I decided to start a thread on unity in the debate section so that we can argue. Kidding.

Soma started a great thread on the PC forum. I'm moving a part of it here so anyone can participate.





The underlined portions above reminded me of the two different views of unity held in many religions today.

Some believe that unity is a total dissolution of self. Eastern philosophy, by and large (in a nutshell), holds this view.

Some believe that unity is a state of participation in oneness. While those that hold this view believe that they are part of God, they believe that we are also distinct entities, and that this is what God wills (or does by necessity).

Any thoughts? Soma? Sentient Holon? Gnosteric? Flow?

Thank you for moving this discussion to "debate" area where it probably belongs. I think that the Jesus Seminar (and others) have identified any "words" from Jesus that says he is God with the early Church. The conclusion is that Jesus did not think of himself as God. This does not mean that "being one with God" is not possible it just raises the question as to whether such thinking is Christian. So there is the "Christian" argument on the one hand. On the other hand is the metaphysical/philosophical question as to what extent the finite can merge with the infinite.

My "stand" is that the most that can be said is that in the mystical experience the "sense" of being separate is lost. Tillich called it the Eternal Now. I think the experience is "given" to us but there are some things that we can do that better invite the experience. The experience feels like an "Eternal Now" but in chronological time is over rather quickly. We do not live in the Eternal Now. I also think that there are degrees of how close one comes to this experience. Because there are "better" times than others means to me that there are degrees of separation. This means that it is possible to speak about justice and about the relative merits of different religions (obviously this has to be done from a position of separation and not from the position of "I and the Father are one"). Since we all speak from a position of separation we can never "finally" say that I am right and you are wrong. However since we all speak in part based upon having those "Eternal Nows" we can have some valid opinions as to what invites those experiences and what does not.

I think it is very important to focus on "how you know what you know". There are religions that are based upon knowledge coming from "the Book" and not from experience. If your experience contradicts "the Book" then your experience is questioned. There are religions that focus much more on the experience and have no Books. I am more comfortable with a progressive Christianity that would lift up the importance of knowledge via experience while at the same time having a Book which I can study and therein find that Jesus did not equate himself with God. Therefore anytime that I may want to do this perhaps I should take a second look at what I am saying.

I hadn't stopped into say hi for awhile, but this thread caught my eye. While typically Christian folk including many of its mystics have tended to frame their experiences in terms of a relationship between 2 entities, Meister Eckhart was unique-& more to my liking in his "zenness." I probably posted this 1 when I first joined here, but here's 1 of his gems that captures that flavor:

"When I subsisted in the ground, in the bottom, in the fount of Godhead, no one asked me where I was going or what I was doing; there was no one to ask me. When I was flowing, all creatures spake God. If I am asked Brother Eckhart, when went ye out of your house? Then I must have been in. Even so do all creatures speak God. And why do they not speak Godhead? everything in Godhead is one, and of that there is nothing to be said. Godhead does no work, there is nothing to do, in it is no activity. It never envisaged any work. God and Godhead are as different as active and inactive. On my return to God, where I am formless, my breaking through will be far nobler than my emanation. I alone take all creatures out of their sense into my mind and make them one in me. When I go back into the ground, into the depths, into the well-spring of Godhead, no one will ask me whence I came or wither I went. No one missed me, God passes away."

So we do have 1 great Christian mystic who framed things at depth as "oneness." However, my "Christian theology" has been deeply influenced by my love of Buddhism. I am only conversant with Buddhism among the Eastern religions, but it's a bit of a misnomer to believe they see Reality as "oneness." Non-dual, ya know simply means not two-doesn't necessarily imply one. I tend to view all levels of being via the line by Shunryu Suzuki, founder of the San Francisco Zen Center when speaking to students re their question whether the mind and body were one or entirely separate: he said "not one, not two." I am not my fumbling fingers, nor am I separate from them. I as leaf of the vine, am not the vine, but am not separate from it. So is Reallity two or one? Not one, not two. Hope that clears up any confusion. Now it's on to the next koan. take care, earl

The finite cannot be seperate from the infinite, or the infinite would not be infinite.

"What is the Infinite? To define it as other than the finite is to set the infinite apart from the finite, and thereby limit it. To define the infinite, therefore, is to make it definite, and no longer infinite." - The Infinite (integralscience.org)

Fred made that point to me a couple of times (when he used to post here), but I never really understood his point until recently. See Fred, I'm learning.




I didn't know Suzuki said that! That's one of my favorite mindtwisters. It's quoted in the end of the book "God at 2000" edited by Marcus Borg.

And ya know, it's exactly right. And it's exactly what I think Christ was teaching. Not one, but not two. The above link to integralscience.org discusses Nicolas of Cusa and his view of the infinite. In part it says this:

"Nicholas read widely in various languages and was influenced by Plato and Neoplatonic thinkers such as Plotinus and Proclus. Nicholas also drew inspiration from Dionysius and Meister Eckhart. From Anselm he took the notion of God as ultimate Maximum. From Ramon Lull he took the idea that the infinite is the joining of beginning, middle, and end.

The fundamental insight that inspires Nicholas’s thought, however, comes not from his wide learning, but from a mystical illumination in 1437 during a journey home from Constantinople.

This gift from God, as he describes the vision, provided him with the key that allowed him to talk about the ineffable, and provided a way of viewing opposites as coincident from the point of view of infinity. According to Nicholas, this logic of infinitude unites opposites, transcends comparison, overcomes limits of discursive reasoning, and goes beyond both positive and negative theology."

I agree that to define the infinite is to make it definite and no longer infinite. The finite has definition and the infinite is beyond definition and I would agree is beyond opposites and is obviously beyond separation.

If one sees the infinite as some function of chronological time then obviously any point in time is part of infinity. However I think this is a mistake and infinity is better understood from an ontological point of view.

We can ask earl about his fumbling fingers. Do those fingers experience death? If they do then they are obviously not infinite but are defined and part of the finite. I would want to avoid the ability to turn this into a dualism by suggesting that we are dealing with a "necessary but not sufficient" concept. It is necessary to have a body which is finite and is subject to death in order to experience the infinite which does not experience death. Tillich would say we are an ambiguous mix of the finite/infinite. I would suggest again that at some times we are more in touch with the infinite and some times we are less which makes "quality" a very important concept.

This all rejects the postmodern conclusion that we can not go beyond our cultural self. But it does not go all the way to "I and the Father are one".

Well this shows why the new denomination can not find unity based upon these kinds of discussion. They are fun though.

