[Bobd]

jamesAMDG, on May 19 2007, 02:18 AM, said:

Bobd:
This is fairly non-explanatory. You tell me I'm incorrect (and so is, well, nearly everyone [sidebar: gnosticism always struck as being incredibly elitist, you aren't exactly helping your case here]) without defining or explaining your terms.

Can I assume that what you mean by elohim are the aeons?
Tom Harpur denies the divinity of Christ and His salvific unicity, Christianity as the fulfillment of the Judaic faith, etc. As far as I'm concerned that excludes him from what Christian means. Besides, if he couldn't even stick it out in a theological and institutional basketcase like the Anglican Church it helps understand how far out of Christianity he is. Mr. Kuhn, whether you want to qualify his theosophical ramblings as Christian is your own business, but I'm perfectly able to recognize when one thing is not like another.

Well, I suppose I could do your research for you, but I assumed that you might have a working knowledge of the system you were putting forward. Perhaps it's a bit much to expect people who take Holy Writ so lightly to not take Saint Peter's advice to heart, (1st Letter of Saint Peter, 3.15) "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you."

I called them non-Christians because I'm a little familiar with Tom Harpur (and a quick peruse fo his website confirmed what I had already understood), and if you are calling A. B. Kuhn a gnostic, well I don't think gnosticism is Christian, plus his involvement with theosophy. Why do you assume that I would defend "the Evangical literalist position"? While I do accept most evangelicals as Christians (providing they're Trinitarian, have a solid Christology, believe in the salvific unicity of Christ, etc.) I have no use for Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. If, however, you had done even the most basic research about me (by going to my blog) you would have found out that I am a Papist.

You aren;t countering my point because you have apparently missed it completely. My point was that the pagans understood that Christianity was not an outgrowth of paganism. They understood that it was something new, different and could not co-exist with them. Two opposing, exclusive faiths cannot tiptoe through the tulips together. Unfortuantely, for so many "progressives" doublethink is already a conditioned response and they don't even notice. Charater assassination is one of the main things that "Progressive" Christianity is all about. Look at threads about the election of Pope Benedict XVI, protestant fundamentalists, Ann Coulter, ad naseum. "Progressives" LOVE saying that traditional Christianity is wrong, and they LOVE tossing around words like sin when its someone notes that homsexual behaviour is disordered, but get all kissy face when facists like Hamas rail against Israel. Essentially, it's a psuedo-religious expression of a failed ideology that finds itself, justifiably, on the ash-heap of history.

Of course, and you have one too, though you seem loathe to admit it. You wouldn't say I'm wrong if you weren't measuring ti against some standard or other.
And, I never said that a man could not be mistaken about morality. Simply that his mistakeness does not change the fact that there is an objective moral standard in the universe. For example, just because someone thinks that sticking a pointy vaccuum into a baby's head and sucking his brain is ok, does not in fact make it so. You are confusing a moral opinion with morality itself.

Wrong, moral truth (or any truth for that matter) is not established by a majority vote. But if it were, the very small minority of progressive Christians would find themselves sorely outvoted.
Right, and harmony can only exist in a world where Truth reigns supreme, but until the Second Coming, we're left with the Great Commission to preach the Gospel to everyone, at all times. That's why we disuss and debate, to seek the Truth, and here possible, to know it.

I'm going to assume that this was some sort of atempt a joke, because you can't possibly be so obtuse as to not recognize I'm speaking about moral relativism here. My point was that moral relativists get their panties all in a twist when you disagree with them, and then set out to prove that moral absolutism is wrong. Like they are really right, and moral absolutism is really wrong. You know, i a worldview where NOTHING is absolutely right or wrong. Seems a little self-contradictory to me.
I'm sure that when you stand before God in the Final Judgement, He'll be happy to play this semantic game with you.

Wrong again I'm afraid, sin is a transgression of moral law, an offense against God and His goodness; it is a moral evil. To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, "[s]in is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De malo", 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law."
This isn't really an explanation of why you think that the One, True God, of Abraham, Jacob and Moses. The same God who is co-eternal in the Most Blessed Trinity is the Beast of Saint John's Apocalypse.

Further, God is and always was God, so there isn't a different God of the OT and the NT. But your mis-characterizations (someone once said that charaterizing was charater assassination) of God are not exactly surprising but they lay your own ignorance bare. Let's look at what is actually in Holy Scripture shall we...

1 Kings 15.22 (in some bible listed as 1 Samuel 15.22) "And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams."

Psalm 50.18-19 (Douay-Rheims Translation) "18 For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted. 19 A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

That is one blood-thirsty God, He just can't get enough.

Unforgiving? The same God who was Incarnate in the Virgin's womb, healed people, forgave sins and died on the cross to make the forgiveness fo sins possible? Unforgiving? That one? Seriously? And here I was always under the assumption that the Church beleived that when I make a confession I'm forgiven. Sheesh, good thing you cleared that up for me. But as far as the OT goes, you wouldn't mean that the sin offerings weren't about forgiveness, and certainly forgiveness has nothing to do with Yom Kippur.

