[David]

minsocal, on Apr 18 2008, 07:43 PM, said:

Yes, somehow this sustains the divisions and not at all healing.

Not all divisions are a bad thing. "Healing" may not be possible or appropriate.

Certainly Autumn has shared with us that she “has been there, done that”. I see that in her statement that she was looking for that “safe place” that you and I talked about. She knows the world of DavidK and the dangers that world presents.

DavidK is such a great symbol. My position is that we need to have a boundary between the Church of DavidK and the Progressive Christian Church. Here is how one progressive minister handled the "Unwelcoming" when there was going to be an “open meeting”. This pastor obviously has had experience with fundamentalists before. So the Pastor tells people:
“People might wonder who is welcome at such a meeting. Is this a place to debate the Bible or the appropriateness of the organization?
Answer: No.
The meetings are open; however, the purpose of PFLAG is support, education, and advocacy for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and their parents, families, and friends. This is the vision statement for PFLAG:
'We, the parents, families and friends of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, celebrate diversity and envision a society that embraces everyone, including those of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. Only with respect, dignity and equality for all will we reach our full potential as human beings, individually and collectively. PFLAG welcomes the participation and support of all who share in, and hope to realize this vision.'
As we form a speakers' bureau, we will communicate at more public events in which people can dialog about other things”

READ MY LIPS: FUNDAMENTALISTS WHO WANT TO SPREAD THEIR RELIGION ARE NOT WELCOME. Why is it so hard for us to recognize that this is not a division that is healthy to bridge? Notice the inclusive language that is so much associated with Progressive Churches. But in order to have that “safe place” for being inclusive: READ MY LIPS: FUNDAMENTALISTS WHO WANT TO SPREAD THEIR RELIGION ARE NOT WELCOME. Note the pastor created another space that was "more public" so "people can dialog about other things". READ MY LIPS: YOU FUNDAMENTALISTS CAN COME AND TALK AT OTHER TIMES.

That’s what I hear Autumn saying. More power to her.

I would suggest that when we want that "safe place" that we post in the protected Progressive portion on this message board. If we post in the Debate section we should expect DavidK and others. I would have posted this topic in the more protected area but maybe McKenna wanted to see the discussion between DavidK and others. We have a choice to post or not. We also have the choice to include DavidK or exclude him as I have done (even when I address him it is only as a symbol for what he represents). So no, I don't think this is about the need for healing. As Jen, who got frustrated with DavidK, would say. it is more about "tough love".

This post has been edited by David: 19 April 2008 - 12:48 AM

[minsocal]

David, on Apr 18 2008, 10:33 PM, said:

That’s what I hear Autumn saying. More power to her.

I would suggest that when we want that "safe place" that we post in the protected Progressive portion on this message board. If we post in the Debate section we should expect DavidK and others. I would have posted this topic in the more protected area but maybe McKenna wanted to see the discussion between DavidK and others. We have a choice to post or not. We also have the choice to include DavidK or exclude him as I have done (even when I address him it is only as a symbol for what he represents). So no, I don't think this is about the need for healing. As Jen, who got frustrated with DavidK, would say. it is more about "tough love".

Perhaps 'healing' was a poor choice of words on my part, 'tough love' may well be better. I had to leave the discussion abruptly so I did not know what happened until this morning.

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 19 April 2008 - 11:49 AM

[October's Autumn]

David, you have a way with words. Thank you for expressing my thoughts and feeling so much better than I could. You were 100% on. As a progressive I don't believe in converting people to my way of thinking or believing. People become progressive through their own experiences and willingness to be not know everything *now* but be willing to take the time to learn over a lifetime. I'm summing up, but that seems to be a common thread for most people who were not born into a religiously liberal home. I'd rather see a few people be progressives honestly through their own journey than tons converted out of fear of divine retribution (which seems to be the most frequently used means of converting people into Christiainity -- believe what I do or go to hell).

[davidk]

"The fundamentalist will not want to dwell too long on epistemology...which does not lead to any objective certainty. For progressives it is just this lack of objectivity that we know..." -David
As I said, "...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything."
-
Just for everyones edification: This had purely been a discussion on the history of Philosophy and the thoughts behind the philosophers, which forms a rational and reasonable epistemological basis. Any personal preferences to religion, God, and the Bible have been purposefully avoided.
-
I wish to apologize to you, McKenna, for the mockery that has been made of your questions. They're notable for their discernment and should not have been treated the way they have.

