Pete

I not sure Marx rejected free will, I think he just respected the limits of it. Marx was also quoted to say "Thank God I am not a Marxist" which has been debated for years.

A question. If we have no free will then what is the point of a forum or discussing this because without free will what impact would discussing anything have because I am already chemically predetermined to think as I do anyway. It is interesting to me I do not have the same view of faith that I was brought up to have or have been socialized into acquiring. Although I can say that such an upbringing has an influence on me it does not account for the sum total of who I am. I was brought to have faith and to not question but I have questioned and drawn conclusions from it that differed from that of my childhood rearing. I gave myself the permission to question and I gave myself the permission to accept learning from that which I discovered. Anyone who has been a fundamentalist knows how much pressure there is to not question but just believe what I was told. I do neither. If free will did not exist to some degree then I would have been socialized and behavior indoctrinated not to change but I wanted to know for myself. That wanting to know for myself I would call free will in action. I cannot find the actual quote but I remember a quote from I think it was Karl Marx which went along the lines of - we have free will but only within the bounds of that which we inherit. I can relate to that but it does not exclude the possibility of free will but just points out all free will has parameters.

I would say that although all that is physical is made of atoms and energy waves when collected as in the human brain it is self aware and can make informed choices. I would therefore put us in a differing category to present computers. When the next computer comes unprogrammed in to the office for psychotherapy/counselling to resolve its personal issues then I may have to reevaluate my position.

I can relate to both ways of seeing things. I think people have a choice unlike atoms which have no free will as to what they will or will not react with. I sometimes need to forgive when I see a person who had a choice but still decided to hurt me anyway. Hanging on and not forgiving hurts me as well as impeding the potential of forming differing relationship with the other person. I also work in mental health and I have often been sworn at, cursed and accused of many things but I can see that each person is unable so much to help themselves because of the personal hell they are going through and so I just let it role over me.

I think forgiveness is a necessary part of being human. I have often seen people wounded by past events and from previous relationships that have occurred in their lives. A process of forgiveness of themselves and others is often useful in the first step to reclaim ones life and allow a person to move on. I admire your enlightened ability to not to need to forgive but I have to say it is not something I find is a common aspect of human life or an ability that all have. How does ones not need to forgive differ from already having forgiven all?

I gave the quote as I had found it. Yet, on thinking about it, it is not "often" my experience either. However, we are human and as such I am sure most of us have experienced such things both in others and ourselves at one time or another. I guess the message (IMO) behind the quote is not to hang on to such things.

I am sorry if I missed the point you were making Matteoam. I gathered that you were discussing the group, liberal/progressive Christianity in general, and what you feel we should be doing. If I am mistaken then I am sorry. I also go with Joseph's point I found this on facebook and like it and thought it helpful. "People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway. If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Be kind anyway. If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies. Succeed anyway. If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you. Be honest and sincere anyway. What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight. Create anyway. If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous. Be happy anyway. The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway. Give the best you have, and it will never be enough. Give your best anyway. In the final analysis, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway." - Mother Teresa

Thanks again Matteoam, I have never heard of Krista Tippet before and I thought I wanted to know more. So I went to you tube and came across this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5vZHuAtDZA I loved it. I also agree with Joseph that each period has a time and change happens when the time is ready. It is said that when Jesus was with his mission on earth he was relatively unknown and yet today you can still see the impact. The growth and impact of a faith may not be evident at first. One of the things I do not go to listen to fundamental preachers is not that I feel they have nothing to offer but it always seems to start with a premise "You have to believe this" and when this breaks down or is questioned it is often followed up with "if you do not believe this then you will suffer in hell and bad things will happen to you". I am more of the type that looks for truth from whatever source it comes from, but with no strings attached either for the teller or the listener. In that I believe there is a chance for us both to grow. Very often when one prescribes what another must believe we trample on the grow and truth they already may have and offer a short cut to some other growth that another has. We presume we know and they do not and therefore are closed to whatever truth they may have which could have a benefit to both. The like of Pat Robertson is not for me what is needed but spiritual growth is. It is far more important that people grow spiritually in their own right than have others like Pat prescribe what that should be for them (IMO). I did previously mention that Quakers have no ministers or clergy in the UK believing that all can preach and all can be the voice of truth and connect with that inner light. Charismatic evangelical ministers like Pat Robertson do the opposite in my opinion in that they seem to say I preach and you should accept what I say is the only truth. If liberal Christianity were to behave likewise then I think I would be for looking elsewhere. I would much rather be in a community that shares one's growth and we all grow spiritually rather than have others hanging on my every word and never thinking and growing for themselves. I think sharing on forums like this and in open minded communities are very important. If such communities did not exist then I feel many like me would be looking for it because it is a need for some like me who would otherwise find faith isolated by the zeal of fundamentalism in society. I think this forum is important and I am sure it will grow and not because it dictates a faith but because it offers a ground for others to share theirs so we can all grow.