Ethnic cleanser? Because the people who had squatted in the Promised land spent their time worshipping demons and sacrificing their children to Moloch were killed? Thats not ethnic cleansing, thats called justice. It's a very good thing that Christians live under grace and not under the law, because surely the post-Christian West rival the evil of the Canaanites.

Homophobic? Because He clearly says that homosexual acts are wrong? (I'll ignore the etymological difficulties of this stupid, made-up word). I guess God is an adulterophobe too, and a thetophobe, and a lie-ophobe, etc.

For the record though, I don't worship Jehovah. Jehovah is an incorrect transliteration, into English from Hebrew, of the Tetragramaton, YHWH. This the utterably holy Name of God. YHWH actually comes from the root of "I AM WHO AM". Tyndale used Jehovah in his bible in 1530 and when King James decided that he better get his own version of the bible made for the apostate Church, founded by Henry VIII so he could overturn his binding marriage to Catherine of Aragon, he let his translators use it. Jehovah is a nonsense word.

ps. - Please forgive the lateness of my reply.

jamesAMDG
All of your replies speak for themselves They tell me that you talk down to and demonize me, Pagans, Tom Harpur, Professor Khun, so called non-Christians, Gnostics, Progressive Christians and anyone else who does not agree with your theology. You set yourself above others with your perfect god and demean the rest of us who do not agree with you. Enjoy yourself and have a nice life!

BobD

[McKenna]

jamesAMDG, on May 19 2007, 03:18 AM, said:

Unfortuantely, for so many "progressives" doublethink is already a conditioned response and they don't even notice. Charater assassination is one of the main things that "Progressive" Christianity is all about. Look at threads about the election of Pope Benedict XVI, protestant fundamentalists, Ann Coulter, ad naseum. "Progressives" LOVE saying that traditional Christianity is wrong, and they LOVE tossing around words like sin when its someone notes that homsexual behaviour is disordered, but get all kissy face when facists like Hamas rail against Israel. Essentially, it's a psuedo-religious expression of a failed ideology that finds itself, justifiably, on the ash-heap of history.

Ouch, that's a little harsh.

Out of curiosity - I intend no hostility by it - why are you on this forum, if this is your view of us?

[October's Autumn]

McKenna, on May 20 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

Ouch, that's a little harsh.

Out of curiosity - I intend no hostility by it - why are you on this forum, if this is your view of us?

I've been asking that same question for awhile.

[October's Autumn]

Quote

Further, God is and always was God, so there isn't a different God of the OT and the NT. But your mis-characterizations (someone once said that charaterizing was charater assassination) of God are not exactly surprising but they lay your own ignorance bare. Let's look at what is actually in Holy Scripture shall we...

That is not entirely true while being partially true. God comes across many different ways in the bible. There in not one characterization of God in the Hebrew bible. The people's view of him changes and evolves. At first he is one god of many whom the people are only to worship. Later he is the ONLY god. No other even exists. The Hebrew Bible is not absolute truth about God (if so we have a problem because God has multi-personalities) but rather the ancients views of God.


Let's look at thw the Holy Scripture acutally says. Unfortunatley this is not Hebrew so you haven't looked anything.

1 Kings 15.22 (in some bible listed as 1 Samuel 15.22) "And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams."

Psalm 50.18-19 (Douay-Rheims Translation) "18 For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted. 19 A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

Quote

That is one blood-thirsty God, He just can't get enough.

You can't read Hebrew poetry literally, even in Hebrew. It wasn't intended to be taken apart or out of context. You must look at it as a whole. What is the gist of the poem?

Quote

Ethnic cleanser? Because the people who had squatted in the Promised land spent their time worshipping demons and sacrificing their children to Moloch were killed? Thats not ethnic cleansing, thats called justice. It's a very good thing that Christians live under grace and not under the law, because surely the post-Christian West rival the evil of the Canaanites.

There is no such thing as demons in the Hebrew Bible. Work on your history, please.

Quote

Homophobic? Because He clearly says that homosexual acts are wrong? (I'll ignore the etymological difficulties of this stupid, made-up word). I guess God is an adulterophobe too, and a thetophobe, and a lie-ophobe, etc.

As is the mixing of two cloths. We've done this before, it is getting old. Once again things are being taken out of context.

Quote

For the record though, I don't worship Jehovah. Jehovah is an incorrect transliteration, into English from Hebrew, of the Tetragramaton, YHWH. This the utterably holy Name of God. YHWH actually comes from the root of "I AM WHO AM". Tyndale used Jehovah in his bible in 1530 and when King James decided that he better get his own version of the bible made for the apostate Church, founded by Henry VIII so he could overturn his binding marriage to Catherine of Aragon, he let his translators use it. Jehovah is a nonsense word.

More or less accurate.

