[McKenna]

David, on Jan 26 2008, 07:16 PM, said:

Thank you for this. Maybe a fragile ecumenical bridge between fundamentalists and progressives? (although equality between women and men may be an issue for some fundamentalists?)

Well, obviously fundamentalists and progressives are pretty far apart on the theological spectrum and often the political spectrum as well, so they would interpret the above ideals pretty differently...but I do think that a statement such as this could become the basis for such a bridge, yes. It would take a lot of time, patience, and dialogue to work from there in terms of interpretation. But I think it would be worth it

This post has been edited by McKenna: 26 January 2008 - 10:42 PM

[davidk]

Some have suggested other threads, and perhaps they are correct for a full theological discussion.

The reason I picked this thread was not necessarily to dig too deeply into Christian Philosophy, but to discuss the difficulty ECUMENISM will be. Based on some of the earlier posts, where one seems to claim all faiths may actaully be worshipping the same god but only by different means, while other posts disagree.

Quote

Quarrels among churches, among countries, religions and wars would end because we would see that there is only one God uniting us all.

SOMA, Jan 16

Quote

I would argue that the ecumenical world should be dominated not by a discussion of unity...especially theological unity...

David, Jan 22.

I agree with David. (It does sound like I'm talking to myself) But to move that forward, we must realize there is NO theological unity among the world's religions. This is the crux of the problem. Some Christians have a difficult enough time reaching theological unity (see TCPC posts: "ecumentalism") without trying to reach unity with other religions!

We Christians may be fighting exactly the same cause as non-christians (injustice, hunger, et al), but that does not make us allies. At these specific points it makes us "cobelligerants", not allies. We cannot align ourselves with any religion built on a non-christian base. We must realize the difference. We are not an ally in any such camp. We alone stand with Jesus Christ as His Church. That is the true revolution to this world, to all who have turned away from God and His propostional truth.

So, if I seem to be saying the same thing as a non-christian, understand I am a cobelligerent on that subject, but I am no ally. One more time, We must never forget that it is only a passing cobelligerancy and not an alliance. If this be "pluralism", I can live with it. Diana Eck misses this point altogether. Or, to use someone elses analogy, If the ocean were True Christian philosophy, (Diana Eck) would barely have the bottom of her feet wet.

Your "...equality between women and men may be an issue for some fundamentalists." begs an explanation. More than the progressives elite image of a fundamental snake handler spittin' tobacco while beatin' his wife and havin' sex with his own children conjours up.

Another thread is in the works involving all three basic philosophical questions, including the third of epistemology.

Soma: Love IS the superior attitude, and God has it. He does not find it hard to love because of His attitude. Since we have been created in the image of God we may have the superior attitude of love, too.

How does one follow a guidebook without believing its do's and don'ts? (read: its law) Don't throw it at anyone, but likewise don't throw it out. Considering all the "guidebooks" may be correct and the Bible is only one among many is precisely what Proverbs 14:15 warns us about.
Setting up a false premise to use the other quote from the Bible (Proverbs 12:15) is equally weak. God is a personal God. He is interested in telling you of His desire to be with you in a one to one relationship. I never meant to infer in any way my own superiority, only God's. The Bible, it does claim superiority. All you need to do is merely take God for His word, in His guidebook, the Holy one you claim. The turning point may be when you stop seeking the God YOU want and start seeking the God who IS. Anything else is idolotry. I pray what we speak together may be a dialogue from which God is revealed. I claim no superiority for myself, but God's salvation gift is.

Romans 1:20; " For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

Mckenna: I am not asking you to believe what I say on my own merit, it will truly be faulty. If one cannot articulate an experience, how can one expect to rely on it at the price of their very soul? We are to rely on God, a personal daily encounter, not an unrepeatable, indescribable "spiritual" experience. Read the Bible and see what it actually says. If then you don't believe the Bible then move on, for you disbelieve the propositional basis for anything Christian. By reading it, I am confident you'll arrive at realizations (and even more questions), you'll be thrilled, you'll cry, you'll learn, you'll know God is speaking to you and you to Him. You'll have the truth to stand on.

Cynthia: Christianity will be abused by fallen Man. But, Christianity is different. It is built on the truth, God's son: Jesus. Christianity is the worship of Him, the truth, the life, the way. We can never improve it, because it is already perfect, and we are not (ergo; the abuse) Believe and accept the relationship with God that He is providing for you, through His gift to you, faith in Jesus Christ.

[McKenna]

davidk, on Jan 29 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

We Christians may be fighting exactly the same cause as non-christians (injustice, hunger, et al), but that does not make us allies. At these specific points it makes us "cobelligerants", not allies. We cannot align ourselves with any religion built on a non-christian base. We must realize the difference. We are not an ally in any such camp. We alone stand with Jesus Christ as His Church. That is the true revolution to this world, to all who have turned away from God and His propostional truth.