[McKenna]

There has been a lot said and much of it I find fascinating. I hope the discussion can continue. I don't have anything of value to add at the moment (I need to think a bit about what's been said I think), but I do find the point about "learning in relationships" particularly fascinating and thought-provoking.

I do want to say that I chose this area for a purpose - "Debate and Dialogue" - because I wanted to leave room for some debate. The guidelines at the top of the page state, "...we'd also like to provide a place for those who wish to engage in debate and dialogue with those who may have more widely differing views...Have at it, but beware... We will continue to delete posts in all areas of the boards - including this one - that we do not feel are presented in a manner that is respectful of other viewpoints, or seeks to convert, or coerce, or attack."

Therefore, DavidK has every right to be here as long as he does not "seek to convert, coerce, or attack," which so far he has not done in this thread. The only attacks I can see have been made at him and his views. I did find his history of philosophy interesting personally; sorry if others did not. I do find it a bit hypocritical that we say much of our worldview boils down to "respect" and yet we are not very respectful to DavidK (and I am guilty of this as well).

That being said, this thread is about progressive epistemology, so I'd rather we stay on that topic rather than delving into comparisons between progressives and conservatives. (That may well come up, of course, and has, but I don't want it to be the focus of the thread.) Also, if straw man arguments (or other logical fallacies) are made, it's perfectly legitimate to point that out. I just ask that we be respectful. And I'd love to stay on topic too...the posts that were on topic I found fascinating

But that's just my two cents. Hopefully this won't scare people away. I really was enjoying the conversation.

And David, thanks for giving us your input after all

[October's Autumn]

McKenna, on Apr 19 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

The only attacks I can see have been made at him and his views.

You might want to go back and look carefully at his very first post. I'll quote it here for you. He started out with an attack. Which is why he is now added to my ignore list.

Quote

find it very interesting that some can be so proud of their 'humbleness'.

If you want to discuss PROGRESSIVE thoughts then davidk has no business posting on the thread since he is not progressive and in his history of posting here has demonstrated not only his ignorance of progressive theology but also his derision for it. What is he going to add to the discussion? I would not trust his writings or understanding of philsophy seeing as how he has shown his lack of ability for basic logic in other areas, unless of course you can cooberate it with another source. It is not to say that everything that comes out his writing is crap but as he himself said once even a blind (animal?) will find a few acorns. (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea).

[David]

davidk, on Apr 19 2008, 03:06 PM, said:

"The fundamentalist will not want to dwell too long on epistemology...which does not lead to any objective certainty. For progressives it is just this lack of objectivity that we know..." -David
As I said, "...liberal philosophy is caught in an uncertainty of knowing anything."
-
Just for everyones edification: This had purely been a discussion on the history of Philosophy and the thoughts behind the philosophers, which forms a rational and reasonable epistemological basis. Any personal preferences to religion, God, and the Bible have been purposefully avoided.
-
I wish to apologize to you, McKenna, for the mockery that has been made of your questions. They're notable for their discernment and should not have been treated the way they have.

Perhaps in your rush to give us an objective history of philosophy you did not actually read McKenna’s questions:

“I keep seeing the word 'epistemology' thrown around on these boards, but I don't know if I've seen a cohesive definition of what exactly a progressive epistemology would be.
On what do progressives base our knowledge? How do we "know" what we know?
How does reason fit in? Or revelation? The Bible? Jesus? Personal experience?”

Maybe I missed it, but where did you tell us what a progressive epistemology would be.
Maybe I missed it, but where did you speak on what progressives base knowledge upon.

Oh yeah, I see where it is.
You took several of my words out of context and made some brilliant responses.

At least you got the apology right:
“I wish to apologize to you, McKenna, for the mockery that has been made of your questions”.
I can only assume that you only apologize for yourself. What would give you the gall darn audacity to apologize for someone else?

You know I really do believe in Santa Claus. For years I taught my children to believe in Santa Claus. I would go to great lengths to help them in their belief and to hide any evidence that would tend to raise questions about Santa. But in spite of all my efforts they grew up. I still believe. Recently my grandkids showed me why I believe. My daughter is doing the same things I did. I could not tell you where Santa is if you asked me. You could say he is “outside” somewhere. If you ever get the urge, tell me how you know that god of yours and how you know he is not Santa (well actually anyone in the group that you represent is welcome to do this).