[quote name='AletheiaRivers' date='Jul 15 2006, 10:31 AM' post='10173']
The finite cannot be seperate from the infinite, or the infinite would not be infinite.

"What is the Infinite? To define it as other than the finite is to set the infinite apart from the finite, and thereby limit it. To define the infinite, therefore, is to make it definite, and no longer infinite." - The Infinite (integralscience.org)

This is a fun game. Sort of like asking "Can God make a rock she/he can not lift". The language is not adequate for the task. This is also a game played by those that think there is no reality beyond the words that we give for reality. The most we can do is "point towards" the infinite as being beyond definition and refuse to attempt to define it even in relationship to the word "finite" because that immediately brings the reality within the world of words and definition.

Any "anything" would be part of infinity. Any point in time would be part. Any point in space would be part. Any ontological conception would be part. EVERYTHING would be part. There could be no place, no time, no anything that could be apart from the infinite, or the infinite would have boundaries, making it not infinite.



Finitude is sublated by infinitude.



I'm not sure what you mean. I'm an armchair philosopher. I learn as I go.



I completely agree. I'm a "both/and" kind of gal as well.

I get frustrated with philosophies which see things as "either/or." Some groups view this cosmos as evil and fallen, and that the only reason we are here is to escape. Other groups see this cosmos as all there is and we should eat, drink and be merry.

I say "Yes, we are in unity with God and we should reach for that." But I also say "We see ourselves as finite for a reason and we should delve deeply into that as well."

Perhaps we have a different understanding of infinity. I do not see infinity in terms of time or the history of all that was, all there is and all there will be. I would suggest that there is a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. It is only the “greater than” that can be related to infinity. The parts and the sum of the parts exist within space/time boundaries. In this sense there is a boundary between the infinite and the finite. That which is limited by space/time is not included in the infinite. The infinite is “under” the finite in the depths of all that has Being. Non Being or the finite has the potential to participate in Being/Infinity. A very rough analogy would be the fact that the imagination of the “ideal” can affect what happens in space/time even though the “ideal” never exists within space/time boundaries. The space between the notes does not exist in space/time and can be seen as doors to the infinite. The subject that is called beautiful is not part of infinity, but beauty can be seen as pointing us to the infinite (“points toward” since so much of this can be seen as cultural). So I would disagree that any “anything” is a part of infinity. Much of what we experience dies. To attempt to elevate (or bring to the depths) that which is subject to death fails to appreciate the boundary.

Again it may be a matter of definition. If you want to use the word infinite as meaning the history of all that was, all there is and all there will be then I will be happy to switch to the use of Being/Non Being to describe what I am trying to say.

Thank you for helping me clarify my own thoughts. I hope that this is not more confusing to you as to what I think. I like your original challenge to the group. You can see that I am one who would agree with the "participation in" and not full "immersion" in the Divine.

Yes, yes, yes! "Either/or" creates so many traps. We already have enough illusion as it is. Why make more?


IMO, we should eat, drink, and be merry while we escape the illusion of separateness. I think our "wholeness" depends on our ability to be hospitable to all sides of the coin. That's one reason that I enjoy all the ancient schools of Gnosticism.......they came up with most every way to philosophize. We, postmoderns, get to combine them all.


I say that it is all an emanation of God. It's just that bits of it are much further from The Source than are those Divine Sparks inside of us. Those bits can be very enlightening, though, if we look at them with the right set of glasses.

AR

This an interesting thread that you started, but today my brain is like that fried egg in the commercial since it's about 115 outside. I'll get back to this in a day or two.

flow....

Hi David. My fingers wish to share some of the words of Ikkyu 1 of my favorite Zen rapscallions-long dead, (the best zen masters are all dead) which gives a good flavor of what zen is about on matters life & death:

"On the sea of death and life,
The diver's boat is frightened
With 'Is' and 'Is not';
But if the bottom is broken through,
'Is' and 'Is not' disappear." have a good one, earl

Language is probably failing me here, but I don't mean to say that I see infinity in terms of time at all. (Actually, as I've confusingly said in the past here and on other forums, there is no such THING as time.)

I'm defining "the infinite" as God, which, in my view, contains all potentiality, all possibility, as well as all that is, all that has been realized.

I agree that the "greater than" is infinity, but I'm also saying that, ultimately, the finite is sublated into the infinite. There are all sorts of other concepts that enter into my thought process here, such as "qualified non-dualism" and "kenosis" and logos theology and incarnation.

The website I quoted says: "On the one hand, the Infinite inspires a sense of a potential for limitless expansion beyond any finite bound." <Which is the point of view it seems you are taking?>

But the website also says: "On the other hand, the Infinite also inspires a sense of an actual completeness comprehending everything without any exclusion whatsoever." <Which is the point of view I'm taking.>

It's not an either / or situation. It's a both / and . As the site goes onto say: "The former is a view from the finite upward toward the unattainable and incomprehensible infinite, while the latter is an incomprehensible view from the infinite downward toward the finite that is identical with the infinite. As we will see, a dialectical play between these two aspects of our intuition of the Infinite reveals a process of actualization of the Infinite in the history of Western thought."



I totally agree and think that we are actually on the same page overall. I've used the same "under" analogy.



Scripture says that nothing can seperate us from God's love. I don't think death does either. All that is finite is sublated and "redeemed" by the Infinite.

I think it is a matter of definition and also point of view ... Inside looking out? Outside looking in?



Me too.

I think you are a wise, wise man Eric.



You mean I managed to make YOUR brain smoke?

I'm with ya on the heat man. I can't imagine how bad it must be where you are. It was triple digits here today and is expected to be so for the next three days.

This is very wise and is similar to estatic participation in a sorrowful night knowing that day will come.

Two people get married and each fullfills their individual duty so when they make love they become one. We meditate, but I think it is what we do in the awaken state that makes a good meditation where a merging of consciousness is possible. Not all meditations are good but we continue to contemplate because the good ones beyond the mind make us feel good when we become aware of our faculties. People say it is what is done out of bed that makes what is done in bed rewarding.

I think the book, symbols, koans, philosophy and the like are tools to quiet the intellect, give some answers or stump the mind into submission so a spiritual experience can be had. That spiritual experience of oneness is the proof. The words will never prove it because words are in a world of duality talking about a world of unity. The sign is not the experience, it is pointing to it. It points the sub-conscious mind to the unconsious mind, collective unconscious, pure conscious, ect.

