[JosephM]

davidk, on Jun 7 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

Jesus really doesn't matter. His teachings are the only thing that matter, and then only whatever we decide them to be. It seems this is our progressive answer, McKenna.

Hello David,

I do not speak for all. It seems to me your collective opinion inaccurately portrays at least what I wrote as you use the words "Jesus really doesn't matter". Saying that ones teaching is more important than ones personage doesn't say the personage really doesn't matter it just says what it says that the teaching are 'more important" than the personage.

Secondly, you say of the teachings that ' only whatever we decide them to be" While it is true that each of us places different, none or greater emphasis on certain teachings, it only speaks of where each individual is at on his journey and what the spirit has personally revealed as true. It seems to me 'good' not to try and put people in a box and define progressive Christians as you do as no two may agree on all things at his/her stage of developement/transformation. Transformation to the new creature in Christ is a daily process rather than than destination until one has arrived. Therefor I say it is 'best' not to box one in on the way. I die daily.

Just some thoughts for you to consider,
Love Joseph

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

davidk, on Jun 8 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

Dear Gary,
This message board has allowed several to express their answer to McKenna's question, "Who is Jesus?". I have merely stated what is the collective opinion of their posts (4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 17). Grampa did give a qualified opinion based on his 'golden threads'. But it still left Jesus as nothing unique.
If you have any issues with their positions, you'll simply need to address them.
The second quote is out of context and is quite irrelevant to this page.

Dear Davidk,

Love in Christ, the Light, Jesus to you and for all,

Instead of stating what you percieve as the collective opinion, please state what is your issue that you agree with or disagree with so that we can have a conversation, learn and know.

I have not seen that I or JosephM or Grampa are wrong, I have seen a lot of pontification that goes nowhere. We do not want to go nowhere, we want to go somewhere, we seek Love.

Jesus taught us to Love, to love our neighbor and that includes even you. We also know that we can not love those that abuse us, remember my personal situation with my toxic relationship with the one I wed? Her betrayal was not a demonstration of love, her continued attack was not a demonstration of love.

What is Love?
Where is Love?

Have you shown Love?

I wish you Love,

I know the Love and Peace of GOD, my life at this time doesn't reflect that knowledge, I did not deserve to be treated and abused in the manner that many (strangers, friends and family) have collectively attacked me.

Please do show us you're GOD...

Be progressive

[McKenna]

October, on Jun 4 2008, 05:55 PM, said:

I think you have to ask a moderator to move it. I already see where your great topic starter threads (I think 5 of them) have been side tracked. I have barely posted on them for that reason.

Ack. I guess I'm bad at this whole deciding-where-to-put-a-thread thing. Please post anyway though! I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts, even if the threads do eventually get way off topic.

[McKenna]

JosephM, on Jun 5 2008, 08:10 AM, said:

Sorry, To stick with your original question
Perhaps we follow his teachings rather than Jesus. As you know, his name was Jesus of Nazareth and Christ was a title given him though most of us seem to being using it as his name.

These seem to me to take emphasis off of his original teachings.
No thoughts on first question.

It seems to me we can only trust those writings that are personally confirmed to us by the same spirit that inspired Jesus. (the Father)

Joseph

That certainly is a Progressive Christian perspective! Thanks for sharing!

minsocal, on Jun 5 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

I usually approach the subject of miracles with some caution so as not to step on people's beliefs. There are many aspects of what Jesus said and did that, from a psychological perspective, are of great interest to me. There is little doubt in my mind that Jesus had a profound understanding of the physiological and psychological effects of a harsh hierarchical system on what was then a marginalized majority. Even today, we still do not know (or fail to recognize) the full extent of marginalization viewed from a mind-body perspective. Social justice is more than a concept, in my mind. It is more than equal rights as normally seen, unless the concept includes freedom from socially induced fear and other psychologically negative factors. Freedom from these factors is indeed experienced by many of the marginalized as "a miracle".