From what I've seen of your postings here you worship Zeus, not YHWH. This is common among conservatives and fundamentalists. I've met only a handful who have an inkling about who YHWH is. Zeus worship is the most common form of worship in Western culture by so-called Christians.

[October's Autumn]

Quote

You aren;t countering my point because you have apparently missed it completely. My point was that the pagans understood that Christianity was not an outgrowth of paganism. They understood that it was something new, different and could not co-exist with them. Two opposing, exclusive faiths cannot tiptoe through the tulips together.

Interesting but Xiantity was for a long time a sect of Judaism and the Pagans (ie Romans) expected the two to co-exist (or three if you prefer). They allowed the Jews (and early Christians) to have their god(s) so long as they paid tribute to the emperor, which of course they wouldn't do because it was in violation of the 1st commandment to have "no other gods before me." It was only when the Jews (remember Hannukah?) refused to worship that they had problems. Same goes for early Christians.

Quote

Unfortuantely, for so many "progressives" doublethink is already a conditioned response and they don't even notice. Charater assassination is one of the main things that "Progressive" Christianity is all about. Look at threads about the election of Pope Benedict XVI, protestant fundamentalists, Ann Coulter, ad naseum. "Progressives" LOVE saying that traditional Christianity is wrong, and they LOVE tossing around words like sin when its someone notes that homsexual behaviour is disordered, but get all kissy face when facists like Hamas rail against Israel. Essentially, it's a psuedo-religious expression of a failed ideology that finds itself, justifiably, on the ash-heap of history.

Double think? I'm not quite sure where you get that from. Your double think is my prophetic voice. It is of great importance that Progressives stand the ground against such people as Nazi-sympathizers, Zeus worshippers, etc. Christianity and Judadism have a history of standing against the oppressors. If you understand Progressive Christianity to be a "psuedo-religious expression of a failed ideology that finds itself, justifiably, on the ash-heap of history" you are sorely out of touch with both what is happening in the United States, the world, and people here. Jesus was a progressive Jew and as a progressive Christian I follow in his footsteps. Progressive Christianity is growing. It grows slowly because slow growth is healthy growth. Think of a flower versus a weed. Or girls who hit growth spurts in their early teen years and end up with scoliosis. People usually come to Progressive Christianity through much pain and suffering. True faith takes time to grow. It is not set in stone at the age of 8 or 13 or whatever age one becomes confirmed in many churches.

[McKenna]

October, on May 20 2007, 08:37 PM, said:

That is not entirely true while being partially true. God comes across many different ways in the bible. There in not one characterization of God in the Hebrew bible. The people's view of him changes and evolves. At first he is one god of many whom the people are only to worship. Later he is the ONLY god. No other even exists. The Hebrew Bible is not absolute truth about God (if so we have a problem because God has multi-personalities) but rather the ancients views of God.

I agree. The Bible (particularly the Old Testament) was written by many people over a vast amount of time, and as such it contains a wide variety of perspectives on God, God's character, and God's expectations.

October, on May 20 2007, 08:37 PM, said:

From what I've seen of your postings here you worship Zeus, not YHWH. This is common among conservatives and fundamentalists. I've met only a handful who have an inkling about who YHWH is. Zeus worship is the most common form of worship in Western culture by so-called Christians.

Could you expand on this a little? I'm not sure what you mean by it...do you mean that the commonly-held view of God by modern Christians is similar to the ancient view of Zeus? How do you see that differing from YHWH? (Not challenging you, just curious )

October, on May 20 2007, 08:50 PM, said:

Interesting but Xiantity was for a long time a sect of Judaism and the Pagans (ie Romans) expected the two to co-exist (or three if you prefer). They allowed the Jews (and early Christians) to have their god(s) so long as they paid tribute to the emperor, which of course they wouldn't do because it was in violation of the 1st commandment to have "no other gods before me." It was only when the Jews (remember Hannukah?) refused to worship that they had problems. Same goes for early Christians.

The way my comparative religions teacher explained it (which is probably greatly oversimplified, he was explaining quickly), the Jews were allowed to not pay tribute to the Emperor because their religion strictly forbid it and they had been around for so long, which the Romans respected (although I'd assume this changed after the Revolt at 70 CE or thereabouts). The problem with Christians was that once they began to distinguish themselves from the Jews, the Romans wouldn't give them the same pass, so when the Christians refused to worship the Emperor, problems arose. So yeah. Basically I agree with you

October, on May 20 2007, 08:50 PM, said:

Double think? I'm not quite sure where you get that from. Your double think is my prophetic voice. It is of great importance that Progressives stand the ground against such people as Nazi-sympathizers, Zeus worshippers, etc. Christianity and Judadism have a history of standing against the oppressors. If you understand Progressive Christianity to be a "psuedo-religious expression of a failed ideology that finds itself, justifiably, on the ash-heap of history" you are sorely out of touch with both what is happening in the United States, the world, and people here. Jesus was a progressive Jew and as a progressive Christian I follow in his footsteps. Progressive Christianity is growing. It grows slowly because slow growth is healthy growth. Think of a flower versus a weed. Or girls who hit growth spurts in their early teen years and end up with scoliosis. People usually come to Progressive Christianity through much pain and suffering. True faith takes time to grow. It is not set in stone at the age of 8 or 13 or whatever age one becomes confirmed in many churches.