The purpose of the Bible is to teach people how to live their lives and we honor it by what we are doing here, discussing and following our versions of it. Some see it as a way, a path to unity, heaven and place with God while others see it as a way to live in duality, a way to fullfill their duty as a servant of God separate from Him.
God is not about do's and don'ts, but what is happening here in the relationship with God, how to live one's life and connect with Him, and love other people. It is impressive how everyone posting is into this and not into control and defending a particular version, vision ect.

I like unity because my simple mind can reduce everything down to one.

I agree.

Suzuki said that, strictly speaking, there are no enlightened people, only enlightened activity.



Philosophy and metaphysics do that for me. So does spending time in the outdoors.



I really used to think that the Bible had more to do with duality than unity, but the more I dig into the symbology of it, the more I come to think just the opposite. It's that scripture has been read thru a literal lense for the past few hundred years.

This thread is such a keeper! (And not just because two people used the word wise after my name. ) I love so many of the posts.


That is true for me as well. As soon as I gave myself permission to see the myth and allegory and spiritual symbols......well.......I was saved (in a non-literal sense, of course).

With that in mind, it made me think of these two passages from the Gospel of Philip:

This has the potential to be a great exchange. I hope that people will continue to answer the original question (do you participate or do you fully merge?).

When I am talking philosophy I am more interested in “how you know” than “what you know”. There appears to be some agreement from several who often post here that the “way of the mystic” is respected as well as rationalism. Although it is not clear to me yet it may be that the same posters would agree that knowledge begins with experience. It is this very broad beginning for an epistemology that gives me hope for “going to Church together” with those that bring several different philosophies to the table.

However, once we are together and sharing bread around that table I would want to further explore with you “what you know” within the Christian tradition if we are together either under a Christian Church roof or within the message board for Progressive Christianity. I appreciate the attempts to use Christian language in new and old ways to help explain “what you know”.

It occurs to me that the Jesus Seminar (and others) has had a tremendous affect on how we can use the Christian language. Most importantly they have shown the importance of looking at the historical Jesus before you come up with your understanding of the Christ. Before all of this took place Christ was the important meeting place and Jesus seemed to be only there to support the vision of Christ. The possibility of doing that now is not credible. Before the Jesus Seminar and now for those that do not see the problem Christ continues to be the focus. For the fundamentalist Christ is that which supports all of the thinking that is not rational. The danger I see is that Christ may be used by the mystic in ways that are not supported by the historical Jesus. Witness the discussion about “I and the Father are one”.

I think that one can argue that Jesus may have been a mystic. But I would challenge anyone to show me that the historical Jesus supports the thinking that one can totally merge with the Divine. This question may not be important to those that just find it convenient to use Christian language when it supports their philosophy that comes from other sources. However, I think it is important for those that want to use a Progressive Christian message board. But more than that it is most important for those that are trying to see what Progressive Christianity may look like.

Although I obviously feel strongly about this I would not suggest those that believe in “full immersion” stay away from Church especially if there is some agreement on “how we know”. If we can agree on “how we know” we can continue to talk about “what we know”. I think this is where UU went wrong. It is not the pluralism that keeps it so small and marginal. It is the lack of consensus on “how we know”.

[quote name='AletheiaRivers' date='Jul 15 2006, 06:41 PM' post='10189']
Language is probably failing me here, but I don't mean to say that I see infinity in terms of time at all. (Actually, as I've confusingly said in the past here and on other forums, there is no such THING as time.)

For not being a professional philosopher you are very good. I think this is where you and I would take different paths. I recognize the reality of space/time and those experiences that are caught within the space/time boundary. In fact I think this is where Justice lives because Justice is seen in the world of opposites and is very specifically tied to history, culture, personality, etc (all concepts that may not be so important when space/time is not important). Since I believe in Justice I believe in space/time. Having said that I seem to actually see at times and imagine many more times the "Divine Realm" where space/time and Justice are not issues. We need a philosophy where Justice can live in this space/time world that we experience even if you would say it is not "ultimately real". To me "quality" is the bridge that points beyond the space/time world into the Divine Realm. There is no direct connection here but I think there is a relationship. I am not sure we can fully describe that relationship any more than we can describe the Divine Realm. But our attempt to do so brings us to subjects like Justice.

You mentioned something about not being separated from God's love. Again I think this is true in the Divine Realm but not true in the world of Justice that forever seeks to establish that relationship but will always to some extent be separated.

Finally, I think we disagree about the importance of death which is right there on the boundary between the space/time world and the Divine Realm.

Hi Earl,
I am glad to see that your thumbs still function.
I have found that it is not useful to "argue" with a fundamentalist or a true mystic.
How can you "argue" with that one hand clapping stuff?
Keep on doing/being.
I wish you well.
David

I think that there's a paradox involved in the eternal question of the One and the Many. That is, the more fully I know myself, the more fully I am in touch with myself--the closer I am to God. And thus, the cloer I am to all that lives.

In terms of the Bible, the book of Genesis, we could say that people are created good, but that evil (non-good) intervenes. But the fundamental layer of goodness exists. I think that's what William Blake meant by recovering "radical innocence."

Actually David one of your earlier posts inquiring into how we know what we know is of course part of the central foci to any religious philosophy and a darn good question. What actually led me into study of the religions I've studied was actually psychology and, in particular transpersonal psychology. They make a useful distinction between prepersonal knowing, (what may apply to fundamentalistic thinking) and trans-personal knowing, (which may apply to the mystic). Since both employ a reasoning or knowing that seems to not be based upon logical, deductive, discursive thought processes alone, it may seem you can't dialogue with either. But a true transpersonalist hasn't abandoned that ability behind so you can discuss things productively with them Fundamentalists on the other hand.... Frankly, though, I have my doubts as to how far theorizing about metaphysics, though I enjoy doing so myself, will take one in their spiritual journey. The modern religion writer, Karen Armostrong, had written that to her religion wasn't about what you believed, but how you were changed. Whether one is talking about Christian or Buddhist journies, I personally believe that, though they have their metaphysical theorizers, the real meat of the journey-kenosis or enlightenment-is about getting over ourselves to allow Truth to live in us and through us, a truth that is probably not a cognitive one so much as a cardiac one, (about the Heart which when closed keeps many truths from dawning on us). But I don't want to detract from what looks like a good philosophy discussion, which really ain't my thing so I'll bow out. Have a good discussion, though. Take care, earl

And it's not if you have to "force the text" to see the allegory and spiritual symbols within the text (like some say). They are right there, in your face so to speak.

Those passages from GoP are awesome! I really need to peruse some of the NH texts.

I have had a few mystical experiences, but in all honesty, those experiences are not how I've arrived at the ideas we've been discussing. I would credit rationalism and researching the theology of the early church fathers and dare I say "inspiration"?