Fascinating thoughts, minsocal. I think you may be right. To respond to your last sentence in particular - it seems to me that many of the original Christians felt freed by Jesus for one reason or another; to take a more progressive POV, I suppose it would be that his teachings broke down traditional social barriers and allowed them to experience God's Grace, which they had not felt worthy of before because of the standard teachings of the time - and that, I think, would certainly be experienced as a miracle.

[McKenna]

October, on Jun 7 2008, 12:07 AM, said:

I agree. It is the teachings which matter most. I don't think any of the rest would be remembered (historical or not) if it were not for the significance of the teachings.

I think I may have to disagree with that (tentatively, since you have a Masters in New Testament Theology and all I've done is read a couple of books by some scholars). Most of what he taught was already said in the Old Testament, wasn't it? I think it's more likely that none of it would be remembered if it hadn't been for Paul...and he barely focused on Jesus' teachings. I just think there's more to the story than that Jesus said some profound things and people remembered them forever. Not that I'm dismissing his teachings; they are very, very important to me as well.

[davidk]

TheGreatWhiteBuffalo, on Jun 8 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

Dear Davidk,

Love in Christ, the Light, Jesus to you and for all,

Instead of stating what you percieve as the collective opinion, please state what is your issue that you agree with or disagree with so that we can have a conversation, learn and know.

I have not seen that I or JosephM or Grampa are wrong, I have seen a lot of pontification that goes nowhere. We do not want to go nowhere, we want to go somewhere, we seek Love.

Jesus taught us to Love, to love our neighbor and that includes even you. We also know that we can not love those that abuse us, remember my personal situation with my toxic relationship with the one I wed? Her betrayal was not a demonstration of love, her continued attack was not a demonstration of love.

What is Love?
Where is Love?

Have you shown Love?

I wish you Love,

I know the Love and Peace of GOD, my life at this time doesn't reflect that knowledge, I did not deserve to be treated and abused in the manner that many (strangers, friends and family) have collectively attacked me.

Please do show us you're GOD...

Be progressive

I'd prefer to observe and ask questions rather than 'litter' the blog with 'conservative' doctrine (per McKenna's request). I intend my observations to be rather pointed, not to antagonize but to encourage the answers to be just as direct. I'm not stating whether you are right or wrong, just explain.

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Jun 6 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

Minsocal - what a great statement. Indeed very often that 'miracle' might be nothing more than recognising how we are manipulated by society - and not always for the better.

Wayseer,

Thank you. It was a long hiatus between where I was some 35 years ago and now. I always had something of a resentment about being manipulated by society, but that's a long story. The main point, I guess, is that I came back ...

minsocal

[davidk]

JosephM, on Jun 8 2008, 03:15 PM, said:

Hello David,

I do not speak for all. It seems to me your collective opinion inaccurately portrays at least what I wrote as you use the words "Jesus really doesn't matter". Saying that ones teaching is more important than ones personage doesn't say the personage really doesn't matter it just says what it says that the teaching are 'more important" than the personage.

Secondly, you say of the teachings that ' only whatever we decide them to be" While it is true that each of us places different, none or greater emphasis on certain teachings, it only speaks of where each individual is at on his journey and what the spirit has personally revealed as true. It seems to me 'good' not to try and put people in a box and define progressive Christians as you do as no two may agree on all things at his/her stage of developement/transformation. Transformation to the new creature in Christ is a daily process rather than than destination until one has arrived. Therefor I say it is 'best' not to box one in on the way. I die daily.

Just some thoughts for you to consider,
Love Joseph

Hey Joseph,
I appreciate your candor and honest reflection.

Firstly, let me be clear. I am not defining any progressive christians. The posts have clearly and specifically been about progressive theology.

Might I say here that I understand when it is said the teaching is more important than the personage.

This still leaves Jesus as nothing unique since it was applied to Jesus as well all great teachers. Because the word 'personage' is very impersonal and indistinct, it devalues the real person by intent. Given this position, there would be no consequence in just ignoring the personage while remembering some profound things.