Thanks for your post Matteoam. A lot to think about there. I take your point about creeds. The Quaker's openly say they do not have a creed of beliefs but I think when it comes to a need to consider social concerns and promote peace and pacifism then I think it runs very close to having that as a creed. I look on progressive theology as I do my faith in Christianity. I see it more as a journey towards the divine than acquiring a state of being or an arrival at some defined beliefs that stand for ever. I look at John 3:16 and ask what believing in Jesus means to me. Is it just a case of believing he just existed either as God or Saviour or more a believing what he stood for and believing in the process of renewal, love, peace and seeking ever deeper understanding of the divine. Is it a case of believing that he is the only truth or that he promoted awareness to truth. Is believing on Jesus' name a belief that he is the only saviour or a belief that through the teachings of Jesus there is truth to be found. There are many ways of looking at the same thing (IMO). I understand that there are many who use the term progressive Christianity and it conveys differing things to differing people. I have met fundamental Christians who have used the term to promote their belief in the renewal of their commitment to seeing the bible as the literal word of God and do not see it in terms of how many of us see things on this forum. So things can become confusing in my experience. I guess although I see myself as a liberal Christian and can relate to liberal theology, I also see it as a way of staying with a faith rather than being kicked out because I do not believe in the so called fundamentals of fundamentalist Christianity such as the inerrant bible, the virgin birth, and the need to have someone viciously and cruelly put to death in order for God find it acceptable to ever forgive anyone. I guess liberal Christianity allows me to question older ways of looking at things and finding my own way of understanding my faith without having it dictated to one. This is important to me. I am sure others have other things that are important to them but for me the freedom to have a personal journey and arrive at other understandings is part and parcel of Progressive/Liberal Christianity. I do not look to where I think such beliefs will eventually settle at and define that as a creed but the importance of making the journey in seeking truth in what way we can understand it. Tomorrow people may look on what I believe now as flawed and indeed maybe foolish but that is progress and what they believe will likely have been built on those findings, experience, and understandings we have today. As for theology being abstract, I would go with all beliefs are based in ones perception of the abstract and personal opinion as little is able to be conclusively provable and self evident to all. That said I still think those beliefs play a major part in who we are and are important to each of us.

I am guessing we come from two differing perspectives. One as a Universal church and the other as a reformed church with a liberal outlook. Although the outlook maybe seen as progressive I think the universal churches tend not to stick with creeds and the like. The Quaker meeting I go to is very universal and in the UK Quaker meetings do not even have ministers. Hence, there is an ability to diverge should one want and leave all creeds behind. Where as a reformed church with a set of creeds and a clergy may tend towards not moving that far from the starting position. I am not saying one is better than the other. More like recognizing a possible difference. Then I have to admit I have never been to a UCC church and do not know of a UCC church near to me and maybe I am completely wrong in my presumption and guess work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ Perhaps you could give me more information on your personal experience and knowledge of the UCC and let me know how you see what I have said?. I admit I am ignorant of how the UCC works.

