[Mystical Seeker]

AslansTraveller, on Aug 8 2006, 01:33 PM, said:

Yep, a very messy and human process. God seems to like to work through these. (Of course, he's working with us, what choice does he have?).

My only disagreement is the conclusion that when a decision was reached, it was a "winners" imposing their opinion on the "losers". You could make the same argument about scientific progress, as the creationists often do: the Darwinians are the "winners" who have imposed their ideology on teh "losers". I would maintain that what is today called "orthodoxy" triumphed because it solved the most problems and questions. The others didn't. Not all the ideas about Christ and God were equal. Just as not all ideas in science are equal. Some solve the problems, others don't.

It was a messy process, but that doesn't make it's conclusions inherently false or illicit, any more than the fact that the scientific community accepts evolution as a whole make that conclusion false or illicit (which is a fallacy the creationists refuse to give up )

The difference between scientific paradigms and theological paradigms is that the scientific method isn't used in matters of theology. Theological dogma is not subjected to repeated scientific trials, using empirical methods, and published in peer reviewed journals. Evolution is true to the best of our knowledge because the scientific method discovered it to be true. Furthermore, there is no real debate between bona fide scientists on the validity of evolution; scientific revolutions really take place as a result of the voluntary decision by scientists to accept the new paradigm (a la Thomas Kuhn.) Some other scientific theories, by contrast, really are debated and controversial, and remain so until, and only until, one side voluntarily accepts the other paradigm as valid. Creationists make a false claim about evolutionists "imposing" their beliefs, when in fact there is no such imposition taking place. This isn't the same as what I see having taken place in Christianity.

Note that I am distinguishing here between theological dogma and religious studies scholarships, which is or at least can be scientific. So when a scholar estimates the date of the writing of Mark to be 70 AD or so, there is at least some science that lies behind that. That is different from declaring the Trinity to be true. There is no application of the scientific method to the Nicene Creed. Whether or not one thinks that the doctrines of the trilogy make logical sense is one thing, but there isn't any real correlation between that and, for example, evolution.

Ultimately, the doctrines of what became "orthodox" Christianity were imposed on Christianity as a whole by one faction. Whether or not the new orthodoxy solved problems depends on who you talked to. But the winning side got to decide what was true and what wasn't.

[Russ]

The notion of Jesus being 'fully man' and 'fully God' isn't a Jewish philosphical or theological one, but Greek. The idea of the Spirit of God entering and existing within Jesus is foreign to the faith and culture that Jesus was part of. Paul never met Jesus, didn't live as a contemporary, and displays a decidedly 'Athenian' approach to Jesus in making any reference to Jesus being one and the same as The Sprit of God. This was a completely alien concept to the people of the early First Century Palestine, but not to the Greeks or Romans. Zeus and Jupitor had been taking all kinds of forms in those culture's mythologies and the influence of those myths reach deeply into the legends and myths of Christianity...bringing the dead back to life, virgin birth, God appearing as a human, etc.

Another point is how convenient it is for Jesus to be God when it just so happens to be our faith that says so. Where does this leave everyone else? Out in the cold? Un-saved and doomed forever? Or was this a statement of preference on God's part? Was God really saying that appearing as a First Century Palestinian Jew was preferential to appearing as, say, a First Century Japanese peasant? Or was it that God really planned on appearing in other cultures, but he never got around to finishing the tour? To single out our faith as being the one in which God appeared as a man and none others is not only ethnocentric, but opens the door for a deluge of prejudices.

Jesus was a model Citizen of the Kingdom of God that he was proclaiming to be the Herald of. We would do well to heed his teachings and not try to jockey for position in God's eyes by proclaiming our myths as being Truth while maintaining that all other religious myths are simply myths.

This post has been edited by Russ: 08 August 2006 - 06:18 PM

[rivanna]

Russ,

It's good to emphasize the social justice aspect which is in almost all the 8 points here. Jesus came to help the people who needed it most, the poor, the sick, the outcast, women and children, slaves, the downtrodden and oppressed. All of us who feel like misfits or victimized by life.

As mysticseeker said, taking away Jesus' divinity doesn't make his teachings less true or his life less inspirational--more so in fact.

You seem to be saying that it's wrong to voice a belief in Jesus as divine, as more than a teacher and "model citizen." Isn't there room in Progressive Christianity for a fairly wide spectrum of beliefs about him? Does PC exclude those who believe Jesus was more than human? Does that make one an evangelical? If so perhaps I need to change the way I write, if I'm going to continue here.

Spong would agree with your view. Marcus Borg would agree with you when he says "Do I think Jesus thought of himself as divine? No. Do I think he had the mind of God? No. the power of God? No." but then he goes on to say, "the post Easter Jesus is a divine reality--indeed one with God. He is the embodiment or incarnation of God." So he waffles a bit. He calls Jesus the messiah, the Son of God, the Word of God, the Wisdom of God, but says that Jesus did not see himself that way. That could well be true.

This post has been edited by rivanna: 10 August 2006 - 12:08 PM

[AslansTraveller]

Quote

You seem to be saying that it's wrong to voice a belief in Jesus as divine, as more than a teacher and "model citizen." Isn't there room in Progressive Christianity for a fairly wide spectrum of beliefs about him? Does PC exclude those who believe Jesus was more than human? Does that make one an evangelical? If so perhaps I need to change the way I write, if I'm going to continue here.