There is no argument about us all being at different stages in our own personal journey, and truths have individual applications for each of us. But that does not mean truth is relative. If truth is true, it is true for everyone. If we believe otherwise, we make ourselves autonomous. Why would the Spirit reveal truths that could also be considered untrue?

There is a certain inconsistency when first the emphasis is on the 'teachings' and then in the next paragraph the emphasis is on the teacher: "Transformation to the new creature in Christ...".

Thanks for the thoughts.

Dk

[minsocal]

McKenna, on Jun 8 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

That certainly is a Progressive Christian perspective! Thanks for sharing!
Fascinating thoughts, minsocal. I think you may be right. To respond to your last sentence in particular - it seems to me that many of the original Christians felt freed by Jesus for one reason or another; to take a more progressive POV, I suppose it would be that his teachings broke down traditional social barriers and allowed them to experience God's Grace, which they had not felt worthy of before because of the standard teachings of the time - and that, I think, would certainly be experienced as a miracle.

McKenna,

Several years ago I was in a practicum session related to my PsyD. Somehow, I ended up defending the position that spirituality and psychology were inseparable. At the time, I really thought I was out on a limb. When I finished, my instructor simply said "OK class, that's the point"!

minsocal

[JosephM]

davidk, on Jun 9 2008, 02:02 AM, said:

Hey Joseph,
I appreciate your candor and honest reflection.

Firstly, let me be clear. I am not defining any progressive christians. The posts have clearly and specifically been about progressive theology.

Might I say here that I understand when it is said the teaching is more important than the personage.

This still leaves Jesus as nothing unique since it was applied to Jesus as well all great teachers. Because the word 'personage' is very impersonal and indistinct, it devalues the real person by intent. Given this position, there would be no consequence in just ignoring the personage while remembering some profound things.

There is no argument about us all being at different stages in our own personal journey, and truths have individual applications for each of us. But that does not mean truth is relative. If truth is true, it is true for everyone. If we believe otherwise, we make ourselves autonomous. Why would the Spirit reveal truths that could also be considered untrue?

There is a certain inconsistency when first the emphasis is on the 'teachings' and then in the next paragraph the emphasis is on the teacher: "Transformation to the new creature in Christ...".

Thanks for the thoughts.

Dk

Hi David,

There is no inconsistency as you seem to suppose. Christ is not a man nor does it place emphasis on a man. Christ is a word that speaks of the annointing spirit of God which indwells all. Christ in you, your hope of glory or the presence of God. You do not transform to the man Jesus, you transform to the 'annointing' of God just as Jesus did. Perhaps you will see, there is a difference.

It seems to me that truth is always a subjective experience by definition and therefor will not be true for everyone at least while subject to the body/mind. Absolute truth cannot be found in duality. This physical creature must die. It can only subjectively experience God.

Just a view for you to consider concerning your comments.

Love in Christ,
Joseph

[Wayseer]

Again - I think Davidk makes pertinient points.

There is a danger that Jesus does become a bystander in our pontificating. I guess that was why I set out to follow Crossan, Borg et al, for a couple of years as they searched for the historical Jesus - I wanted to identify the man from the myth.

Clearly a picture comes to me of Jesus which does not appear in the Gospels. This Jesus had to be both mentally and physically tough - he was also politically astute and socially savvy - and he knew which buttons to push. He was alarmed at the how His 'Church' treated its own - how it collaborated with the dominate political power of Rome - how playing politics was more important than listening to the cries of the oppressed. And the sheep had no leader.

Jesus, an itinerent peasant using the technology of the day, foot travel, a commanding presence, a 'new' teaching, holding out a 'promise', walking on water, would have made a good subject for a Youtube video clip. We could all have had a good laugh at the unfortunates who were 'emotionally' brainwashed and sucked into His movement (cult) - another nut case claiming to hold the power of God. Yet something more emerged from the work of this social and political radical - a something which we debate to this day - what did his work exactly mean.