Amen, sister. And I sure hope you're right that it's growing...personally, I'm not so sure. But I never said I was an optimist

[October's Autumn]

Quote

Could you expand on this a little? I'm not sure what you mean by it...do you mean that the commonly-held view of God by modern Christians is similar to the ancient view of Zeus? How do you see that differing from YHWH? (Not challenging you, just curious )

When I studied ancient gods and godesses I was struck by the strong masculine, father image of Zeus and how closely it resemembled modern beliefs about the Christian god. When I went to Israel, 12 years ago, I went with almost all men and I was struck (perhaps it was a building up and came to a head there) at the dominace of the masculine image of God which is truly only one of multiple images of God. I think it was there (in Israel) that I coined the phrase (I don't claim to be the first but I'd never heard it prior). When I see groups or individuals who use the male/father image of god predominately I refer to it as Zeus worship. As far as I can tell they aren't worshipping YHWH but Zeus.

My point of view about the growth of the Progressive churches comes from several directions but also from my own experience --I looked for years for such a church, thinking it didn't really exist, only to find it when I was 36! I've seen countless others come to the progressive church I go to, some in their 50's and older. They also all have a story to tell. I can only hope James some day has the same kind of story to tell.

[McKenna]

October, on May 20 2007, 10:52 PM, said:

When I studied ancient gods and godesses I was struck by the strong masculine, father image of Zeus and how closely it resemembled modern beliefs about the Christian god. When I went to Israel, 12 years ago, I went with almost all men and I was struck (perhaps it was a building up and came to a head there) at the dominace of the masculine image of God which is truly only one of multiple images of God. I think it was there (in Israel) that I coined the phrase (I don't claim to be the first but I'd never heard it prior). When I see groups or individuals who use the male/father image of god predominately I refer to it as Zeus worship. As far as I can tell they aren't worshipping YHWH but Zeus.

Yeah, I can definitely see where you're coming from. How do you perceive the YHWH of the Old Testament (and New Testament, I suppose) to differ from Zeus? Certainly there are images of YHWH that don't exactly go with that of Zeus...like that of a mother...

[MOW]

McKenna, on May 20 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

Ouch, that's a little harsh.

Out of curiosity - I intend no hostility by it - why are you on this forum, if this is your view of us?

Hi Mckenna:

About a year or so ago , in a rare moment of humility, James explained that he used to be an atheist. During this period he says he would sarcastically and verbally ridicule Christians. After some personal crises ,which I won't go into, he turned to religion.

As we say In the black community he has "flipped the script". Instead of being a sarcastic atheist attacking Christians , he's now a sarcastic conservative Catholic attacking "liberals". I don't know much about Jung psychology but I am sure there are"shadow" issues lurking here . He may indeed be projecting his own doubts about the Catholic faith onto us. He then attacks us to rid himself of his doubts. He may indeed "need' us for that reason .

All of us who are believers have to deal with our doubts, which will always be there ,no matter how much we say we "believe" . How we deal with our "shadow" nature of doubt is what is important.


MOW

This post has been edited by MOW: 22 May 2007 - 12:00 PM

[McKenna]

MOW, on May 22 2007, 12:46 PM, said:

Hi Mckenna:

About a year or so ago , in a rare moment of humility, James explained that he used to be an atheist. During this period he says he would sarcastically and verbally ridicule Christians. After some personal crises ,which I won't go into, he turned to religion.

As we say In the black community he has "flipped the script". Instead of being a sarcastic atheist attacking Christians , he's now a sarcastic conservative Catholic attacking "liberals". I don't know much about Jung psychology but I am sure there are"shadow" issues lurking here . He may indeed be projecting his own doubts about the Catholic faith onto us. He then attacks us to rid himself of his doubts. He may indeed "need' us for that reason .

All of us who are believers have to deal with our doubts, which will always be there ,no matter how much we say we "believe" . How we deal with our "shadow" nature of doubt is what is important.
MOW

Thanks for that perspective, MOW. Looking at it from that perspective, his words inspire more sympathy than hurt...thank you

[October's Autumn]

MOW, on May 22 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

Hi Mckenna:

About a year or so ago , in a rare moment of humility, James explained that he used to be an atheist. During this period he says he would sarcastically and verbally ridicule Christians. After some personal crises ,which I won't go into, he turned to religion.

As we say In the black community he has "flipped the script". Instead of being a sarcastic atheist attacking Christians , he's now a sarcastic conservative Catholic attacking "liberals". I don't know much about Jung psychology but I am sure there are"shadow" issues lurking here . He may indeed be projecting his own doubts about the Catholic faith onto us. He then attacks us to rid himself of his doubts. He may indeed "need' us for that reason .