So, if I seem to be saying the same thing as a non-christian, understand I am a cobelligerent on that subject, but I am no ally. One more time, We must never forget that it is only a passing cobelligerancy and not an alliance.

We can't even be allies with non-Christians??

Wow. How can we possibly love our enemies if we can't even consider our friends to be allies?

So I guess the next time I volunteer somewhere with my non-religious brother and/or Buddhist mother I should consider them "co-belligerents" rather than allies.

Come on. Seriously. The world has enough problems without people refusing to call each other "allies" when they're working on the exact same cause.

davidk, on Jan 29 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

Setting up a false premise to use the other quote from the Bible (Proverbs 12:15) is equally weak. God is a personal God. He is interested in telling you of His desire to be with you in a one to one relationship. I never meant to infer in any way my own superiority, only God's. The Bible, it does claim superiority. All you need to do is merely take God for His word, in His guidebook, the Holy one you claim. The turning point may be when you stop seeking the God YOU want and start seeking the God who IS. Anything else is idolotry. I pray what we speak together may be a dialogue from which God is revealed. I claim no superiority for myself, but God's salvation gift is.

Romans 1:20; " For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

Mckenna: I am not asking you to believe what I say on my own merit, it will truly be faulty. If one cannot articulate an experience, how can one expect to rely on it at the price of their very soul? We are to rely on God, a personal daily encounter, not an unrepeatable, indescribable "spiritual" experience. Read the Bible and see what it actually says. If then you don't believe the Bible then move on, for you disbelieve the propositional basis for anything Christian. By reading it, I am confident you'll arrive at realizations (and even more questions), you'll be thrilled, you'll cry, you'll learn, you'll know God is speaking to you and you to Him. You'll have the truth to stand on.

You are making an awful lot of assumptions here. I'm pretty sure everyone here has attempted to seek the God Who Is. Just because not everyone comes up with the same answers as you doesn't mean they haven't made an honest effort. That's just plain insulting.

I have read the Bible (though admittedly not yet in its entirety), and furthermore I have on several occasions thrown myself on my knees near tears asking God to please reveal to me if He is in fact the God described by conservative Christians, because believe it or not I'm human and I'd love to have that certainty. But the Bible has never given me easy answers, and neither has God those times when I've prayed like that. The times I have heard from God are when I simply focused on my gratitude to Him for the people in my life that I love so much, when I've sat outside admiring His Creation, and when I've focused on some of the words attributed to Jesus, including the Lord's Prayer. And that is why I believe as I do. My beliefs have been shaped by my experiences and I believe God has met me exactly where I needed Him to. Please respect that.

I don't think I have shown anything but respect for your point of view. Please let me know if I have insulted you. I ask that you show everyone here the same amount of respect by not insinuating that we have not made a humble, honest attempt to know God.

[soma]

Why are people attracted to arrogant, fundamental Christianity and its authoritarian superiority, not a true, loving, spiritual practice? I would say because they do not have to think or make choices, all they have to do is obey and discredit. It is the law of the cult, not the grace of Our Lord. The escape from responsibility comes with all the answers, but no questions. It’s admirable that people here rebel against the tone of us vs. them because it comes from a longing for the most sacred heart of Jesus, relating in peace and compassion to anyone or anything in need. DavidK we don't need control and closed minded fear. We have faith, love and personal relationships with God. My advice is stop believing and thinking of the fear and superiority others feed you and concentrate or contemplate on your personal relationship with Our Lord. Preaching doctrinal militancy is not Christian.

2 Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."

Colossians 3:12 "So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;"

"..the reason for loving God is God Himself; and the measure of love due to Him is immeasurable…"

Bernard of Clairvaux, On Loving God

Unity is based on friendship and love, it is seeking the good of others. Religion is a sharing in the love that the Father gives us through the Son and the Holy Spirit. I suggest finding love with God inorder to learn to love others.

[Russ]

McKenna, on Jan 19 2008, 10:27 AM, said:

Beautifully written

You're Quaker, right? I've always thought the Quakers had a beautiful message and a wonderful way of looking at faith. The only problem for me is I don't think I'd be able to handle the silent worship, I'm too restless But I'm very glad it works for you!

My decision to sit with the Quakers was a hard one and it took a good year or so of introspection. I was a member of the United Methodist Church, but had social differences that I felt were in conflict with my own understandings. My pastor was very supportive and knew that I was searching for a place to Spiritually anchor myself. I finally decided the Quaker Faith & Practice mirrors my own most closely, and that's important for me. The silent worship of the Meetings that I attend is the safest and sanist part of my week. I get to clear my head and be with God, meditate, or just look out of the window at the trees outlined against the sky simply being at peace with myself. There are no distractions, no noises...just a group of Believers who come together every Sunday in order to sit and Believe together for awhile. I often leave Meeting feeling very peaceful, as if I have been reassured. I need that.