This post has been edited by David: 19 April 2008 - 07:18 PM

[David]

October, on Apr 19 2008, 11:16 AM, said:

David, you have a way with words. Thank you for expressing my thoughts and feeling so much better than I could. You were 100% on. As a progressive I don't believe in converting people to my way of thinking or believing. People become progressive through their own experiences and willingness to be not know everything *now* but be willing to take the time to learn over a lifetime. I'm summing up, but that seems to be a common thread for most people who were not born into a religiously liberal home. I'd rather see a few people be progressives honestly through their own journey than tons converted out of fear of divine retribution (which seems to be the most frequently used means of converting people into Christiainity -- believe what I do or go to hell).

Thank you for your kind words.
Hang in there.
Will talk to you when I get back.

[minsocal]

McKenna, on Apr 16 2008, 02:41 PM, said:

I keep seeing the word 'epistemology' thrown around on these boards, but I don't know if I've seen a cohesive definition of what exactly a progressive epistemology would be.

On what do progressives base our knowledge? How do we "know" what we know?

How does reason fit in? Or revelation? The Bible? Jesus? Personal experience?

...

Yesterday, davidk made an interesting observation in another thread. It has to do with the fact that we have to begin with a set of assumptions. Five years ago, when I joined a Progressive Church and discovered TCPC I found that, for the first time in my life, there exists a coherent set of assumptions that adequately express what I believe. I am referring here to the Eight Points.

In agreement with Point 1, the teachings of Jesus form an important part of what I think would be a Progressive epistomology. I do not intend to go through the Points in turn, they have been worked out over time and continue to evolve.

As to the now rather infamous "uncertainty principle", some have learned to tolerate significant levels of uncertainty and ambiguity. In doing so, it has enriched their lives rather than left them in a state of perpetual angst. Viewed in this manner, some level of uncertainty leaves a person open to new experiences and the possiblity of continuous growth and a more spiritual life.

[McKenna]

October, on Apr 19 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

You might want to go back and look carefully at his very first post. I'll quote it here for you. He started out with an attack. Which is why he is now added to my ignore list.

That's true, I forgot about that. But he has been attacked since then.

Sometimes I wish we had an active moderator. They could keep track of the attacks and make sure nobody stepped over the line. I think we all have in dealing with DavidK (including him and including myself). I really don't think it speaks well of our community and I'm finding it somewhat frustrating. I'm considering taking a break from this board not because of DavidK's existence but because of what his existence is doing to these boards! Can't we all just be respectful? And can't we try to be respectful even in the face of disrespect? (Again, I'm including myself in this...I know I am not innocent.)

Sorry to get my own thread off topic, but this is really bothering me. I hate when people are mad at each other...

October, on Apr 19 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

If you want to discuss PROGRESSIVE thoughts then davidk has no business posting on the thread since he is not progressive and in his history of posting here has demonstrated not only his ignorance of progressive theology but also his derision for it. What is he going to add to the discussion? I would not trust his writings or understanding of philsophy seeing as how he has shown his lack of ability for basic logic in other areas, unless of course you can cooberate it with another source. It is not to say that everything that comes out his writing is crap but as he himself said once even a blind (animal?) will find a few acorns. (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea).

I just don't want to slam the door in his face...if he wants to engage in this discussion then he is allowed to...although I suppose David is right that he has not actually discussed progressive epistemology yet. I figured he was going somewhere with his history of philosophy, although it may just be to show that progressive epistemology is all wrong. In which case no, this isn't the right thread for it.

Look, I've gotten frustrated with him too (obviously), and I do still wonder why he's on this discussion board, since he seems to have no inclination to learn from us. But he is allowed in the debate section. And I agree that it is fruitless to discuss areas where we have different epistemologies, but this question is merely asking the definition of a progressive epistemology, so our different epistemologies shouldn't matter. DavidK, not being a progressive, can probably not offer much in the way of answers to the question, but he could ask further questions (as I have already done). Therefore I found it quite rude that the immediate response to him posting here was to tell him he was unwelcome.

I believe the blind animal was a pig digging for truffles but that could be way off

[McKenna]

minsocal, on Apr 20 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

Yesterday, davidk made an interesting observation in another thread. It has to do with the fact that we have to begin with a set of assumptions. Five years ago, when I joined a Progressive Church and discovered TCPC I found that, for the first time in my life, there exists a coherent set of assumptions that adequately express what I believe. I am referring here to the Eight Points.