All of us who are believers have to deal with our doubts, which will always be there ,no matter how much we say we "believe" . How we deal with our "shadow" nature of doubt is what is important.
MOW

His experience isn't that unusual. I've seen it many times. A librarian I worked with was raised a Southern Baptist (along with her brothers). One of those brothers became an atheist (he and his wife) then they had twin daughters and became fundamentalists (not the Southern Baptist he was raised). I can't even tell you how many people I've met both in "real" life and on the web who have the same story. I remember telling my husband that fundamentalists and (some) atheists are two sides of the same coin.

[October's Autumn]

MOW, on May 22 2007, 11:46 AM, said:

Hi Mckenna:

About a year or so ago , in a rare moment of humility, James explained that he used to be an atheist. During this period he says he would sarcastically and verbally ridicule Christians. After some personal crises ,which I won't go into, he turned to religion.

As we say In the black community he has "flipped the script". Instead of being a sarcastic atheist attacking Christians , he's now a sarcastic conservative Catholic attacking "liberals". I don't know much about Jung psychology but I am sure there are"shadow" issues lurking here . He may indeed be projecting his own doubts about the Catholic faith onto us. He then attacks us to rid himself of his doubts. He may indeed "need' us for that reason .

All of us who are believers have to deal with our doubts, which will always be there ,no matter how much we say we "believe" . How we deal with our "shadow" nature of doubt is what is important.
MOW

His experience isn't that unusual. I've seen it many times. A librarian I worked with was raised a Southern Baptist (along with her brothers). One of those brothers became an atheist (he and his wife) then they had twin daughters and became fundamentalists (not the Southern Baptist he was raised). I can't even tell you how many people I've met both in "real" life and on the web who have the same story. I remember telling my husband that fundamentalists and (some) atheists are two sides of the same coin.

[October's Autumn]

McKenna, on May 21 2007, 09:14 PM, said:

Yeah, I can definitely see where you're coming from. How do you perceive the YHWH of the Old Testament (and New Testament, I suppose) to differ from Zeus? Certainly there are images of YHWH that don't exactly go with that of Zeus...like that of a mother...

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I've been tied up mentally with end of school year stuff. And of course now I have a nasty cold. I wanted to really try and answer the question as thoroughly as I could.

Zeus is a sexual god with children. He is very male and stereotype (archetype?) of the ultimate male. It is the only way to really see him. There is no question Zeus has a ######.

YHWH on the other hand has multiple facets including a mountain, eagle, mother hen, mother bear, rock, woman nursing her infant, woman in labor, fortress to name a few. YHWH is not a biological father, does not have a sexual appetite, and forbids images to be made (I think that may be why so many images are recorded in scripture, to prevent one from defining who YHWH is).

Unfortunately many churches (including progressive) have attached themselves to the trinity model of God and God as male complete with ######. (Hence, Zeus worship!)

[McKenna]

October, on May 25 2007, 06:27 PM, said:

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I've been tied up mentally with end of school year stuff. And of course now I have a nasty cold. I wanted to really try and answer the question as thoroughly as I could.

Zeus is a sexual god with children. He is very male and stereotype (archetype?) of the ultimate male. It is the only way to really see him. There is no question Zeus has a ######.

YHWH on the other hand has multiple facets including a mountain, eagle, mother hen, mother bear, rock, woman nursing her infant, woman in labor, fortress to name a few. YHWH is not a biological father, does not have a sexual appetite, and forbids images to be made (I think that may be why so many images are recorded in scripture, to prevent one from defining who YHWH is).

Unfortunately many churches (including progressive) have attached themselves to the trinity model of God and God as male complete with ######. (Hence, Zeus worship!)

That's a really interesting perspective! Thanks!

How do you think the Trinity model of God adds to the Zeus image? Because of its overall maleness (Father, Son, and ?)?

Good point about Zeus' sexuality vs. YHWH's, er, lack of a sex life.

I think it's a bit difficult to get away from male images of YHWH simply because he ( ) has so often been depicted as masculine. Male pronouns are generally used; the word "Lord" is used; and the words "Heavenly Father" are pretty important in Christian tradition.

So how do we lose the image of Zeus without gender-neutralizing the entire Bible (which, IMO, would not be honest to the text)? Hmm...

[October's Autumn]

McKenna, on May 25 2007, 08:49 PM, said:

That's a really interesting perspective! Thanks!

How do you think the Trinity model of God adds to the Zeus image? Because of its overall maleness (Father, Son, and ?)?

Good point about Zeus' sexuality vs. YHWH's, er, lack of a sex life.

I think it's a bit difficult to get away from male images of YHWH simply because he ( ) has so often been depicted as masculine. Male pronouns are generally used; the word "Lord" is used; and the words "Heavenly Father" are pretty important in Christian tradition.

So how do we lose the image of Zeus without gender-neutralizing the entire Bible (which, IMO, would not be honest to the text)? Hmm...