This post has been edited by Russ: 30 January 2008 - 07:00 AM

[soma]

I am happy that silent communion with God is real and constant throughout the Quaker family. It is natural that God is all embracing, moving, blissful and unrestricted so the path to a genuine relationship with God is freedom, a moment-to-moment responsibility and an intuitive communion with Him/Her. We can meddle, tinker and mean well, but to break up old patterns of thought and behavior, we need to open ourselves to new possibilities. With the highest exercise of our intellect we know the purpose of our existence and can proceed to live intelligently according to it, if we direct our physical and mental activities to God

No wonder the Quakers have a peaceful smile and demeanor.

[McKenna]

Russ, on Jan 30 2008, 06:57 AM, said:

My decision to sit with the Quakers was a hard one and it took a good year or so of introspection. I was a member of the United Methodist Church, but had social differences that I felt were in conflict with my own understandings. My pastor was very supportive and knew that I was searching for a place to Spiritually anchor myself. I finally decided the Quaker Faith & Practice mirrors my own most closely, and that's important for me. The silent worship of the Meetings that I attend is the safest and sanist part of my week. I get to clear my head and be with God, meditate, or just look out of the window at the trees outlined against the sky simply being at peace with myself. There are no distractions, no noises...just a group of Believers who come together every Sunday in order to sit and Believe together for awhile. I often leave Meeting feeling very peaceful, as if I have been reassured. I need that.

Thats so great, Russ I'm so glad you've found a community that makes you feel so renewed!! It's great that you were able to follow your heart and find the place that really suited you the best.

The Quaker philosophy and outlook really does appeal to me...I definitely should check out a Meeting sometime. Do you know of any good websites where I could find a Meeting near me?

[Russ]

McKenna, on Jan 30 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

Thats so great, Russ I'm so glad you've found a community that makes you feel so renewed!! It's great that you were able to follow your heart and find the place that really suited you the best. The Quaker philosophy and outlook really does appeal to me...I definitely should check out a Meeting sometime. Do you know of any good websites where I could find a Meeting near me?

Here's a good website to look thought:

http://www.quakerinfo.com/index.shtml

And my favorite Quaker bookstore:

http://www.quakerbooks.org/

There are a few different streams amongst Quakers that have histories based upon disagreements that resulted in splits. The two main groups are the Friends United Meeting and the Friends Geneneral Conference. The FUM have mostly 'programmed' meetings consisting of hymns, music, sermons, etc. and resemble Protestant services. The FGC consists of mostly 'unprogrammed' meetings of silent worship. Of course, affiliation with one or the other doesn't neccessarily indicate the type of worship...My Meeting is affiliated with both organizations and follows the silent worship tradition. So, go figure.

[mystictrek]

soma, on Jan 29 2008, 10:45 PM, said:

Why are people attracted to arrogant, fundamental Christianity and its authoritarian superiority, not a true, loving, spiritual practice? I would say because they do not have to think or make choices, all they have to do is obey and discredit. It is the law of the cult, not the grace of Our Lord. The escape from responsibility comes with all the answers, but no questions. It’s admirable that people here rebel against the tone of us vs. them because it comes from a longing for the most sacred heart of Jesus, relating in peace and compassion to anyone or anything in need. DavidK we don't need control and closed minded fear. We have faith, love and personal relationships with God. My advice is stop believing and thinking of the fear and superiority others feed you and concentrate or contemplate on your personal relationship with Our Lord. Preaching doctrinal militancy is not Christian.

Dear SOMA,

There is, of course, a lot of truth in what you have said here. I might have totally agreed with you at one time.

But I think the appeal of "arrogant, fundamental Christianity" goes deeper than that.

I think it's a spell cast by the "world ruler" or the Domination System" as Walter Wink describes it so well. A good summary of Wink's amazing scholarship on the principalites and powers is at http://www.bridges-a...vr_confront.htm

People under this spell have found a lot of fellowship and joy and meaning in the community of "arrogant, fundamental Christianity" but are still, down deep, pragmatic and kind and gentle people.

This morning there is great hope in America and on the planet as the GOP electorate has said NO to the plutocracy of both the Rigid Ideology camp and the Religious Right. I believe deep in my heart that the spell has been broken.

We have been a sick nation in need of healing. The growing power of the Religious Right is a symptom but not the cause of our sickness. It goes deeper than that.

The GOP electorate has rejected both the Religious Right and rigid ideology. This is really Good News for America and for the planet.

Both camps, the Religious Right and the Rigid Ideologists, are in turmoil as they see their era of domination come to an end. Obviously, a Democratic victory in November would be a knock out blow over both camps but McCain, a centrist and a pragmatist would be still be a huge change. The CheneyBushRove plutocratic era is over!