I think one of the issues in describing progressive churches and I think UU's and Quakers for that matter is that very often we are met with the question that is asked of many conservative churches. What does one have to believe to be a member and then one is expected to give them an asserted creed. We believe etc etc. The thing about liberal churches is that they mostly do not insist on uniformity of belief but that does not mean to say that there is no united beating heart within each church or congregation. I am aware of when I go to a Quaker meeting we have Christians, Agnostics, Atheists and people of other faiths there but in the practice of the meeting it would be heard to point out who is who. There is a unity of spirit and an openness to each other and an ability to be aware of the mystery of communion with each other. Now I call that spirit that unites us in the meeting and the work we do, the Spirit of God but I know others may have differing views on that. Hence, it is one of the reasons I feel the language of God is often shackled by human labels, concepts and interpretations which often fail to convey the full expression of the feeling we each experience. Sometimes, we are asked well what do you all believe and this is then seen as a criticism that the answer may seem woolly to some but I have seen people's lives changed, spiritual and emotional responses and expressions of love and peace brought about by the unity/(God (IMO)) working within us all. True we are not like many conservative churches who can give a crisp answer to the question well what do you believe but I am sure that the disciples of Jesus and his subsequent followers were a mixed bunch of people too but they still came together. Many PC's, UU's and Universal Quakers express that spirit in the social concerns that they get involved in and try to make it a better and more caring world as an expression of the spirit within. We may not adequately say what we have or what we are but have something- we do and for me it is the working of the spirit of God. Sometimes we need a differing instrument to measure to measure differing things and although creeds and the like may be a measure of some conservative churches they do not adequately measure more universal and liberal type meetings but that does not mean such meetings have nothing to say or have no relevance. Sometimes the movement of such universal meetings can have a powerful influence that should not be easily dismissed or go unrecognised (IMO).

I also like the story of the woman found in adultery. I know it was not found in the earliest copies of John's gospel, but for me I still love it. For me it reflects the love that is there. One can follow rules and laws but if one is not human and with compassion when doing so then one can be so wrong. It is possible to be so right that one is wrong (IMO). It also is a lesson (IMO) on not judging people but trying to understand them and ourselves.

Ah! now we speak a similar language. Meaning is for me much more important than whether a thing actually happened as said. I think also you hit upon one of the things I personally support you on and that is the modern notion of testing the notion of God with the logic of physics or materialism when all is from a spiritual concept. I am not arguing with your beliefs here, but I personally do not believe the miracles happened but I do believe Jesus and his teachings left an impact upon those he met. The miracles are for me is a 2000 year old way of putting emphasis on the experience of Jesus and saying he was not just an ordinary person and he moved and inspired people spiritually towards the divine. I give for example the story of the Good Samaritan. It has impact on me and whether it was just a parable or it actually happened is way down on my priorities. I can respect a person's beliefs but when as I find in many fundamentalist schools of thought one is presented with the statement. you must believe this as it is the only truth and you must believe it or hell and damnation will come your way then I think one is forgiven for asking them to justify such as statement and the bible does not justify that for me. Beliefs are important for me. It is what makes us human. We have had beliefs since and perhaps before humankind first walked the earth. Spiritual meaning has played a major role. I do not believe God speaks in the language as we do but in that still small voice within. Meaning is one of the things that stirs that voice within me.