It is about focus. Trinity is only one of many ways to understand or think about God. Their are many, many images of God in the bible (and who says we are even limited to them? Many of us have our own experiences which are also valid). THe problem is that in our society for years we have focused on the male images to the exclusion of all the rest. Trying thinking and talking about God using the feminine pronouns. It can be a pretty amazing experience.

YHWH is pretty clear about the whole idol worship, graven image, thing. Modern Christianity has really violated the 1st commandment by creating images of God (even if only verbal images) and worshipping those images (trinity is not even in the bible) and losing much of who God actually is.

[McKenna]

October, on May 26 2007, 09:08 AM, said:

It is about focus. Trinity is only one of many ways to understand or think about God. Their are many, many images of God in the bible (and who says we are even limited to them? Many of us have our own experiences which are also valid). THe problem is that in our society for years we have focused on the male images to the exclusion of all the rest. Trying thinking and talking about God using the feminine pronouns. It can be a pretty amazing experience.

Absolutely. I agree.

I love when people use feminine pronouns...it makes me happy. I have a tendency to use male pronouns, but in general I try to avoid them altogether. I certainly don't think of God - or even Christ - as male.

October, on May 26 2007, 09:08 AM, said:

YHWH is pretty clear about the whole idol worship, graven image, thing. Modern Christianity has really violated the 1st commandment by creating images of God (even if only verbal images) and worshipping those images (trinity is not even in the bible) and losing much of who God actually is.

Again, I agree. I find it sad. It's what turned me off from Christianity for a long time, and I think it's the same for a lot of people leaving the church today.

[October's Autumn]

McKenna, on May 27 2007, 09:00 PM, said:

Absolutely. I agree.

I love when people use feminine pronouns...it makes me happy. I have a tendency to use male pronouns, but in general I try to avoid them altogether. I certainly don't think of God - or even Christ - as male.
Again, I agree. I find it sad. It's what turned me off from Christianity for a long time, and I think it's the same for a lot of people leaving the church today.

I tend to use the male pronouns and I tend to think of God as male. It is part of that unlearning process I was talking about in the other thread. But I love it when people use the female or no pronoun.

I stopped going to church for years out of sheer frustration. It has only been for the last two years that I found a place where I could be me. I like it because I can have my beliefs without matching or trying to reach a certain place. I am unitarian but at the local Unitarian Universalist church I didn't feel free to explore my beliefs. At the UCC I do. From what I understand no matter what denomination you attend, if you go to a congregationalist church everyone is different! So, if I ever move I might prefer the UU!

[McKenna]

October, on May 27 2007, 11:18 PM, said:

I tend to use the male pronouns and I tend to think of God as male. It is part of that unlearning process I was talking about in the other thread. But I love it when people use the female or no pronoun.

I know what you mean. And I barely even attended a Christian church when I was younger - I picked up God's supposed "maleness" merely from our culture!

October, on May 27 2007, 11:18 PM, said:

I stopped going to church for years out of sheer frustration. It has only been for the last two years that I found a place where I could be me. I like it because I can have my beliefs without matching or trying to reach a certain place. I am unitarian but at the local Unitarian Universalist church I didn't feel free to explore my beliefs. At the UCC I do. From what I understand no matter what denomination you attend, if you go to a congregationalist church everyone is different! So, if I ever move I might prefer the UU!

I'm so glad you've found someplace you feel at home I really need to check out the local UCC. And I know what you mean with your last comment - UU churches certainly vary vastly, too! So I might not always be comfortable in a UU church, even though i love the one I attend

Ah, the woes of not having black and white creeds

[jamesAMDG]

As usual, the apology, sorry for my absence. I'll do my best to answer questions in the order they were raised.

Bobd

Sorry you've decided that you don't want to talk to me anymore. I don't think I was demoninzing (unless you think that being described as a non-Christian is demonisation.... and then I'm unsure how I was supposed to understand you saying I worshipped the Beast of Revelation or your sacreligious remarks about YHWH) I'll admit I was a bit snarky/sarcastic but I'm pretty sure we're a pot and kettle in this one.

McKenna

As I've explained in other places, and MOW inadequately explains, I'm on this board because a.) progresive Christianity is fascinating to me b.)I enjoy the opportunity to discuss philosophy, theology etc. with people of differing viewpoints in a way where I can temper my gut reaction, do the proper research and reply - like writing a living paper. c.) I'm bound by the Great Commission and I would be pleased to one day learn that my, poor, attempts at bearing witness as a Christian bore some fruit in someone's soul. I've written long, more detailed explanations before and I'm sure if you want to dig through my logs you could find them.

October's Autumn

Quote

That is not entirely true while being partially true. God comes across many different ways in the bible. There in not one characterization of God in the Hebrew bible. The people's view of him changes and evolves.

While I would agree that both man's perception of God, and God's self-revelation have developed and expanded over time. Bobd, and other Gnostics, claim that God in the OT is a defective, disabled half-god known as the DemiUrge. The DemiUrge created all of the physical universe and imprisoned the freeness of spirit created by the true god.