Other plutocrats will still find many ways to thwart the will of the people in the new era which has now begun but at least one of the beasts has been slain. I am talking about demons, the principalities and powers, the "world ruler." (see John 12:31)

If Romney somehow wins next Tuesday and somehow wins in November, then forget everything I just said. Romney is CheneyBushRove all dressed up as an olympic god! He is down but not out. The Domination System is still hoping he can win but is now turning to McCain and both tempting him and intimidating him. Read Luke 4:1-13. The plutocrats are also using these tried and true practices of those who would keep their privileged status in tact on Clinton & Obama.

IOW, those of us who are on the side of God's “new heaven and new earth” (see Revelation 21:1-4) have our work cut out for us no matter who wins in November. But we can still celebrate the victory of love and justice which we have already won over those demons which gave us CheneyBushRove.

love, john + www.abundancetrek.com & www.abundancetrek.com/blog + "The day will come when, after harnessing space, the winds, the tides and gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, humankind will have discovered fire." -- Teilhard de Chardin

[davidk]

Soma:

Quote

... fundamental Christianity and its authoritarian superiority,...

You've got authoritarian and authoritative confused. Please, be careful. It reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live skit with Gilda Radner (Roseanne Roseannadanna). She'd take off on a tangent completely disconnected from the subject at hand. Hilarious!

When you say "intuition", do you mean: coming to direct knowledge or certainty without reasoning. Or do you mean; immediate cognizance and conviction without rational thought; or, the power or faculty to attaining direct knowledge or cognition without rational thought and inference; or a leap of faith?

McKenna: I hoped you would understand what I meant when I said "cobelligerents" as opposed to "allies". I realize there may be some confusion. "Cobelligerent" is not a negative term. It is to mean we can cooperate on a specific cause. But, since we (differing faiths) have different foundational bases for our position, even if we agree on the position, we cannot be considered an ally. I hope you might take this opportunity to do a search on each word. It should relieve your concerns.

Your personal search for God is seen by God. He will not turn away from those who seek Him.
The experiences, to which I refer, is used by some to mean a "final" experience; that is, an experience so big that it gives you a "certainty and hope of meaning" but one that requires a leap of faith, separated from the rational, with no way to communicate its content to yourself or others; an irrational optimism with a rational pessimism. I know that is confusing. I'm trying to summerize what can be a long philosophical study from Aquinas to Sartre to Rousseau to Kant to ....

We know there is something wonderful about Man; we are made in the image of God. Man has value because of who we were originally. There is hope.

Ask yourself this intellectual question; whether Christ has come in the flesh. This is a question of reason not emotion. It is really two questions: whether Christ had an existence before incarnation and whether the incarnation took place.

The New Testament itself advises we strain through the grid of reasoning everything that comes through our minds. It is time for the church of Jesus Christ, as a true revolutionary force, to insist that there is truth, and it is possible that we can know it.

Mystictrek: Both American political parties are abandoning the Christian basis for our laws and existence. The Left abandoned it nearly 80 years ago while the Right took a decade or two longer. Now the only thing Christian in either one is just a vague memory. The 1970's Silent Majority's majority are now no longer believing Christians. So, the problem becomes: If our citizens are not given the material affluence they consider to be their "right", there will be much pressure to form some elite or totalitarian gov't, which the Left is poised to present.

And you're fooling no one when you intimate the plutocrats only inhabit the Repub's. The list on both sides is long.

Our job as Christians is to insure Christianity not be identified as either Democrat nor Republican, Liberal nor Conservative.(remember: allies/ cobelligerents) We should not allow Christianity to be caught in that trap.

Now "...arrogant, fundamental christianity,..." ? Fundamentally, fundamental Christianity cannot be arrogant. You may find individuals arrogant, and you may even find some groups arrogant; but fundamental Christianity is not. No organization can run from them, but to broadstroke orthodox Christians based on edited media accounts and bad experiences, the shame is on you. Release your fear and hatred of your fellow man. Where's the love? Put the "fun" back in fundamental!

[soma]

Everything is interconnected, interrelated and interdependent, and we are an integrated part of this whole. As humans we are in a unique position. We are at a crossroads between matter and the all-pervading consciousness of God, between a material form and a spiritual form. As humans our mental concepts can affect, enhance and direct us to a relationship with ourselves, our neighbors, our world, and to our Creator; or they can also be destructive to our welfare. They can disconnect, dissociate and confuse us; or they can expand our consciousness and unify us with all life.
By expressing wholeness and conforming to our nature we express love. Love is expressed in the universe as unity because beings move toward each other communicating with their loved ones internally. It is an expression of God, a kind of echo and is universal.

Conservative, fundamental Christian men and women are blocked along the way from the fun by their fears, superstitions and other unseen obstacles. They are afraid to love and be open to love and we can see these same superstitions blocking men and women come from the con in conservative ideaology. Today, we see people forming "me-them" relationships and defining the other person or organization as an unbeliever and themselves as the anoited one. This is done to justify being superior, but it doesn't present the mind with the extraordinary attitude of love.