This is one of the places where the JS and I part company, so to speak. The search for the historical Jesus only takes you so far. The Christ of faith lives within the literature of the Christian community. I have respect for the JS and for Borg in particular, but I can't help but think of their quest for the historical Jesus to be a liberal form of literalism/fundamentalism. In an attempt to find all the historical trees, many of them miss the forest.



The historical Jesus according to whom? It's easy to read the JS literature and think we know who the historical Jesus was, but that's just not true. We have the opinion of particular historians, but there are other historians that disagree.



I agree. I don't think Jewish or Christian scripture teaches total non-duality, but I also don't think it teaches the radical duality that most of Christianity says it does.



Again, I agree. There are those who call themselves Christian and I wonder why. They seem to me to be closer to Hindu or Buddhist or neopagan. However, I used to fall into that category and it's this board that has helped me over the past few years. I'm grateful that the owner and admin are as lenient as they are.

Is that why we Gnostics are considered so heretical and dangerous!?!

Many of us (Gnostics that is) do not believe in the historical Jesus at all. In fact, the myth of Jesus is so powerful and truthful that it need not have any factual basis whatsoever. We gnow the spiritual realities of Father, Barbelo, Christ, Sophia, Jesus, Mary, and the other emanations exist because of our inner knowing not because some archeologist found Jesus' left sandal somewhere in a cave. It just doesn't matter to us what score the Jesus Seminar gang gave to the NH.

I also know that many will not recognize us at the table (including the UCC......who is supposed to welcome everybody). That is why many of my Sisters and Brothers have created their own table and that is why, in my intro, I asked to make sure I was welcome at this progressive Christian forum. I, personally, still hold out hope that we may all mingle in the name of Christ.

My Mom performs an annual ritual each year here when this stuff hits, and it always does in July in the driest desert in N. America.

Crack one egg and place in a aluminum pot pie pan and place in the sun on the sidewalk. Check occasionally to see how long it takes for the white to become solid.( Son makes toast, butters it, dunks toast in partially cooked yellow of egg, takes a taste, and then smacks lips in satisfaction.)

This takes about 1-1/2 hr on days like these. I really didn't do the tasting with toast part, but Mom does the egg-cooking part. Too many stray birds and cats in our complex !

Just had my single El Salvadorian beer of the week so my brain is cool, and collected. Talk to ya later!

flow....

The historical Jesus according to whom? It's easy to read the JS literature and think we know who the historical Jesus was, but that's just not true. We have the opinion of particular historians, but there are other historians that disagree.

The historical Jesus discussion takes place largely in the realm of rationalism. Hopefully I have posted long enough for you to know that rationalism is not the only way of knowing in my mind. However, the bounds of rationalism are much easier to follow than where "Christ" can lead. The question "which Christ" is harder to follow since on the one hand you have the fundamentalist Christ and then there are many versions all the way to the mystic Christ. I think that it is becoming more and more clear that there will be a consensus among those Biblical scholars that put rationalism before apology. My suggestion that we use the historical Jesus is to suggest that for Christians it is important to have some continuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ. When we leave that discussion and get into the larger philosophical discussion then we are aware that "Christ" is more up for graps and I have nothing against that. It is an interesting problem that I need to wrestle with more since I am interested more in polity than philosophy.

The problem of inclusion/exclusion is a real problem. The best we can do is be honest about it. The worst thing I think we can do is "hide behind" a word that is all things to all people (the Christ). "The powerful myth with no basis in history" also applies to the fundamentalist position. I am trying to explore whether inclusion/exclusion can be done via "how we know what we know". Failing something such as that I see no potential in saving the Church with the continued Christ conflict.

By the way do you have an answer to the original question (is it "participation" or "full immersion"?)

Sure, that's easy! It's both "participation" and "immersion." "And" not "or." Didn't we already say that?

A writer friend was telling me about second-person narrative. Might'nt (is that a real word?) that be similar to a mystical experience where both are held at once? A bit dissociative, sure, but not enough to fully lose one's own awareness.

Now, add the "A-Ha" and you've got Gnosis!

Ok, I have a question about this, Flow. Is this a metaphorical story or does this really happen.
I know that eggs would literally fry on our sidewalks O(or dashboards in a closed up car for that
matter) here in NM.

:-)


--des

[quote name='Gnosteric' date='Jul 16 2006, 12:52 PM' post='10215']
Is that why we Gnostics are considered so heretical and dangerous!?!

Many of us (Gnostics that is) do not believe in the historical Jesus at all. In fact, the myth of Jesus is so powerful and truthful that it need not have any factual basis whatsoever. We gnow the spiritual realities of Father, Barbelo, Christ, Sophia, Jesus, Mary, and the other emanations exist because of our inner knowing not because some archeologist found Jesus' left sandal somewhere in a cave. It just doesn't matter to us what score the Jesus Seminar gang gave to the NH.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have not studied Gnostics and so it is probably unfair to post this from www.gnosticteachings.org:

"The Gnostic Church adores the Saviour of the World, Jesus. The Gnostic Church knows that Jesus incarnated Christ, and that is why they adore him. Christ is not a human nor a divine individual. Christ is a title given to all fully self-realised Masters. Christ is the Army of the Voice. Christ is the Verb. The Verb is far beyond the body, the soul and the Spirit. Everyone who is able to incarnate the Verb receives in fact the title of Christ. Christ is the Verb itself. It is necessary for everyone of us to incarnate the Verb (Word). When the Verb becomes flesh in us we speak with the verb of light. In actuality, several Masters have incarnated the Christ. In secret India, the Christ Yogi Babaji has lived for millions of years; Babaji is immortal. The Great Master of Wisdom Kout Humi also incarnated the Christ. Sanat Kumara, the founder of the Great College of Initiates of the White Lodge, is another living Christ. In the past, many incarnated the Christ. In the present, some have incarnated the Christ. In the future many will incarnate the Christ. John the Baptist also incarnated the Christ. John the Baptist is a living Christ. The difference between Jesus and the other Masters that also incarnated the Christ has to do with Hierarchy. Jesus is the highest Solar Initiate of the Cosmos...." - The Perfect Matrimony "Indeed, Christ is a Sephirothic Crown (Kether, Chokmah and Binah) of incommensurable wisdom, whose purest atoms shine within Chokmah, the world of the Ophani "Christ is not the Monad, Christ is not the Theosophical Septenary; Christ is not the Jivan-Atman. Christ is the Central Sun. Christ is the ray that unites us to the Absolute." - Tarot and Kabbalah.