In our sophisicated 21 st Century we may be in danger that while professing how wise we are we may yet be proved fools. Humility is still a great virtue. We distance the man from techings at our peril. We ditch Tradition in favour of Progression but there is a 'but' - no such much as an inconsistence as a dislocation. Truth may indeed be relative but, and here's the 'but', we have differentiate that Truth from its social context - its subjectivity. We need to identify the trees, not the forest.

Certainly there is a generalised questioning taking place concerning the teaching of the Church. The Church no longer may claim to be the sole repository of that Truth - itself being wrapped in a mantle of subjectivity. And on that score, PC can be just as subjective as anything else. We must be careful not to thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

The role is vacant - the job description awesome - the renumeration package doubtful - the outcome uncertain. But we try with the little we have.

[JosephM]

Wayseer, on Jun 9 2008, 08:02 PM, said:

Again - I think Davidk makes pertinient points.

There is a danger that Jesus does become a bystander in our pontificating. I guess that was why I set out to follow Crossan, Borg et al, for a couple of years as they searched for the historical Jesus - I wanted to identify the man from the myth.

What danger is that you speak of?

Quote

Clearly a picture comes to me of Jesus which does not appear in the Gospels. This Jesus had to be both mentally and physically tough - he was also politically astute and socially savvy - and he knew which buttons to push. He was alarmed at the how His 'Church' treated its own - how it collaborated with the dominate political power of Rome - how playing politics was more important than listening to the cries of the oppressed. And the sheep had no leader.

And why is it necessary to understand the man? Politics? etc. ? It seems to me the annointing which you have received abides in you and you have no need that man should teach you. That is the spirit of truth.

Quote

Jesus, an itinerent peasant using the technology of the day, foot travel, a commanding presence, a 'new' teaching, holding out a 'promise', walking on water, would have made a good subject for a Youtube video clip. We could all have had a good laugh at the unfortunates who were 'emotionally' brainwashed and sucked into His movement (cult) - another nut case claiming to hold the power of God. Yet something more emerged from the work of this social and political radical - a something which we debate to this day - what did his work exactly mean.

Perhaps these are the trees which can cause one to lose sight of the forest.

Quote

In our sophisicated 21 st Century we may be in danger that while professing how wise we are we may yet be proved fools. Humility is still a great virtue. We distance the man from techings at our peril. We ditch Tradition in favour of Progression but there is a 'but' - no such much as an inconsistence as a dislocation. Truth may indeed be relative but, and here's the 'but', we have differentiate that Truth from its social context - its subjectivity. We need to identify the trees, not the forest.

Perhaps you have it backwards. What need is there to examine all the trees? And be lost in them? The message is so simple that EVEN A FOOL SHOULD NOT ERR.

Quote

Certainly there is a generalised questioning taking place concerning the teaching of the Church. The Church no longer may claim to be the sole repository of that Truth - itself being wrapped in a mantle of subjectivity. And on that score, PC can be just as subjective as anything else. We must be careful not to thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

The role is vacant - the job description awesome - the renumeration package doubtful - the outcome uncertain. But we try with the little we have.

It seems to me that the outcome is certain (not uncertain). God who is present everywhere is not known by intellectualizing or obtaining anything new but rather by tossing out the dirty bathwater so that that which is and has always been present can be exposed. In my view, Truth is self evident when that which is false is removed and not the other way around.

Just another view for one to consider.

Love,
Joseph

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jun 7 2008, 08:40 AM, said:

Jesus really doesn't matter. His teachings are the only thing that matter, and then only whatever we decide them to be. It seems this is our progressive answer, McKenna.

Jesus, of course, does matter. It this were not the case, Buddah, Ghandi and MLK would not matter, to name a few. The life and teachings of Jesus set a standard that are a reference point, an anchor from which we can develop objective goals for our own lives. That, I believe is more progressive than your summation.