Yes, I think you're right. I don't think there could be an epistemology that didn't make some assumptions, as when it comes down to it the only thing you can truly know philosophically is your own existence...at least, that's what I got out of my philosophy course!

minsocal, on Apr 20 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

In agreement with Point 1, the teachings of Jesus form an important part of what I think would be a Progressive epistomology. I do not intend to go through the Points in turn, they have been worked out over time and continue to evolve.

Isn't epistemology "how we know what we know"? So wouldn't the teachings of Jesus fall under "what we know" rather than "how we know it"? Perhaps I'm just confusing terms here...could you expand on that idea a bit?

minsocal, on Apr 20 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

As to the now rather infamous "uncertainty principle", some have learned to tolerate significant levels of uncertainty and ambiguity. In doing so, it has enriched their lives rather than left them in a state of perpetual angst. Viewed in this manner, some level of uncertainty leaves a person open to new experiences and the possiblity of continuous growth and a more spiritual life.

I think you're right, and I think most progressives are in the same boat. I know I am. Perhaps progressive epistemology will always come with that caveat - uncertainty. I do not think that is a bad thing.



From what I've read so far, it seems to me that perhaps the most important aspect of progressive epistemology is personal experience. Am I right in saying that? If so, that is an interesting epistemological (is that a word?) basis...on the one hand, it could be negative, because there is less common ground (although there should still be some - such as David's point about love being similar experiences even if we each have to experience it on our own), and also because it leaves room for a great deal of uncertainty, since because we are finite we must know that our experiences can't encompass all of reality. On the other hand, I think it also has a positive side. I think it's honest...having some level of uncertainty, to me, is simply being honest about our state of finiteness (don't care if that's a word ), and basing our epistemologies off of our own personal experiences gives us the honesty of not necessarily relying on second-hand information (definitely not relying on it fully). Again, the downside is that the second-hand information could be way more accurate.

[McKenna]

David, on Apr 19 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

Thank you for your kind words.
Hang in there.
Will talk to you when I get back.

Come back soon!

[minsocal]

McKenna, on Apr 20 2008, 08:17 AM, said:

Isn't epistemology "how we know what we know"? So wouldn't the teachings of Jesus fall under "what we know" rather than "how we know it"? Perhaps I'm just confusing terms here...could you expand on that idea a bit?

To keep myself reasonably clear on this I am using the "Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy" (1995, Audi, Ed). There is an interesting point made in the discussion of epistemology under the sub-heading "Skepticism":

"How can we specify what we know without having specified how we know, and how can we specify how we know without having specified what we know? ... This is one of the most difficult epistemological problems ... Contemporary epistemology still lacks a widely accepted reply to this urgent problem (p. 238)."

I am still trying to grasp this fully myself !!!! Philosophy makes my brain ache sometimes.

According to this source, epistemology is "the study of the nature of knowledge and justification ..." Under the sub-heading "Kinds of knowledge" there is a discussion of "propositional knowldege (that something is so)." There is also "non-propositional knowledge of something (e.g., knowledge by aquaintence or by direct awareness), empirical (a posteriori) propositional knowledge, non-empirical (a priori) propositional knowledge, and knowledge of how to do something (p. 234)."

There are apparently two main issues in the analysis of knowledge and justification: "the sources of knowledge and justification (e.g., rationalism versus empiricism), and the viability of skepticism about knowledge and justification (p. 233)."

This is where I sometimes get confused myself.

[minsocal]

McKenna, on Apr 20 2008, 08:17 AM, said:

From what I've read so far, it seems to me that perhaps the most important aspect of progressive epistemology is personal experience. Am I right in saying that? If so, that is an interesting epistemological (is that a word?) basis...on the one hand, it could be negative, because there is less common ground (although there should still be some - such as David's point about love being similar experiences even if we each have to experience it on our own),

There is a subtle point in the story about love and compassion (prior post). The person speaks first of his love flowing out towards another, and then of love flowing back in to him from the congregation (community). Two kinds of tears. A profound experience made possible, in part, by the action of the (progressive) community (the unanimous vote to be a Welcoming Church). I wonder myself, how often do I not let love flow in?