In many, many, many churches today you will sit next to someone in the pew that will be into "Rapture Theology" and believe that the Christ will come as a military savior and fight the battle of Armageddon. There will be a period of seven years of tribulation. The saved will go to heaven and look down on the rest of us in agony. There are many books on the shelves now, none of which is supported by actual Biblical references yet these people want you to believe that this is the Christ.

How would tell someone with no experience in religion at all why your Christ is the correct Christ (and not the Christ of Rapture Theology)? If you do not want to have that conversation why would you want a minister of any UCC Church to "accept" the above while having at the same time accept Rapture theology (the UCC is "supposed to accept everyone").

A group that accepts everyone is going to be very, very small. We need some "glue" to keep us together but more importantly provides a reason for coming together. I do not see that "glue" in the wide acceptance of such diverse Christ concepts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote name='Gnosteric' post='10222' date='Jul 16 2006, 05:48 PM']
Sure, that's easy! It's both "participation" and "immersion." "And" not "or." Didn't we already say that?

A writer friend was telling me about second-person narrative. Might'nt (is that a real word?) that be similar to a mystical experience where both are held at once? A bit dissociative, sure, but not enough to fully lose one's own awareness.

Now, add the "A-Ha" and you've got Gnosis!
[/quote]

I'm not to the A-Ha yet. If one does not lose one's own awareness then one participates but does not fully immerse if I understand the original question. Am I missing something? (this happens quite often)

[quote name='AletheiaRivers' date='Jul 16 2006, 11:59 AM' post='10211']

This is one of the places where the JS and I part company, so to speak. The search for the historical Jesus only takes you so far. The Christ of faith lives within the literature of the Christian community. I have respect for the JS and for Borg in particular, but I can't help but think of their quest for the historical Jesus to be a liberal form of literalism/fundamentalism. In an attempt to find all the historical trees, many of them miss the forest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it significant that The Center for Progressive Christianity does not use the word Christ once in their eight points. I do think that part of the Progressive movement has been to focus more on Jesus and less on "the Christ of faith". I do not understand how the Jesus Seminar results in literalism. It may be better understood as an attempt to see the signatures of the early Church more than the historical Jesus. In that sense they do point up "the literature of the Christian community". However, the point is that the literature of the early Church has provided us with a lot of baggage that Jesus did not carry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way I wanted to say "thank you" to Earl without bringing that whole post back up. I liked the explanations about "how to know".

I find it significant that the name of the organization is the Center for Progressive CHRISTianity, not the Center for Progressive Jesusanity.

How do I feel the JS can result in literalism?

On one far side of the fence there are those that feel that the Bible is literal all the way thru - everything, right down to 6 literal creation days, a literal being named Satan, and a whore named Babylon.

On the other far side of the fence there are those that feel that most of the Bible is myth, and since (in their view) many of the things written there couldn't possibly happen, just toss those bits out and what you are left with is the "actual, literal, real, historical truth." ™

What is missed by those on both sides of the fence are the deep, profound, amazing truths found not only in the literal person of Jesus (who I believed lived), but also in the incarnate Logos (who I believe Jesus was), and in the mythological and symbolic signposts pointing to God.

As for the baggage that Jesus the Christ did or did not carry, that is open to interpretation.

I guess the question is: Is this website for Christians that consider themselves in some way progressive, or is it for Jesus Seminar followers?

I know I'm coming across as cranky. I do apologize for that. However, it does feel like you ARE trying to be a gatekeeper, and I'm feeling a little frustrated.

Yes, it happens here, and my Mom does this routine every once in a while. But I think that the 5% humidity and desert breezes have alot to do with it also. Y'know all of that plus 115 degree heat turns this place into one huge convection oven on some days in the summer.

flow....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for responding even when you feel cranky. I am not the gatekeeper. The discussion that you and I are having seems very natural to have related to what Progressive Christianity means. I certainly did not intend to imply that I am right and you are wrong in terms of the “big picture” but I would like to challenge you on what Progressive Christianity is all about.

Can we continue?

It seems like an appropriate approach to start, but not end, with rationalism. The Jesus Seminar itself has really not gone beyond the rational attempt to look at the historical Jesus. The Seminar itself has not attempted to go the next step and determine what “Christ” means. However, just the process itself has had implications about what “Christ” could mean. This is what rationalism does. It narrows the possibilities of what can be considered possible. We have been dealing with this since the Enlightenment.

Many (but not all) within the Seminar then do go on to the next step and attempt to deal with those “deep, profound, amazing” truths which include attempting to focus on “Christ”. However, there is a tendency again to remain within the bounds of “the possibilities of what can be considered possible”. It seems clear to me that one of those possibilities is to find that the Christian mystic has a lot to say about Jesus and the Christ.

I am not the gatekeeper but this is a gate keeping process. I would suggest that it is a process that most persons who call themselves Progressive Christians would at least find comfortable. If this is correct then it seems natural to me to have the gate be more related to Jesus than the Christ. We can look at all that surrounds Jesus more in a rational manner. We then can all go from there to talk about the Christ. So the Christ is not a foreign concept to Progressives, it just is not part of the gate.

The Christ may be where we can meet people from other faiths since people from other faiths have no reason to be much interested in Jesus. In my mind the Christ can have much in common with Buddhist thinking for instance.

This is obviously not the only way to be a Christian (and it may not be accepted by all that call themselves Progressive Christians). If this is not what it means to be a Progressive Christian then this is the place to talk about it.

Paul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus. I don't remember exactly how the accounts in Acts and when Paul wrote about it describe that, but as I recall, others on that road with him had some sensory experience, but it wasn't the full vision of Jesus that Paul had. I'd say Paul was immersed in that experience of Jesus, while the others participated, including my participation almost 2000 years later. Paul was the one who went blind and was most changed by this. The rest of us get something less than that from the experience. We who participate do so to various degrees, limited by language, limited by concepts, limited by knowledge of pertinent facts. I'm sure there are many limitations.

I wrote about my experience like that here at least once. I was surprised how much it fit some stereotypes of such experiences, wondering whether that just fit my expectations of such an event or whether there is something about spirituality that accounts for them that has nothing to do with my prejudices. It was the sunlight streaming into the room that became the presence of God. I'm not sure if it brightened, but there wasn't a major change in my sensation. What changed was cognitive, and at first I couldn't believe it. I said I didn't believe in this kind of God, maybe in words, maybe just as a thought, maybe to myself, maybe out loud. I don't remember every detail.