Mystictrek you are right about the good Christians who are starting to see the light and feel the love and leaving the right wing propaganda. The love inside will guide them to love and away from the salesmen selling plots in heaven at the expense of their soul.

[McKenna]

Russ, on Jan 30 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

Here's a good website to look thought:

http://www.quakerinfo.com/index.shtml

And my favorite Quaker bookstore:

http://www.quakerbooks.org/

Great, thank you so much!!

Russ, on Jan 30 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

There are a few different streams amongst Quakers that have histories based upon disagreements that resulted in splits. The two main groups are the Friends United Meeting and the Friends Geneneral Conference. The FUM have mostly 'programmed' meetings consisting of hymns, music, sermons, etc. and resemble Protestant services. The FGC consists of mostly 'unprogrammed' meetings of silent worship. Of course, affiliation with one or the other doesn't neccessarily indicate the type of worship...My Meeting is affiliated with both organizations and follows the silent worship tradition. So, go figure.

Haha, that's funny about your Meeting having affiliations with both I've heard that programmed Meetings are more common in the Midwest, while traditional unprogrammed Meetings are more typical in the East? I guess it would depend from Meeting to Meeting though

[McKenna]

davidk, on Jan 31 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

McKenna: I hoped you would understand what I meant when I said "cobelligerents" as opposed to "allies". I realize there may be some confusion. "Cobelligerent" is not a negative term. It is to mean we can cooperate on a specific cause. But, since we (differing faiths) have different foundational bases for our position, even if we agree on the position, we cannot be considered an ally. I hope you might take this opportunity to do a search on each word. It should relieve your concerns.

Actually, I did understand what you meant, thanks. I know that you meant nothing negative from the term "cobelligerent." What I reject is your refusal to consider non-Christians "allies." I see absolutely no reason not to ally with non-Christians as I know and love many (not to mention that I am a non-Christian in the view of many Christians; and in that case I would like to be considered an ally of the people I know and love who are considered Christians). I try not to draw distinctions between people on the basis of religion - "You're Christian so you're my ally, but you're Jewish so you're just a cobelligerent." I honestly don't know why you feel the need to make this distinction - I really don't think it's at all constructive or helpful in the causes we are teaming up to fight - and that is why I took issue with your statement.

Russ, on Jan 30 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

Your personal search for God is seen by God. He will not turn away from those who seek Him.

Thank you for acknowledging that.

Russ, on Jan 30 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

The experiences, to which I refer, is used by some to mean a "final" experience; that is, an experience so big that it gives you a "certainty and hope of meaning" but one that requires a leap of faith, separated from the rational, with no way to communicate its content to yourself or others; an irrational optimism with a rational pessimism. I know that is confusing. I'm trying to summerize what can be a long philosophical study from Aquinas to Sartre to Rousseau to Kant to ....

Well, I just finished a course in philosophy, so I know what you're talking about (although I'm not sure why you mentioned Sartre, an atheist?). However, I see nothing in that philosophy - that "leap of faith," that "final" experience - that would keep non-Christians from experiencing it. This is a point on which we simply disagree and I don't really see the point of continuing to debate about it, since we're just sort of repeating the same thing over and over again in different ways.

Russ, on Jan 30 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

We know there is something wonderful about Man; we are made in the image of God. Man has value because of who we were originally. There is hope.

Ask yourself this intellectual question; whether Christ has come in the flesh. This is a question of reason not emotion. It is really two questions: whether Christ had an existence before incarnation and whether the incarnation took place.

The New Testament itself advises we strain through the grid of reasoning everything that comes through our minds. It is time for the church of Jesus Christ, as a true revolutionary force, to insist that there is truth, and it is possible that we can know it.

I do believe Christ has come in the flesh. But to me that's not an exclusive claim. I personally see Christ as the greatest revelation of God but that's because he speaks to me. To me it doesn't make sense to insist on Christianity as the sole bearer of truth, and a major reason for this is - what about the people that lived before Christ? Or that lived after him and never heard of him? Or that live in cultures where their own religion is embedded in their traditions? I believe God has revealed Himself in many ways and I refuse to put Him in any box, including that of Christianity.

Again, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[davidk]

The "leap of faith " requires no reasonable argument or evidence, only some undefinable upper consciousness, trance or something. Since we agree we are to seek reasonable answers, how could anyone abandon us to believe in a leap of faith? Some theologians have been using that term against "fundamentalists", even using 'superstitious', for years, all the while leaping around themselves. It didn't help any when 'fundamentalists' failed to answer real questions with "I don't know, I just believe" and the liberals said "I don't know, just expand your consciousness'. It's the same answer!
Answering questions that way caused an exodus of people searching for the truth. The 'church' failed 'us'. Jesus was still there but 'we' left Him for our independence and affluence mixed with the useless comfort of meaningless 'God' words liberally sprinkled in foriegn religions and pathetic denominations. Some churches are coming to grips with this are are now being proactive on how do we reason with this and the coming generation about the truth of our being, morality, and knowledge.

