I’m using the term “ambassador” as referencial, in a technical sense, without pejurative connotations… but I hear you.

In the senes I mean it the ambassadorial always exists because it is everything from a reference to a text to a method to a tradition to a person to a work of art, etc. There will always be people who don’t connect with a Source who upon hearing (in various ways) about it want to do so.

Yes, I definately agree that seekers may avoid finding. I’ve heard over a dozen people admit that they don’t want to enter into personal spiritual experience because of the ‘cost’ associated therewith. They’re people who didn’t want their lives to change.

If Godde is vague, impersonal and essentially unknowable then yes the parable of the 10 blind people is applicable (I won’t comment on the privileged position of the king – that’s for another day).

If Godd is distinct, personal and self-revealing (as much evidence points to but we must speak of Godde in the plural as there are many self-proclaimed high gods as their are self-proclaimed messiahs) then I don’t think that’s a suitable parable.

Which brings me to another thought and perhaps another blog post…

regarding inter-faith dialogue, i find it interesting that the mystics of the three monotheistic religions communicate far more easily, relative to their more exoteric brethren, who – myself included – too easily start climbing the signpost rather than travel the path.

your explorations will no doubt uncover some of the reasons for this. the parable of the 10 blind people arguing over what the elephant “is” comes to mind.

We can take this one up face to face.

A note on the seeker: seekers can avoid becoming finders because of the responsibility implied in finding.

I’ll convert the pics to JPG’s later today and see if that solves the problem for you and if so make that my habit form now on.

I’m here exploring the seeker trying to connect with a source and noting that along the way they will find many different sources, along with the ambassadorial representatives and end users relating to that source.

I refer to the institutional element as it is important for religion is as much public and historical as it is personal and private. The scope of what serves as an ‘ambassador’ can be anything from a meditation technique through to a scripture through to a present person. Am I missing you here? I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘challenge’?

When an end user gets caught between two faith positions they often move toward the ’seeker’ category (in the sense of these present definitions) before moving on toward another end user position (even if it is the positionless position it is still a position).

I do believe that the creative intent of Godde included relational intimacy with humanity, which for various reasons hasn’t quite worked out as well as it could’ve. In and through the work of Christ people have free access to Godde in and through Christ. In that sense the presence and power and intimacy of Godde evidenced in OT prophets and figures is available to all.

I look foward to meeting you too. Both Nic and Andrew speak highly of you. I’ve really been enjoying the online interaction, though it is quite limited. Maybe one day the bunch of us could dialogue via internet and post those dialogues

I haven’t experienced you as combative but rather see you as passionate in your exploration and convictions.

I reckom the Buddhist and the Christian are both evangelising people into their truth (to continue the example) and both consider their tradition (in the healthiest sense of the word/concept) to rightly point people toward salvation. Both are equally strong in their views and both require others to ‘believe’ and ‘praxis’ rightly in order ‘to be saved.’

I’ve dialogued with many religious people – from Buddhists to Mormons to Sahaja Yogis to occultists – and found that real dialogue requires a lot of work, which many people simply aren’t willing to do. It would appear that people from all traditions want to pontificate (including myself).

Unfortunately the interfaith dialogues I’ve been a part of superficially find ‘common ground’ in the view that Godde is essentially vague, impersonal and unknowable and thereby erases everyone’s truth.

In grappling with this issue I’m trying to fully explore “the problem of Godde”.

I think that “personal truth” varies and as such Godde’s truth as personal differs from individual people’s personal truth.

As ‘truth’ is a matter of knowing and I don’t believe Godde is lacking in the knowing department Godde’s personal truth is also Truth.

Truth and truth, what a suitable conundrum…

I was wondering about the specific “doctrine” of the priesthood of believers. Do you not think this is a radical shift towards the divine making home in the midst of humanity?

Also it would seem to challenge the suggestions of institutionalism contained in the “ambassadorial” role, where the ambassador holds the power/key to the source.

Are you suggesting that end uses become more ambassadorial, or that they become more seeker?

[BTW I can't see the diagrams]