Immediately God answered, "You've always believed in Me." Immediately with that there was this cascade of words and images that made that point, how I had always believed in Him and loved Him in my way, a way He approved, unlike how many others would say my liberalism makes it impossible for me to know anything, especially God. Just as impressive was that at the end of that, I had no doubt whatsoever. I'd never experienced such perfect faith. I'm a good scientist. I'm trained to see how things don't make sense. To be without that is as dramatic as floating up into the air. Fortunately it came back regarding things other than God.

I've wished I could find words to do this experience justice. It was the greatest demonstration of a debating technique I've ever seen. God just had that one sentence for me that day, as well as exposing me to another level of His existence, but He proved to me without a doubt that He was right on that point, and I was wrong. I have no doubt about the reality of that moment 17 years later. I don't suppose I ever will. Could it have been something like a dream? Of course, not an ordinary dream, but maybe something like a dream physiologically, just much more intense. Of course, it might also be something that has nothing to do with my brain at all, just my mind. Some would refuse to even consider that possibility, but there's no way to know. There is no chance that this was just some random electrical discharge. Some of my neuroscience colleagues would like to reduce Paul's experience to something epileptic, despite all the speculative elements in asserting that. To someone who participates enough both in Paul's life and in modern neuroscience, though, it's easy to say, no, that makes no sense. I don't know exactly who and what that Jesus was that Paul encountered, but I know He is my Lord and my Savior. Of course, that leaves out a lot of steps.

How does anyone participate in what else there is in the physical universe and any nonphysical, spiritual side within and beyond the physical universe to interpret their own immersion? No wonder some get so fascinated with science fiction like The Matrix. I am sure that science has been a great improvement in that, but there is more than science, too. I'd hate to try to capture in words the best way to negotiate that part of life where science doesn't help. I cheat. I go back to the God who came to me 17 years ago. You can call Him whoever and whatever you will, He is still the same to me, even She, one Spirit, many voices. My words can drift off into a different way of speaking like that, where words are about imagery, not definitive meanings. And if I do that too much, some people refuse to participate. They don't like that style. They don't like the particular word-images I use. Oh well, we all learn at our own pace.

Thank you for sharing your interesting experience David. You mentioned something earlier re wanting to discuss the nature of what "Christ" is. Must say that as I'm actually more interested in that than the nature of Jesus per se, once you get around to that, I'll probably be tempted to join you all in that one. Besides can't seem to log out anymore anyway literally. (also seem to be prevented from simply adding a reply without piggy-backing onto another post.) Afterall, seems that Christianity is about Christ more than Jesus perhaps for similar reasons that Buddhism is about Buddha not Gautama have a good one, earl

AR,

>On one far side of the fence there are those that feel that the Bible is literal all the way thru - everything, right down to 6 literal creation days, a literal being named Satan, and a whore named Babylon.

>On the other far side of the fence there are those that feel that most of the Bible is myth, and since (in their view) many of the things written there couldn't possibly happen, just toss those bits out and what you are left with is the "actual, literal, real, historical truth." ™

>What is missed by those on both sides of the fence are the deep, profound, amazing truths found not only in the literal person of Jesus (who I believed lived), but also in the incarnate Logos (who I believe Jesus was), and in the mythological and symbolic signposts pointing to God.

The problem with no. 3 as I see it, is that once you say *some* of the Bible is metaphoric-- where do you draw the line? I also believe there was a historical Jesus. Though it is a "belief" since it is not really open to scientific or historical inquiry. So I guess in my view the totally metaphorical would not be entirely
applicable. OTOH, I don't view metaphorical as less true somehow. In some ways metaphorical can
be MORE true. For instance, suppose Mark Twain had written a true story about a run away slave who
was really named Jim and some boy that helped him out (if such a story existed)-- would it have
had the power, depth and staying power of Huck Finn. I am doubtful.

I think Western faith is much more worried or stuck with what is literally true or not. For ex. I have
heard Native Americans describe their stories as not true, but they really happpened. That implies to
me an ease in going back and forth between the literal and factual with the mythical and deep
essence of reality.

>As for the baggage that Jesus the Christ did or did not carry, that is open to interpretation.

Sandals and a canteen of water? :-)


>>I guess the question is: Is this website for Christians that consider themselves in some way progressive, or is it for Jesus Seminar followers?

>I know I'm coming across as cranky. I do apologize for that. However, it does feel like you ARE trying to be a gatekeeper, and I'm feeling a little frustrated.

It seems to me that, like the ability to move a bit more easily between black and white, we should also
be a bit more at ease with varying definitions and varying beliefs. I don't know why Progressive faith has
to EXACTLY be anything. I think inherent in any definition of progressive, and not included in the 12 points, -- or maybe so about there being many ways to Truth, should be the idea that we all work out for ourselves certain things within our own culture and experiences. I think it is just as progressive to believe in a literal Jesus and literal miracles or not to. I suppose at a certain point some faith might not be too progressive, but I am not qualified to make that particular designation. If someone wants to be a part of our group, I don't mean someone who is coming in trying to convert us say, but someone geniunely believes himself/herself to be progressive, who am I to say that they aren't.

I think one thing that does not fit well in to Progressive is the idea of IS/is not.
But I do understand due to some differences in make up that some people may NOt be so easy with
this, or maybe learning to do this.

--des

Hi Earl,
This wonderful post came from DavidD, not me. Not much of this in the deliberations of the Jesus Seminar at work. I can understand why most people did not want to sit through those meetings like I did. I guess I am like Borg who I believe to be very close to a mystic if not one. Borg starts with a "scholarly" process but does not stop there. Also like Borg I am more interested in the God that Jesus found than the Christ that the Church has made. So I probably will not get around to doing much of a Christology but if you want to talk about the Divine/Nirvana lets do it.
David

"For instance, suppose Mark Twain had written a true story about a run away slave who
was really named Jim and some boy that helped him out (if such a story existed)-- would it have
had the power, depth and staying power of Huck Finn. I am doubtful."

And so there are so many more fictional movies than documentaries, because there are many more possibilities for the former.

"I think Western faith is much more worried or stuck with what is literally true or not. For ex. I have
heard Native Americans describe their stories as not true, but they really happpened."

I remember hearing that Australian aborigines consider dreams to be more real than westerners do. As I heard it, if someone else hurts you in your dream, that other person is expected to give a real apology, even though he or she only has the dreamer's word that an apology is needed. Can you imagine that in our culture?