When any philosopher (Sartre, De Sade, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Kopper, Polanyi, et al) speaks a truth he neccessarily needs to be mentioned. In reference to Sartre, he said that the basic philosophic question is that something is there, rather than nothing is there.

SOMA said:

As humans our mental concepts...can expand our consciousness and unify us with all life

I agree with SOMA on the premise that there is unity. The point of disagreement is how. We are unified not by our own concepts, (Humanistic and man-centered), but by our being created by an infinite-personal God (Christian and God-centered). To answer Man's need further, we should realize not just the unity, but the great diversity of creation. For unity without diversity leaves no meaning for freedom, or significance, or morals, or variance since everything is finally boiled down to equality. Unity without diversity ignores love, personal relationships, and a personal-infinite-creator God. Again, only Christianity has the answer.

Christianity exposes to the world who God is, no other faith adequately can. Unless another religion claims Christ as having come in the flesh, then yes, incontrovertably, Christianity stands alone as the truth. It doesn't 'hide' Him in a box. I'm not even certain what that means? How does one have the audacity to say "I refuse to put God in a box"? Surely one cannot be of the opinion that one could?

Jesus came along at a certain place in time and space history. Those who came before had a different qualification for salvation than we, the Law. Others who never heard of Jesus still have observed what Romans 1:20 says. God is trustworthy. God does reveal himself in many ways, but only as Himself, not as another. He has no reason to deceive.

Allow me: If I and a Muslim see a family needing food, we can both feed the family. We are cobelligerents, or to further illustrate, we are 'allied' (rather than 'an ally', which conotes a very broad basis for agreement) at only that one point in space and time. With my being a Christian and his being Muslim, we are not allies, even though we may be 'allied' at that one point in time and space. Neither faith would accept it, the differences are too great. We can be cobelligerents (allied) with even our worst enemies without being allies. There is no dishonor on either party in being cobelligerents. It means we can stand uncompromisingly in our belief. That's one way we share our faith.

Christ's claims are the epitomy of undeniable exclusivity. Anything else denies Him for whom He said He was.

[soma]

KDavid, We are united in the joy of Our Lord.

Psalms 133:1 - A Song of Ascents. Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!

1 Peter 3:8 - Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.

In unity we celebrate diversity. The advantages are:

efficient and effective personal and interpersonal communication
team work
increased creativity and innovation
more enhanced problem solving
overall well being.
higher morale.
wider talent pool
satisfaction.
positive community image

With these advantages pluralism is not bad, but good.

The pluralism in the Bible must be be taken seriously. The different views in it keep us discussing the Bible and keeps us humble, knowing that we do not have a corner on all the truth. Some Christian traditions may emphasize some aspects of our biblical heritage more than others, but they are only partial. The Bible has many diverse viewpoints, we can no longer have the arrogance of claiming we have the whole truth and others do not. We can't wait for others to tell us the answers, the Bible is for discussion, we must actively seek the answers in the Bible. If we do this we will learn, grow and accept others growth too without condemnation. In this way we will be attentive to the Spirit and not the words or laws to put others down. The Bible tell us that no one way of perceiving God is complete and final. It says there is no one understanding of how God relates to us. It is all-inclusive because there is not just one way to be faithful to God. If a person can only worship in one way I would say that person is not worshiping God.

This post has been edited by soma: 01 February 2008 - 03:37 PM

[David]

McKenna, on Jan 26 2008, 07:40 PM, said:

Well, obviously fundamentalists and progressives are pretty far apart on the theological spectrum and often the political spectrum as well, so they would interpret the above ideals pretty differently...but I do think that a statement such as this could become the basis for such a bridge, yes. It would take a lot of time, patience, and dialogue to work from there in terms of interpretation. But I think it would be worth it

I’m wondering about that fragile ecumenical bridge. One of my reactions is that this seems to be a bridge based upon principles that could be the mission of any good civic or political organization. Another reaction is that some Progressives may limit expectations within religious groups to these goals designed for ecumenism.

This reminds me of my history with the Unitarian Universalists who “on paper” attempt to be perhaps the most “inclusive” religious group in town while almost always being the smallest group in town. I think the UU Principles could be used by ecumenical groups as a “mission statement” for ecumenical dialogue. There is no demand for theological unity. However, the “real” UU world shows a lack of theology within the stated goal of searching for truth. So the goal is a great ecumenical goal but a lousy goal for a religious denomination. Accepting different paths to the top of the mountain is a great ecumenical goal but not offering any path to follow is a lousy goal for a religious denomination.