Quote

Unfortunatley this is not Hebrew so you haven't looked anything.

So, the only valid edition of Holy Writ as far as you are concerned are the original Hebrew autographs? Sorry, the experience of the Jews and early Christians doesn't bear this out as a concept within the Judaic-Christian understanding of the Scriptures. Unless you are rpeapred to offer me some proof for this statement, I can't accept it.

Quote

You can't read Hebrew poetry literally, even in Hebrew. It wasn't intended to be taken apart or out of context. You must look at it as a whole. What is the gist of the poem?

This is the fourth penetential psalms. David confesses his sin to God and asks forgiveness. He prays and responds to the work of God's grace in his heart.

If I have misunderstood it (providing it can be understood in english), please explain to me the meaning that neither Jews or Christians have found in this.

Quote

There is no such thing as demons in the Hebrew Bible. Work on your history, please.

Demons are the angels that fell with Lucifer when Saint Michael the Arcangel threw them out. Demons have therefore exited since before the Garden of Eden because Satan was no longer Lucifer when he tempted Eve, and by proxy, Adam.

If I'm always being pilloried for my own sarcasm, could you please eliminate it from your posts as well?

Quote

From what I've seen of your postings here you worship Zeus, not YHWH. This is common among conservatives and fundamentalists.

I don't understand, in the same thread where people trash me for being sarcastic (and even then not that much) I get replies like this. Under what possible authority do you claim I worship the head god of the pagan, Greek pantheon? The King of gods who lives on Olympus, who was the youngest of his parents children and married Hera, had mistresses (and at least one semi-pedophilica homosexual relathionship)? Which part of the Holy Trinity, makes you think I worship a man-###### of a God, driven by human passions (lust, revenge, etc.)?

Quote

Interesting but Xiantity [sic] was for a long time a sect of Judaism

I've never said it wasn't. In fact, earlier in this thread I noted that Christianity comes from Judaism like a flower on a stem.

Quote

Double think? I'm not quite sure where you get that from.

I get it from the threads where, many people who self-identify as progressives, make ad hominem attacks against people they don;t agree with. Or, conversely, rant and rave about who terrible or dangerous someone is. All this while complaining that so-called conservatives, are judgemental and intolerant. For another example, look at how responses go when I write something. Or look at the threads I mentioned, Pope Benedict XVI thread started by BeachofEden (my one foray outside this forum - excluding the tech questions forum) or the thread about Ann Coulter.

Quote

If you understand Progressive Christianity to be a "psuedo-religious expression of a failed ideology that finds itself, justifiably, on the ash-heap of history" you are sorely out of touch with both what is happening in the United States, the world, and people here ... Progressive Christianity is growing. It grows slowly because slow growth is healthy growth ... True faith takes time to grow. It is not set in stone at the age of 8 or 13 or whatever age one becomes confirmed in many churches.

What's happening throughout the US and the world? Firstly, I don't live in the US and so, necessarily, try not to get too involved in domestic US politics. But I think that the progressive Christians system, comes from the attempt by socialists and marxists to adapt a religion to their own political worldview ... If progressive Christianity is growing, they need to get better advertising for this board, because it has lost most of its major posters in the last few years... how much time does it take to grow faith? I wasn't confirmed at 8 or 13. I was confirmed when I was 21. How odl shoudl I have been and how much suffering would be appropriate for me to speak about a person who was not born into the Faith?

MOW

Quote

About a year or so ago , in a rare moment of humility, James explained that he used to be an atheist. During this period he says he would sarcastically and verbally ridicule Christians. After some personal crises ,which I won't go into, he turned to religion.

Thanks, I think. But its another example fo the way some posters complain about my attitude etc. but feel perfectly comfortably making off-hand insults about me in conversations with others.

Quote

I don't know much about Jung psychology but I am sure there are"shadow" issues lurking here . He may indeed be projecting his own doubts about the Catholic faith onto us. He then attacks us to rid himself of his doubts. He may indeed "need' us for that reason .

If you don;t know much about Jungian psychology, you might want to avoid making a diagnosis of someone you've never actually met outside of a few posts in an internet forum. Not to be insulting, it just seems more reasonable.

[jamesAMDG]

As usual, the apology, sorry for my absence. I'll do my best to answer questions in the order they were raised.

Bobd

Sorry you've decided that you don't want to talk to me anymore. I don't think I was demoninzing (unless you think that being described as a non-Christian is demonisation.... and then I'm unsure how I was supposed to understand you saying I worshipped the Beast of Revelation or your sacreligious remarks about YHWH) I'll admit I was a bit snarky/sarcastic but I'm pretty sure we're a pot and kettle in this one.