[davidk]

minsocal, on Jun 9 2008, 09:38 PM, said:

Jesus, of course, does matter. It this were not the case, Buddah, Ghandi and MLK would not matter, to name a few. The life and teachings of Jesus set a standard that are a reference point, an anchor from which we can develop objective goals for our own lives. That, I believe is more progressive than your summation.

How or why did Jesus become the reference point instead of those listed (plus countless others as well)? Jean Paul Sartre had stated that man needs an infinite reference point in order to find his own finite relevance. According to progressive arguement, none of the above fit the requirement of Sartre's long accepted philosophical declaration.

If Jesus was not an infinite being (the sufficient reference point), why would he be of any more significance than the others? Could the progressive christians then be called the progressive buddahists/ghandists/kingists with no loss of doctrinal import? They could still use Jesus teachings as they use the teachings of the others now.
--
To Joseph,
If Truth is true, it is necessarily true for everyone. If we differ with the truth, OK, but then we make ourselves autonomous. How could the Spirit reveal truths that could also be untrue?

If Christ were not a man, why would Jesus say he was the Christ? If He were not truthful, how could he be revered?
--
Wayseer
Jesus was tough, lovingly. I'm not clear on the 'cult' comment, but the truth being tainted by society is certainly valid, with Jesus confronting it head on revealing truth as unchanging despite social contexts.

[soma]

Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” because it provides an effective answer to the many problems of modern life. This call for love tells us that we are united and that no other person is separate or apart in God’s spiritual consciousness. Recognizing that we are all one in God’s consciousness gives us full protection in His unity by integrating our individual life with the world around us and providing a basic harmony and equilibrium in our hearts and minds.

Progressive Christians follow Jesus. his example, and his teachings of love. Christians who follow Jesus and choose to ignore or manipulate his teachings on love to gain real-estate in heaven or converts to gain numbers to prove they are right. we can say are not progressive. We can learn love from many sources.

[JosephM]

davidk, on Jun 28 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

(snip)
If Jesus was not an infinite being (the sufficient reference point), why would he be of any more significance than the others? Could the progressive christians then be called the progressive buddahists/ghandists/kingists with no loss of doctrinal import? They could still use Jesus teachings as they use the teachings of the others now.
--
To Joseph,
If Truth is true, it is necessarily true for everyone. If we differ with the truth, OK, but then we make ourselves autonomous. How could the Spirit reveal truths that could also be untrue?

If Christ were not a man, why would Jesus say he was the Christ? If He were not truthful, how could he be revered?
--
(snip)

David,

Labels are just labels and save nobody. Whether truth is spoken by Jesus, the Buddha, or you makes no difference with no disrespect meant.

Truth is self-evident when that which is untrue is removed. Truth is not learned, it is known. Learning about something that is true does not make it known. "You have the mind of Christ and know all things". It is already a given and only needs to be uncovered to realize. You become truth as you allow yourself to become transformed into the image of Christ your hope of Glory (God's presence)

Christ is a title for the annointing of God. Jesus was the Christ that was foretold to come. Look up the word in Greek. It is often used in error as is Buddha which means 'awakened one'. People use it to represent an individual person but it is not. Christ is being formed in you just as it was in Jesus. Jesus grew and waxed strong in God and in the knowledge of God. He said he didn't do his own works but that which he saw the Father do. You are to be transformed into that same image by the renewing of your mind and allowing the annointing to work in you. You can revere the man if you like but it is Christ that is your hope of Glory and not the man Jesus. Christ is not a man but rather a word derived from the Greek word Christos which comes from the word chriō through the idea of contact (with God in this case applied). It is definitly not Jesus's last name just as Doctor is a title used in a name. Just something to consider

Love,
Joseph

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jun 28 2008, 11:42 AM, said:

How or why did Jesus become the reference point instead of those listed (plus countless others as well)? Jean Paul Sartre had stated that man needs an infinite reference point in order to find his own finite relevance. According to progressive arguement, none of the above fit the requirement of Sartre's long accepted philosophical declaration.