I think there is a tendency in the UU world to be that “generic pluralist” that Diana Eck says is not possible (there can be Christian pluralists, Hindu pluralists,etc but not “generic pluralists”). A “generic pluralist” has nothing to bring to the ecumenical table if those around the religious table already accept pluralism. This can not be the center of a faith journey. The UU world is focused on process. The focus on process can tend towards the “lowest common denominator” of being a good neighbor or the “highest common denominator” of pluralism based upon an understanding of the Divine as One. The UU world has however rejected any theological foundation as being too divisive and is all about process which probably is more political than religious. That is not unimportant. It is important that we learn to be good neighbors, but that is not the foundation of a faith journey. Theological unity should not be the goal for ecumenism but theology is certainly the foundation of any religious community. Ecumenism is probably more political than religious. But a community without theology is not religious and would have no reason to be at the ecumenical table.

Having said this, there are a great many UU people with solid religious foundations that may end up in the UU world because there is no other place to go. Depending on the UU group however they may be frustrated by the predominance of the political/process discussion and the lack of religious experience. Certainly, they are handicapped in any ecumenical discussion because they can only really speak for themselves after the process or “bridge” is established. Many persons who call themselves Progressive Christians may hope for no more than good process so they can speak for themselves. I think those people should take a good look at the world of UU and then start to think of different ways of “being together” so we can contribute religious content as well as political process to the ecumenical dialogue. I would hope that Progressive Christians would internally develop a progressive theological foundation and then ecumenically work for that "highest common denominator" of pluralism based upon an understanding of the Divine as One.

[davidk]

soma, on Feb 1 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

...we must actively seek the answers in the Bible.

To be specific on the word 'pluralism'. Do you intend it to mean that: there is more than one kind of ultimate reality; or, more than one independent spiritual entity (dualism as opposed to monism)? Or, the concept of diverse autonomous ethnic or religious groups participating to develop their own culture within the confines of a common civilization?

In any case, I'd like to address "diverse viewpoints". While there certainly was a diversity of individuals, their viewpoints all pointed in very a non-diverse way. It is because of this we may seek, and find, answers from the Bible. If the viewpoints went in all directions, no answers could be possible. We presumably agree the Bible provides answers. In other words, the truth. If it holds the truth we may have confidence in its reliability. If it's reliable, we can depend on its propositional statements. If its propositions are dependable we can trust it. If it is trustworthy, we can believe it. Therefore, we can have that final experience that can be communicated, rationally discussed, and based on God's written propositional communication to us, and on the finished work of Jesus Christ in actual history.

Some believe, beginning with our own viewpoint, each of us drawing a circle to encompass all thoughts of life and life itself, not departing from the hard logic of antithesis, believing on our own, rationalistically, that a finite people could find a unity within the total of complexity (diversity), an adequate explanation for the whole of reality. Each person drawing a circle. Each circle destroyed by the next. It was before the 1800's, philosophers concluded, they were not going to find a unified, rationalistic, circle in which they could live. So, they shifted the meaning of truth to pragmatic relativism. Discarding absolute truths and hard logic, everything was now a 'synthesis' (Hegel). That was a forerunner to dialectical thinking, crucial to Marxism. Well, since this synthesis could not be arrived at by reason. Another shift was required. Kierkegaard (1813-1855) led to the concept of the total separation of the rational and faith ( the leap of faith). Modern existential thinking, theological and secular, was born.
---------------------------
I am convinced many have had a true experience. For sure something certainly happened. Since God created a real external world that exists, and us to experience it, we will. An experience with the reality of the real external world and the uniqueness of man. Because God created man that way, in His own image, to be able to experience the real world and our uniqueness. The experience is of something which exists, it is not nothing, nor is it God. But the world God made. They may have, for a fleeting moment, touched the existence of the true personality in their love, but it is not God. It is the objective reality of the God created world, the way He wanted you to experience it and know who He is.

[McKenna]

davidk, on Feb 1 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

Christianity exposes to the world who God is, no other faith adequately can. Unless another religion claims Christ as having come in the flesh, then yes, incontrovertably, Christianity stands alone as the truth. It doesn't 'hide' Him in a box. I'm not even certain what that means? How does one have the audacity to say "I refuse to put God in a box"? Surely one cannot be of the opinion that one could?

I think you know what I meant. I didn't mean I could literally put God into a box. I meant that I try to avoid turning my beliefs into reality. In other words I can stick labels onto my experiences of God and such but I try never to confine God to those labels. I have to always remember that God is bigger than my experiences and bigger than my words. That's one reason why I don't want to limit God to any certain religion.

davidk, on Feb 1 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

Jesus came along at a certain place in time and space history. Those who came before had a different qualification for salvation than we, the Law. Others who never heard of Jesus still have observed what Romans 1:20 says. God is trustworthy. God does reveal himself in many ways, but only as Himself, not as another. He has no reason to deceive.