McKenna

As I've explained in other places, and MOW inadequately explains, I'm on this board because a.) progresive Christianity is fascinating to me b.)I enjoy the opportunity to discuss philosophy, theology etc. with people of differing viewpoints in a way where I can temper my gut reaction, do the proper research and reply - like writing a living paper. c.) I'm bound by the Great Commission and I would be pleased to one day learn that my, poor, attempts at bearing witness as a Christian bore some fruit in someone's soul. I've written long, more detailed explanations before and I'm sure if you want to dig through my logs you could find them.

October's Autumn

Quote

That is not entirely true while being partially true. God comes across many different ways in the bible. There in not one characterization of God in the Hebrew bible. The people's view of him changes and evolves.

While I would agree that both man's perception of God, and God's self-revelation have developed and expanded over time. Bobd, and other Gnostics, claim that God in the OT is a defective, disabled half-god known as the DemiUrge. The DemiUrge created all of the physical universe and imprisoned the freeness of spirit created by the true god.

Quote

Unfortunatley this is not Hebrew so you haven't looked anything.

So, the only valid edition of Holy Writ as far as you are concerned are the original Hebrew autographs? Sorry, the experience of the Jews and early Christians doesn't bear this out as a concept within the Judaic-Christian understanding of the Scriptures. Unless you are rpeapred to offer me some proof for this statement, I can't accept it.

Quote

You can't read Hebrew poetry literally, even in Hebrew. It wasn't intended to be taken apart or out of context. You must look at it as a whole. What is the gist of the poem?

This is the fourth penetential psalms. David confesses his sin to God and asks forgiveness. He prays and responds to the work of God's grace in his heart.

If I have misunderstood it (providing it can be understood in english), please explain to me the meaning that neither Jews or Christians have found in this.

Quote

There is no such thing as demons in the Hebrew Bible. Work on your history, please.

Demons are the angels that fell with Lucifer when Saint Michael the Arcangel threw them out. Demons have therefore exited since before the Garden of Eden because Satan was no longer Lucifer when he tempted Eve, and by proxy, Adam.

If I'm always being pilloried for my own sarcasm, could you please eliminate it from your posts as well?

Quote

From what I've seen of your postings here you worship Zeus, not YHWH. This is common among conservatives and fundamentalists.

I don't understand, in the same thread where people trash me for being sarcastic (and even then not that much) I get replies like this. Under what possible authority do you claim I worship the head god of the pagan, Greek pantheon? The King of gods who lives on Olympus, who was the youngest of his parents children and married Hera, had mistresses (and at least one semi-pedophilica homosexual relathionship)? Which part of the Holy Trinity, makes you think I worship a man-###### of a God, driven by human passions (lust, revenge, etc.)?

Quote

Interesting but Xiantity [sic] was for a long time a sect of Judaism

I've never said it wasn't. In fact, earlier in this thread I noted that Christianity comes from Judaism like a flower on a stem.

Quote

Double think? I'm not quite sure where you get that from.

I get it from the threads where, many people who self-identify as progressives, make ad hominem attacks against people they don;t agree with. Or, conversely, rant and rave about who terrible or dangerous someone is. All this while complaining that so-called conservatives, are judgemental and intolerant. For another example, look at how responses go when I write something. Or look at the threads I mentioned, Pope Benedict XVI thread started by BeachofEden (my one foray outside this forum - excluding the tech questions forum) or the thread about Ann Coulter.

Quote

If you understand Progressive Christianity to be a "psuedo-religious expression of a failed ideology that finds itself, justifiably, on the ash-heap of history" you are sorely out of touch with both what is happening in the United States, the world, and people here ... Progressive Christianity is growing. It grows slowly because slow growth is healthy growth ... True faith takes time to grow. It is not set in stone at the age of 8 or 13 or whatever age one becomes confirmed in many churches.

What's happening throughout the US and the world? Firstly, I don't live in the US and so, necessarily, try not to get too involved in domestic US politics. But I think that the progressive Christians system, comes from the attempt by socialists and marxists to adapt a religion to their own political worldview ... If progressive Christianity is growing, they need to get better advertising for this board, because it has lost most of its major posters in the last few years... how much time does it take to grow faith? I wasn't confirmed at 8 or 13. I was confirmed when I was 21. How odl shoudl I have been and how much suffering would be appropriate for me to speak about a person who was not born into the Faith?

MOW

Quote

About a year or so ago , in a rare moment of humility, James explained that he used to be an atheist. During this period he says he would sarcastically and verbally ridicule Christians. After some personal crises ,which I won't go into, he turned to religion.

Thanks, I think. But its another example fo the way some posters complain about my attitude etc. but feel perfectly comfortably making off-hand insults about me in conversations with others.

Quote

I don't know much about Jung psychology but I am sure there are"shadow" issues lurking here . He may indeed be projecting his own doubts about the Catholic faith onto us. He then attacks us to rid himself of his doubts. He may indeed "need' us for that reason .

If you don;t know much about Jungian psychology, you might want to avoid making a diagnosis of someone you've never actually met outside of a few posts in an internet forum. Not to be insulting, it just seems more reasonable.