If Jesus was not an infinite being (the sufficient reference point), why would he be of any more significance than the others? Could the progressive christians then be called the progressive buddahists/ghandists/kingists with no loss of doctrinal import? They could still use Jesus teachings as they use the teachings of the others now.

Quote

Unfortunately, Sartre and Aron are also joined in death: both have been disowned, ignored, or underrated by all the academic disciplines — philosophy, literature, sociology, politics — to which their voluminous works might be thought to have contributed. Silenced by death, Sartre and Aron are remembered more for the attitudes they brought to whatever they wrote about than for what they actually said.

http://www.sartre.or...ntellectual.htm

Quote

Existence precedes and rules essence.
Being and Nothingness (1943)

Existentialism is nothing less than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position. It isn't trying to plunge man into despair at all. But if one calls every attitude of unbelief despair, like the Christians, then the word is not being used in its original sense. Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue. In this sense, existentialism is optimistic, a doctrine of action, and it is plain dishonesty for Christians to make no distinction between their own despair and ours and then to call us despairing.

Quote

God is the solitude of men. There was only me: I alone decided to commit Evil; alone, I invented Good. I am the one who cheated, I am the one who performed miracles, I am the one accusing myself today, I alone can absolve myself; me, the man. - The Devil and the Good Lord, act 10, sc. 4, Gallimard (1951).

Sartre

http://www.sartre.org/quotes.htm

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jun 28 2008, 11:42 AM, said:

How or why did Jesus become the reference point instead of those listed (plus countless others as well)?

In concert with rather than "instead of".

[minsocal]

davidk, on Jun 28 2008, 11:42 AM, said:

How or why did Jesus become the reference point instead of those listed (plus countless others as well)? Jean Paul Sartre had stated that man needs an infinite reference point in order to find his own finite relevance. According to progressive arguement, none of the above fit the requirement of Sartre's long accepted philosophical declaration.

As to the last sentence, perhaps you are correct.

Addendum on Sartre:

Quote

Sartre, however, was comfortable as an atheist even if he had no fundament on which to plant his philosophical feet. To hell with that, he didn't need it.
...
Sartre was alien to the possibility that existentialism might thrive if it would just assume that indeed we do have a God who, no matter His or Her cosmic dimensions, (whether larger or smaller than we assume), embodies nonetheless some of our faults, our ambitions, our talents and our gloom.

http://www.thenation...20050606/mailer

Hmmmmmmm .... ?

This post has been edited by minsocal: 30 June 2008 - 01:30 AM

[davidk]

Joseph,
I believe we agree, truth is true.
Christ, in the context of Scripture, is the Greek title given to the OT Messiah (another title). Particularly, in the context of Scripture, the titles Christ and Messiah are synonymous with only one person.
--
minsocal,
Thanks for responding.
I addressed Jesus as a reference point based upon your earlier comment:

"Jesus, of course, does matter. It this were not the case, Buddah, Ghandi and MLK would not matter, to name a few. The life and teachings of Jesus set a standard that are a reference point, an anchor from which we can develop objective goals for our own lives."

Have you a disagreement with Sartre's stated position, or that I used him?
Can one develop objective goals from a finite reference point?
If Jesus was not an infinite reference point, how would he be of any more significance than the others?
Couldn't the progressive christians be called the progressive buddahists/ghandists/kingists with no loss of doctrinal import? They can still use 'Jesus teachings' as they currently use the teachings of the others. It is a position enitrely supported by your following post: "In concert with rather than "instead of"."
--
soma,
Eastern theology seems to be quite influencial in your doctrine.

In reference to: "This call for love tells us that we are united and that no other person is separate or apart in God’s spiritual consciousness."

If we are in one consciousness with God, why would we have a need for Jesus to give us this commandment to love our neighbor? Why would there be a need for Jesus. There could not be "many problems of modern life".