[minsocal]

minsocal, on Apr 20 2008, 09:40 AM, said:

According to this source, epistemology is "the study of the nature of knowledge and justification ..." Under the sub-heading "Kinds of knowledge" there is a discussion of "propositional knowldege (that something is so)." There is also "non-propositional knowledge of something (e.g., knowledge by aquaintence or by direct awareness), empirical (a posteriori) propositional knowledge, non-empirical (a priori) propositional knowledge, and knowledge of how to do something (p. 234)."

There are apparently two main issues in the analysis of knowledge and justification: "the sources of knowledge and justification (e.g., rationalism versus empiricism), and the viability of skepticism about knowledge and justification (p. 233)."

This is where I sometimes get confused myself.

Knowledge skepticism comes in different flavors. Extreme skepticism holds that it is "impossible for anyone to know anything (p. 236)." There are weaker and more restricted versions of knowledge skepticism that leave open the possibility of having knowledge. "Such limited skepticism is more common than unrestricted skepticism in the history of epistemology (p. 237)." I think that Progressives lean more towards the weaker versions. At least this is true for me.

The " ... and justifcation" part is where I get twisted up. This seems to be where the dialogue gets controversial.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 20 April 2008 - 03:27 PM

[October's Autumn]

McKenna, on Apr 20 2008, 10:04 AM, said:

DavidK, not being a progressive, can probably not offer much in the way of answers to the question, but he could ask further questions (as I have already done). Therefore I found it quite rude that the immediate response to him posting here was to tell him he was unwelcome.

That is because the first line in his first post was to attack. Which is why I told him he had no business being on this thread. His only purpose in asking questions is to point out how wrong we all are He has no interest in learning anything or in anyway being helpful to the discussion. Hence my stance that he stay off the thread. He has only succeeded in getting it off topic. You ask questions because you genuinely are interested in knowing what people think and how they came to the conclusion they did. He asks questions for quite different purposes.

[minsocal]

McKenna, on Apr 20 2008, 08:17 AM, said:

From what I've read so far, it seems to me that perhaps the most important aspect of progressive epistemology is personal experience. Am I right in saying that? If so, that is an interesting epistemological (is that a word?) basis...on the one hand, it could be negative, because there is less common ground (although there should still be some - such as David's point about love being similar experiences even if we each have to experience it on our own), and also because it leaves room for a great deal of uncertainty, since because we are finite we must know that our experiences can't encompass all of reality.

You are not alone on this point. I have Progressive friends who place a strong emphasis on experience. Then I know others that blend rationalism and experience, and so on. In other words, Progressive Christianity can be pluralistic in two senses of the word. Pluralistic when looking at other belief systems and pluralistic at the personal level.

[davidk]

I had hoped someone would have noticed my initial comment followed Autumn's?

"This humbleness is in many ways what separates us from conservatives. They are arrogantly convinced they know everything there is to know and cannot, therefore, make room for new information (earth isn't flat, earth moves around the sun, evolution, etc.)." - October's Autumn Apr 16 2008, 09:06 PM

"I find it very interesting that some can be so proud of their 'humbleness'. " -Davidk Apr 17 2008, 01:18 PM

I made a simple rebuttal about having to call attention to one's humility not being humility. Her remarks concluded flagrantly prejudicial and far from the truth.
-
minsocal, you have been the first to put forth what may be considered to be a Progressive Epistemology, Point 1. And your post #33 states the issues I am trying to flesh out one step at a time so we don't get ahead of ourselves. There is more history to hear.

"Viewed in this manner, some level of uncertainty leaves a person open to new experiences and the possiblity of continuous growth and a more spiritual life." - minsocal
I believe you're on the right track here. To explain, I would paraphrase; Some level of uncertainty leaves a person open to new experiences and to the possibility of continuous growth toward certainty for a more fulfilling spiritual life. We all move in this direction, because uncertainty provides no fulfillment.
-
Epistemology is the central problem of our modern generation, because this generation looks at knowledge in a way that is radically different from the previous ones. My flying through the history of Philosophy is meant to touch its highlights in an effort for us all to see where we are struggling with this problem of knowledge in an intellectually honest way as my 'pea brain' can manage.
-
McKenna, you asked a very significant question. I'd like to respond to it specifically: "So wouldn't the teachings of Jesus fall under "what we know" rather than "how we know it"? Perhaps I'm just confusing terms here...could you expand on that idea a bit?"