The thing about analyzing why our culture emphasizes literalism as much as it does, I think it's important to understand the context of the transition our culture is in. Knowledge has been exploding for centuries, and part of that knowledge is that some of our traditions are complete rubbish, not just that they are mythological, but they don't work. I have found prayer to be a wonderful thing, but its benefits are limited. We have been lied to. It's not just a matter of bedtime stories or a story like Santa Claus. I'm sure you can detail the lies traditional religion has told for yourself. It's not just some benign myth like "It's a Wonderful Life" or whatever movie you care to describe as a good myth. Religion has been malignant. So people are skeptical about what exactly is reliable.

I don't think it comes up enough that 200 years ago, mainstream science still believed Genesis. Despite a lot of information about species, God's special creation of species was mainstream science in 1800. Noah's Flood was the cornerstone of geology. It's a big deal what has happened. There is no precedent whatsoever for modern, global culture, bursting at the seams with facts, armed to teeth with technology. I find it much more interesting to think about where this is going than look back at where humanity has been. Of course, that scares people. What of humanity can they count on? Is myth part of that? You know, it may not be, not at this point. Times have changed a lot. I don't think we'll have caught up with that in 100 years, maybe 500, I don't know. But I know I need to clear my mind of as much junk as possible, and I'm afraid a lot of myths are going out with the rest of the junk.

People who live in the realm of logic and reason are interested in the history of Jesus and that is valid. They should take the sciences and the information at hand and debate it. My hope is that maybe some people who support Christianity's religiosity will expand their thoughts to be inclusive and not so exclusive. The Bible offers a window to see our lives, our destination, a spiritual experience and some history. Different people are attracted to different aspects and turned off by some. All are valid.

Those that see a deeper understanding in the Bible feel Jesus foresaw the plot against his life and did not run. These mystics see more to the physical world than what is in it and value love the same as the historian, but internal reflection is hard to document. In our lives and in the Bible we get clues to the spiritual experience of unity. People have near death experiences, dreams, angels protecting some and gut reactions ect. are a few of the crude clues of mysticism as it parts the veil giving a glimse to a deeper reality. The Christian Mystics step of of exclusion to inclusion as they see the spirit everywhere as tought in the Bible. The difference is they see the Bible with new eyes and a wider vision than just history. In this reality intentions are important as one recognizes a warm heart beneath a harsh external projection and a cold heart beneath a polished playboy projection with pleasing words. Jesus in this realm is alive in Christ, accessible, and appreciated in small details as meaning is found in everything.

Thinking about Jesus is never more than thinking. It is like reading a menu with descriptions, but the mystical experience in a flash of insight showing God as infinite becomming finite in Jesus to guide us back to the infinite (God the Father). The experience arouses one from immaturity and prejudices as the Christian personality is soothed with acceptance, love and beauty. The Christian mystic interacts in the world to be brought into this wholeness, as he touches new spiritual depths. I think this is better than Christians running rampant in the world with no reflection or contact with the soul finding meaning in life by rejecting other religions. The mystic will always act out of love as not to poisin the Spiritual experience and would never shake a fist with scorn at others for trying to find God.

Yes it is a problem to know what parts of the Bible to take literally and which to take as allegory. However, it's a problem that can't be ignored. Scripture is made up of history, poetry, song, prophecy, and story. Not all of it is meant to be interpreted metaphorically, nor is all of it mean to be interpreted literally. I would never suggest that scripture be interpreted only metaphorically, any more than I would suggest it be interpreted only literally. It's both/and, not either/or.



A gourd! Follow the gourd! No the shoe! Follow the shoe!



Yup, it's in the 8 points.

I have to disagree (hopefully without being disagreeable).

One example of the importance of is/is not (while also recognizing that both/and is a very valuable understanding):

"When once this fundamental contrast between John and Mark was seen, a great historical "either/or" presented itself to scholars. Either the historical Jesus openly proclaimed his divine identity and saving purpose (John), or he did not (Mark). To put the issue most directly, Jesus could not consistently proclaim his identity and at the same time not do so. Thus the question became, "Which image of Jesus is more likely to be like the historical Jesus, John's or Mark's?" The universal answer given by scholars was "Mark". With that answer, the popular image's basis as a historical image disappeared. The image of Jesus as one who taught that he was the Son of God who was to die for the sins of the world is not historically true." (Marcus Borg "Jesus, A New Vision").

I would suggest that is is a historical fact that Jesus died and was crucified. The sources outside the Bible support this. I would also suggest that there are important "either/or" decisions to make and the attempt to replace an "either/or" with a "both/and" is an attempt to avoid the issue.

Now, as to whether we are both "Progressive" or not in one sense is not important. What motivates your faith is most important to you and likewise for me. However, when we are talking about a social movement such as Progressive Christianity it is important for others to understand what that is all about. I think that many people who would call themselves Progressive Christians would more identify that social movement with Borg than with your position that seems to indicate that if you want to call yourself a Progressive Christian then you may do so. That has nothing to do with whether you or Borg is "correct".

Yes, you should have trusted your gut .....and posted something that is a little more representative of the forms of Gnosticism found in the Nag Hammadi texts.

A better place to start would be http://www.gnosis.org/ecclesia/ecclesia.htm The Ecclesia Gnostica is probably the most active, and well respected, Gnostic church at the moment. The Apostolic Johannite Church is very close (but younger), but let's stick to the intro page of the EG in order to facilitate conversation. BTW, a great blog for Gnostic theology can be found at http://egina2.blogspot.com/ by a Priest of the AJC.

But beware, you just might learn something about us.

Thank you for this direction. You are most gracious in your response. I look back on that post and it does not sound like an invitation to discuss.
David

He's not the Messiah......he's just a very naughty boy!

Did I get the quote right? Or close enough?




Thanks for your kind words. Wouldn't it be something if we were all sitting around the table breaking bread instead of trying to navigate the traps of "forum speak." If we were sharing real emotions instead of posting these silly faced emoticons?

Hey, I'm even willing to play the role of the "scapegoat" in the Christian family. That's a role most Gnostics are familiar with. Just ask Irenaeus!

David:
>"When once this fundamental contrast between John and Mark was seen, a great historical "either/or" presented itself to scholars. Either the historical Jesus openly proclaimed his divine identity and saving purpose (John), or he did not (Mark). To put the issue most directly, Jesus could not consistently proclaim his identity and at the same time not do so. Thus the question became, "Which image of Jesus is more likely to be like the historical Jesus, John's or Mark's?" The universal answer given by scholars was "Mark". With that answer, the popular image's basis as a historical image disappeared. The image of Jesus as one who taught that he was the Son of God who was to die for the sins of the world is not historically true." (Marcus Borg "Jesus, A New Vision").

