mythic God (Charlottesville, Hampton Roads Publishing Co., Inc., 2004).Ken Wilber, The Marriage of Sense and Soul (New York, Random House, Inc., 1998)._________. A Theory of Everything(Boston, Shambala Publications, 2000).Steve McIntosh, Integral Consciousness and The Future of Evolution (St. Paul, Paragon House, 2007).Jennifer Gidley, The Evolution of Consciousness as a Planetary Imperative: An Integration of Integral Views. Integral Review 5, 2007.Deepak Chopra: Consciousness and the End of the War Between Science and Religion (6/26/10)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ deepak-chopra/consciousness- and-the-end_b_620133.htmlRobert Lanza, MD.: What Are We? New Experiments Suggest We’re Not Purely Physical (6/30/10)http://huffingtonpost.com/ robert-lanza/science- spirituality_b_624292.html.
6 anexos — Fazer a transferência de todos os anexos (zipado para
601K Visualizar Transferência
604K Visualizar Transferência
629K Visualizar Transferência
|CÀV 3 - CARTAS EM NOME DO AMOR EDIÇAO EXTRA 621 páginas.pdf|
12089K Visualizar Transferência
|A Cama na Varanda - Regina Navarro Lins-.-WwW.LivrosGratis.net-.-.pdf|
3184K Visualizar Transferência
|TESE SOBRE O HOMOSSEXUALISMO.pdf|
719K Visualizar Transferência