When we read Jesus' words they 'ring true' to us. Our moral motions of good and evil are being verbalized in a manner we reasonably understand. Our moral motions, an inuition, indicate we 'know' there is a right and a wrong. Jesus spoke objectively, by His authority, confirming what we 'know' to be true. This confirmation therefore makes our epistemology ('how we know we know') complete and certain. The objective authority of that knowledge told us.
-

[minsocal]

October, on Apr 16 2008, 06:06 PM, said:

Reason is very important to Progressives but we also recognize that human abililty to reason is limited to the information we have at hand. This humbleness is in many ways what separates us from conservatives. They are arrogantly convinced they know everything there is to know and cannot, therefore, make room for new information (earth isn't flat, earth moves around the sun, evolution, etc.).

The bible is filled with stories of Personal Experience which supercedes previous edicts. Think of Peter and keeping Kosher. It is his personal experience which changes the law for gentiles who are converting. Paul also writes of his personal experience on the road to Damascus which moves him from a persecuter to a convert. Much of the stories of the bible are about personal experiences with God. I think it is one of the most imporant pieces of being progressive. We find that our personal experience with God does not match up to Conservative idealogy and thus leave it.

Jesus is also key because Paul focuses on him when he fashions Christianity. He became so important that four or more poeple sit down to compile stories about him in writings that were passed around. They seek to tell the story of what Jesus did before it is lost. Jesus was by far a social reformer, a progressive Jew. He certainly did not seek to start a new religion only to return Judaism to its roots. His teaching fit in precisely with Jeremiah & Isaiah about what is truly important to God -- social justice. Other religions and the non-religious all seem to come to the same conclusions when it comes to the importance of social justice.

The Bible is given its due. Many progressives have recognized that it has been made into an idol and have sought to knock the false god off of its pedastal. We have demistified it by pointing out its contradictions and the reality of how it came to be. It still holds a special place for us because it contains so many important precepts. What we don't do is worship it as is done in Conservative and Fundamentalist congregations. We aren't afraid to actually look at it and understand it.

I hope that helps some.

davidk,

We all take risks when we state what we believe. The last sentence must also be considered. A hope ... a desire ... not a belief. Beliefs are subject to truth conditions (epistemology). Desires are fulfilled or they are not (a different condition of satisfaction).

This post has been edited by minsocal: 20 April 2008 - 07:09 PM

[minsocal]

October, on Apr 16 2008, 06:06 PM, said:

Reason is very important to Progressives but we also recognize that human abililty to reason is limited to the information we have at hand. This humbleness is in many ways what separates us from conservatives. They are arrogantly convinced they know everything there is to know and cannot, therefore, make room for new information (earth isn't flat, earth moves around the sun, evolution, etc.).

The bible is filled with stories of Personal Experience which supercedes previous edicts. Think of Peter and keeping Kosher. It is his personal experience which changes the law for gentiles who are converting. Paul also writes of his personal experience on the road to Damascus which moves him from a persecuter to a convert. Much of the stories of the bible are about personal experiences with God. I think it is one of the most imporant pieces of being progressive. We find that our personal experience with God does not match up to Conservative idealogy and thus leave it.

Jesus is also key because Paul focuses on him when he fashions Christianity. He became so important that four or more poeple sit down to compile stories about him in writings that were passed around. They seek to tell the story of what Jesus did before it is lost. Jesus was by far a social reformer, a progressive Jew. He certainly did not seek to start a new religion only to return Judaism to its roots. His teaching fit in precisely with Jeremiah & Isaiah about what is truly important to God -- social justice. Other religions and the non-religious all seem to come to the same conclusions when it comes to the importance of social justice.

The Bible is given its due. Many progressives have recognized that it has been made into an idol and have sought to knock the false god off of its pedastal. We have demistified it by pointing out its contradictions and the reality of how it came to be. It still holds a special place for us because it contains so many important precepts. What we don't do is worship it as is done in Conservative and Fundamentalist congregations. We aren't afraid to actually look at it and understand it.

I hope that helps some.

I really like this post, and hope it can be given its due.

Human reason is limited. (but not eliminated)

The Bible is full of the personal experiences of others. (a valuable source of knowledge)

Jesus was a social reformer and a progressive Jew.

His teachings fit with Jerhemiah and Isaiah (and others). (the prophetic tradition)

The prophets were passionate about justice.

The Bible is given its due. (and why not?)

All of this seems to fit with the Eight Points very well.