I do recognize there are examples where one is of the scriptures is perhaps more likely to be
"really Jesus" and one is not, but I think the important thing in that case is to look at the writers and see what their particular frame of reference (or agenda in some cases) was, vs trying to figure out who
is "right". I don't really know-- you know it could be neither. For example, who was John anyway, why would he say the kinds of things he said, and so on. Mark also had his own motivations and influences which
can be explored.

>I would suggest that is is a historical fact that Jesus died and was crucified. The sources outside the Bible support this. I would also suggest that there are important "either/or" decisions to make and the attempt to replace an "either/or" with a "both/and" is an attempt to avoid the issue.

Well sometimes it's either/or and sometimes it's both/and. And sometimes it's neither/nor.
It depends.

>Now, as to whether we are both "Progressive" or not in one sense is not important. What motivates your faith is most important to you and likewise for me. However, when we are talking about a social movement such as Progressive Christianity it is important for others to understand what that is all about. I think that many people who would call themselves Progressive Christians would more identify that social movement with Borg than with your position that seems to indicate that if you want to call yourself a Progressive Christian then you may do so. That has nothing to do with whether you or Borg is "correct".


Is this a social movement? I would think that working for the progressive issues based on a more
progressive understanding of Jesus' life might be a social movement. But I don't think we are anywhere
near organized in other ways to be a social movement. If we are joining on considering gays to be
not condemned and that equal or poverty and justice major issues, we might be unified in a sense.
But I think you are trying your darnedest to get us all in line on theological issues and it isn't
going to happen.

It might not be as easy as saying "if you think you are a progressive you are one, but I would rather
not try and judge someone's heart. Personally I might consider some beliefs less progressive, but to me it isn't really worth the time and trouble to figure out what those are. I think also that people will tend to
self-identify fairly correctly. I can't see the point in not doing that.

AR:
>Yes it is a problem to know what parts of the Bible to take literally and which to take as allegory. However, it's a problem that can't be ignored. Scripture is made up of history, poetry, song, prophecy, and story. Not all of it is meant to be interpreted metaphorically, nor is all of it mean to be interpreted literally. I would never suggest that scripture be interpreted only metaphorically, any more than I would suggest it be interpreted only literally. It's both/and, not either/or.

I get that as well. I don't actually think of everything as metaphorical either. But I do recognize the
problem. I also realize their are passages for which we have no good way of knowing one way or another or even both.

(Note: it's the gourd. :-))

--des

It's a social movement. It might be called the church alumni association or something else. It certainly is not organized. It does have leaders but the followers have no idea exactly where to go. Some are organizing around social issues. It will never respond to an attempt to "fall in line" with much theologically (I have tried to say that several times).

But what I find most interesting about your post is "that people will tend to self-identify" as though that process is not social and does not have huge implications. You live in a bigger world than just your point of view. What others think matters. You can choose to "hole up and ignore it all" but that is not as effective as trying to find a social response to a social dynamic.

Please accept this post with the understanding that I still respect "the inherent worth and dignity of every person".

>It's a social movement. It might be called the church alumni association or something else. It certainly is not organized. It does have leaders but the followers have no idea exactly where to go. Some are organizing around social issues. It will never respond to an attempt to "fall in line" with much theologically (I have tried to say that several times).

I don't know, I usually think of a social movement as something else, more massive and more
grandeous. But in that sense it might be termed one. I doubt any progressive will fall in line. :-)

>But what I find most interesting about your post is "that people will tend to self-identify" as though that process is not social and does not have huge implications. You live in a bigger world than just your point of view. What others think matters. You can choose to "hole up and ignore it all" but that is not as effective as trying to find a social response to a social dynamic.

It is *sometimes* social. I didn't come about my views because of what people thought or did. I found groups that matched, to some extent, my point of view and felt comfortable with them. At that point it was social. But there are perhaps thousands of people who arrive at their ideas separately. Perhaps there is a "hundredth monkey" thing going on, where at some point society ends up taking on the points of view
of many people-- heck there probably is. If you read the conservative boards they are clearly worried
about this. I think liberal theology is more bottom up than conservative theology. But yes, I wouldl guess it DOES have social ramifications. I wouldn't argue that. For instance, if most people now think that stem cell research IS moral (a more progressive Pov) then conceivably more money will be available and more cures
will develop than if people believe that we are destroying "life". So no, I am not doubting the social implications. I just don't feel you can try and "describe" progressive theology and then try and place individuals neatly within it or without. It works with conservative theology because it is quite clear cut as
to what is conservative and what isn't. But I just don't feel progressive theology is necessarily as neat.
There are people here who would describe themselves as Christian who believe most of the events of Jesus
are literally true, but that exact sayings may not be and others who do not literally believe in most of the events and don't even care if Jesus actually said them. I can't say for sure which one of those is "progressive Christianity". OTOH, I wouldn't have so much of a problem saying that if someone said, say,
women weren't able to be pastors because Jesus was a man, that that isn't progressive. So I guess I draw the line somewhere. But I haven't seen that. We have someone who is NOt progressive and doesnt' consider himself so say that.

Look at the 12 Points. Even these have their detractors, though I think they are very well written. I don't think they were ever written to say "This is progressive and anything that is not exactly these points isn't."
MOre like "here are some points of discussion and reflection..."

--des

Of course they are ignoring the fact that Jesus was also Jewish, (according to tradition) single, realtively poor, Mideastern, etc., etc.

This takes me back to the whole literal thing. I love how people claim to take the whole bible literally and then pick and choose. I also love the narrow focus of some of the reasoning they have. Which is a human characteristic, but when someone else takes that reasoning to its logical conclusion, they are often closed to the idea that just maybe they are wrong. THen there is no growth, not learning. I guess that is where I start to have a problem.

I just wanted to say that this is a fabulous thread. You are treading on some difficult areas, and working hard to keep the dialogue respectful.

This is an area of the boards that is designed for people to challenge each other, and it is so important that we do. Really really important, actually. Realistically, we all think our ideas are a bit more "right," but keeping the dialogue going is an art, so thank you to those of you who may think another idea is a bit, well, wrong, but who want to keep learning and exchanging ideas, just in case! If you are talking to someone who is not as adept at this, please be patient with them. Or don't respond if you don't want to engage with them. But please don't get frustrated. We need you here.

Please keep me in the loop about anything I can do to make your stay more comfortable. LOL. We will never be as busy as some of the other boards, and don't want to be. But the conversations here are deepening year by year, and that is a gift.