I never said God deceived. I just don't think you or anybody else has a monopoly on what revelations of God are true (and yes, I know you never claimed this, at least not directly). I don't know why the Hebrew and Christian scriptures should be trusted as true Revelations of God but not, for example, the Hindu scriptures. For myself, I really don't know what can be considered a "true" Revelation and so I choose to simply try to respect others' beliefs and search for the Revelations that speak to me.

davidk, on Feb 1 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

Allow me: If I and a Muslim see a family needing food, we can both feed the family. We are cobelligerents, or to further illustrate, we are 'allied' (rather than 'an ally', which conotes a very broad basis for agreement) at only that one point in space and time. With my being a Christian and his being Muslim, we are not allies, even though we may be 'allied' at that one point in time and space. Neither faith would accept it, the differences are too great. We can be cobelligerents (allied) with even our worst enemies without being allies. There is no dishonor on either party in being cobelligerents. It means we can stand uncompromisingly in our belief. That's one way we share our faith.

Okay, whatever. It's just semantics I suppose.

davidk, on Feb 1 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

Christ's claims are the epitomy of undeniable exclusivity. Anything else denies Him for whom He said He was.

I guess that depends on one's readings of Scripture. You, I assume, read the Gospels as recording exactly what Jesus said and did. I read them as recording things that Jesus said and did as well as things that were indicative of the early community's experiences of him and thus not necessarily factual, though still true in a metaphorical sense. I think the Gospel of John in particular is not meant to be a historical record but rather a record of how the early Church experienced Jesus.

Anyway, I don't really want to get into an argument about interpretation of Scripture (at least not on this thread), but I just wanted to explain my POV.

[McKenna]

David, on Feb 2 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

I’m wondering about that fragile ecumenical bridge. One of my reactions is that this seems to be a bridge based upon principles that could be the mission of any good civic or political organization. Another reaction is that some Progressives may limit expectations within religious groups to these goals designed for ecumenism.

This reminds me of my history with the Unitarian Universalists who “on paper” attempt to be perhaps the most “inclusive” religious group in town while almost always being the smallest group in town. I think the UU Principles could be used by ecumenical groups as a “mission statement” for ecumenical dialogue. There is no demand for theological unity. However, the “real” UU world shows a lack of theology within the stated goal of searching for truth. So the goal is a great ecumenical goal but a lousy goal for a religious denomination. Accepting different paths to the top of the mountain is a great ecumenical goal but not offering any path to follow is a lousy goal for a religious denomination.

I think there is a tendency in the UU world to be that “generic pluralist” that Diana Eck says is not possible (there can be Christian pluralists, Hindu pluralists,etc but not “generic pluralists”). A “generic pluralist” has nothing to bring to the ecumenical table if those around the religious table already accept pluralism. This can not be the center of a faith journey. The UU world is focused on process. The focus on process can tend towards the “lowest common denominator” of being a good neighbor or the “highest common denominator” of pluralism based upon an understanding of the Divine as One. The UU world has however rejected any theological foundation as being too divisive and is all about process which probably is more political than religious. That is not unimportant. It is important that we learn to be good neighbors, but that is not the foundation of a faith journey. Theological unity should not be the goal for ecumenism but theology is certainly the foundation of any religious community. Ecumenism is probably more political than religious. But a community without theology is not religious and would have no reason to be at the ecumenical table.

As someone who attends a UU church, I know what you mean. There is almost too much pluralism - to the point that at many churches (such as mine) the minister is hesitant to talk about God, even in an inclusive sense. I like the idea of UU but I think when you throw even the God-concept out the window as "too divisive" (as you put it) you really do lose the basis for theology and sort of wind up not really satisfying anyone's spiritual needs.

David, on Feb 2 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

Having said this, there are a great many UU people with solid religious foundations that may end up in the UU world because there is no other place to go. Depending on the UU group however they may be frustrated by the predominance of the political/process discussion and the lack of religious experience. Certainly, they are handicapped in any ecumenical discussion because they can only really speak for themselves after the process or “bridge” is established.

That describes me exactly I am a bit frustrated with what I see as little real spirituality. I'm moving next fall and when I get to my new location I'm going to look around for a liberal/progressive Christian church, where at least I know God will be mentioned!!

David, on Feb 2 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

Many persons who call themselves Progressive Christians may hope for no more than good process so they can speak for themselves. I think those people should take a good look at the world of UU and then start to think of different ways of “being together” so we can contribute religious content as well as political process to the ecumenical dialogue. I would hope that Progressive Christians would internally develop a progressive theological foundation and then ecumenically work for that "highest common denominator" of pluralism based upon an understanding of the Divine as One.

That makes sense to me.

[McKenna]

davidk, on Feb 2 2008, 02:27 PM, said:

In any case, I'd like to address "diverse viewpoints". While there certainly was a diversity of individuals, their viewpoints all pointed in very a non-diverse way.

I disagree. What about the wisdom traditions? Job + Ecclesiastes vs. Proverbs? Or the priestly tradition (with its emphasis on cleanliness and purity) vs. the prophetic tradition (with its emphasis on caring for the poor)?

I see diverse viewpoints in the Bible. And I see that as one of its strengths!