Thank you Rivanna. I was tempted to continue arguing the point, but realized, it doesn't matter.

I think Russ and I are on the same page where it's important: Jesus calling us to live out the Kingdom day-to-day. I don't want to turn into one of those people I dislike: the one's who lose sight of what's important simply to make some debating points (one of my biggest temptations, let me tell you.) How is it Churchill defined a fanatic: "Someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Whatever disagreements Russ and I would have, I think we'll be standing side-by-side when it comes to the question of "What do we do?"

I especially like what you've said about the hope for a wide spectrum of beliefs in Progressive Christianity. I don't like conservative groups with a rigid and narrow definition of who's acceptable. I'd like a liberal group with a narrow definition even less!

[Russ]

There is a place for everyone in this dialogue and I do not by any means dismiss any other style or personal interpretations associated with anyone's faith with the exception of people who use Christianity as a weapon and a wall. I currently work with an ordained Methodist minister, my Pastor, on a new ministry and will be working with other clergy and people of faith on this same community wide project. Much of my thoughts here on this board I share only with members on this board for the reasons that have been pointed out: we must have a middle ground upon which we can join together. There are people in my church who would agree with some of my thinking about Jesus and Christianity, and there are others that would throw their hands up in horror. And I participate in my church and services. I was called upon to plan out and deliver a service a couple of months ago that included writing and delivering the prayers and sermon. I do this from a middle ground, through our common faith in God and Jesus. I don't reject all Christians and Christianity simply because I think and feel the way that I do. If that was the case, I would be better off signing up with the local fire and brimstone folks. But if we are secure in our beliefs and view each other as Friends, we have a Common Ground. It is not up to me to make room for you, it is up to all of us to make room for all of us. Many times I reflect upon our faith in God and Jesus and really have to chuckle at the fact that it's mostly speculation. We base much of our faith on our intellect as humans. It's sort of like the way I dance...if I lead with my head and think out each move, I step all over my wife's feet. If I lead with my heart, I go where I should. The fundamentalist appreoach to faith, however, is not based on faith, but on fear and conformity. Believe this or else. We on this forum have chosen to get up, walk out, and say 'Or else WHAT??' Questioning and struggling with our faith is a way that we come to a personal, deep understanding of what our faith is about. Without this process, we are simply accepting dogma. But through this process of questioning, struggling, doubting, breaking apart and putting back together, we form a more solid, personal understanding that helps to strengthen our own faith and develop a secuirity in it as well. There must be room for all of us...the deeper questions will have to be postponed for a bit. God will answer all of our questions after class. In the meantime, let's lead with our hearts, too...that way we won't step on each other's toes.

Russ

This post has been edited by Russ: 11 August 2006 - 05:56 AM

[Kay]

AslansTraveller, on Aug 10 2006, 05:48 PM, said:

I was tempted to continue arguing the point, but realized, it doesn't matter.

That has become my new mantra of late. I too have a tendency to lose sight of what's important when it comes to online discussions.

The question "What do we do?" is the important one. Do we bring Heaven to Earth or do we bring Hell to Earth?

[AslansTraveller]

Quote

If I lead with my heart, I go where I should.

Yep, Russ, I think we agree on what's really important. Good words.

[rivanna]

Thanks, Russ,
and Aslans -- I like your icon, I remember the "buddy Christ" figure from Kevin Smith's movie "Dogma." Didn't like that one but thought "Chasing Amy" was his best.

It's good to see the different perspectives on this site, and the respect--when there's time I'd like to read more posts. It challenges me to re-think my own view.

[Bobd]

AslansTraveller, on Aug 8 2006, 03:07 PM, said:

Got to disagree Russ.

The divine status of Jesus was held and taught very early (check Paul's letters, the earliest of which was written within 20 years of the crucifixion then check the early Church Fathers). The same with the Trinity.

Divinity is not a special status for Jesus. Everything in the universe is divine from the most complex object to the simplest and from the greatest hero among us to the worst criminal. The only difference between the greatest heros and the worst criminals is that the criminals are dysfunctional personalities that never die and are in need of corrective love.

Why is everything divine? God could not have created it any other way! We have to stop thinking in terms of good and evil and start thinking in terms of a divine universe that has in many respects, become dysfuntional.

BobD

[Brother Thomas]

October, on Apr 1 2006, 11:34 PM, said:

6. How might our understanding of who and what we are, as human beings, change if we remove the need for the sacrifice of Jesus as the Pascal Lamb, our redeemer?


I think it changes us at the core! I believe this because I think it changes who God is. God is no longer judging and demanding "his son" be sacrificed... God can be God when Jesus is not a sacrifice. With the sacrfice God is an angry volcano that will erupt if a virgin is not thrown inside...

Instead Jesus' death is recognized as a political matter... the Romans were afraid of him and his message. They killed him.

I believe the primary point of the crucifixion was not Jesus' death on the cross or even God raising Jesus from the dead but Jesus' ultimate and complete suppression of the (small "s") self and full embracing of God in the garden the night he was arrested. God did not/does not require a sacrifice; the sacrifice was no sacrifice at all to Jesus. By showing us that by returning to full communion/oneness with God, which necessitates suppression of our ego, we liberate our spirits from that which impairs that very communion. (The state of being for which and in which we were created).

And yet by being the revealer/exemplifier of this truth Jesus is, in deed, our Redeemer. ;-)