I am aware of what Wiki says. It maybe that church survival may of been an issue in the very early days but I see it more about power after this. It is my understanding that prior to Constantine Christianity was a very varied group with differing voices like the Paulian school, the Gnostic, Mystics, Ebonites etc. After Constantine produced the creeds then there was a repression on followers to agree with the Empires view or get out. It is the creed and John's Gospel that establishes Jesus as God in the faith. Something that Jesus' following groups who wrote the Didache never claimed. It was Constantine that gave power to the church to claim orthodoxy to their viewpoint. It was a progression of this body with power that defined what should go into the bible and to later in 398AD to say that this was scripture. It was this same body who insisted in the addition of 2 Timothy into the collection of books we now call the bible despite many recognising it as not of Paul and which in 3:16 declares that all scripture is the word of God. It is that body which elevated the mother of Jesus to be ever virgin. It was this body that supported the notion of original sin and Paul's view of Jesus being the only sacrifice for sin. I agree that conservatism was about being party to the church of Rome and within its power at one time and it is now seen more as those who promote fundamentalism. I am not saying that the RCC is a fundamentalist body, it is not, but it is conservative about its place in the faith and its influence is every where. Wiki goes onto say that fundamentalism promotes the five fundamentals and this was born in to the last hundred years :- Biblical inspiration and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this Virgin birth of Jesus Belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin Bodily resurrection of Jesus Historical reality of the miracles of Jesus from :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalis Yet, what they claim and was built on was nothing that had not been previously claimed by followers and along notions synthesized and built on beliefs held (although not with the same emphasis) by the church of the Rome and the Empire. As for fundamentalism talking about recognizing progressive and liberal Christians, this was never my experience. It is my understanding and experience of fundamentalism that if one does not see the bible as God's literal words and its idea of salvation then you were not really a Christian. I am also sure others will testify how hard it has been for them to break out of fundamentalist teachings and the difficulties they experienced in having a differing opinion in these fundamentalist churches. Me, I was isolated and ousted for challenging the bible and the fundamentalist view on condemning gay people and it was not a great experience. It was books written by Bishop Spong, Robert Van Weyer, Matthew Fox, and others that helped find me a place in the faith. I will ever be grateful to their voices and I thank God for them standing up and saying "Well we have a differing opinion". Call Bishop Spong a bible basher or a knocker of fundamentalist churches but for me he was water in an oasis.

Judging by Paul's view of the Torah I would say yes. As for Constantine, I think it matters because what is often seen as Christianity today is a development from Paul and I doubt it had anything to do with the message that Jesus taught. Constantine endorsed that selected development and so today we have fundamentalism saying they have the only true position on the faith. I have spent a long time before I could free myself from what I thought were the essential dictates of the faith only to find they just developments of opinions from back then and not the only ones around. I thank people like Bishop Spong for giving me the freedom to make up my own mind. Its not about bashing fundamentalism so much as stating that they are not the only ones with a right to an opinion and their take on things was just one among many that started from the early years. Hence, I see things differently now and have moved on from my fundamentalist roots and I am grateful for people like Bishop Spong and others who put out the challenges because it allowed me to think over things that previously I would of been made to feel guilty/sinful to think or challenge in my own beliefs.

As I understood things Constantine was a Pagan who only got baptized on his death bed. The thing that mattered to Constantine was the unity of the Empire and the creed was more or less a direct challenge to Arius to prevent his teachings from dividing it. I would also say that much of the later Gospel writers tried to appeal to Rome and the gentiles. I mean the idea of pontius pilate being forced into washing his hands of the killing of a Jew is for me an incredible PR exercise. This man was brutal and often started trouble just to kill a few more Jews. He was also one of the few Roman leaders who was recalled to Rome for being too cruel to the Jews. I would say that the start of Christianity started with Paul and without Paul the Jesus followers would have been a Judaic sect. Paul influenced the Gospel writers and I see the Gospel of John especially shared many of those ideas and together they split the followers between Jewish and Gentile Christianity. The church Fathers just progressed the Paulian line of teachings with their own thoughts (IMO).

History is what brings us to where we are. I was unaware I was bashing anyone. Just pointing out that there were many opinions in the early church and each tried to justify their faith according to how they saw it. The Paulian school won through because they had the power of Rome behind them since they were backed by Constantine from 325 AD but that still does not mean that they were the only voice or that they were the closest to Jesus and his disciples. The early disciples were Jewish and they saw Jesus' teaching through Jewish eyes and Jesus was a Jew and a follower of Judaism. History is History and it could of been very different if a Gnostic or an Ebonite had been there to interpret Constantine's vision of the cross in the sky.

I understand that there was a movement headed by people like Thomas Martyr to crawl through the OT to find stuff that supported Jesus as the Messiah. In doing so they changed much of the original meaning of the text and Isaiah got a particular rework over. Things like Isaiah 9 and Isaiah 53 which is about the people of Israel and not even about a Messiah got a refit to Christianity. I think this guy explains Isaiah 53 and the Messiah pretty well. I admit he is long winded and the video over an hour. I am sorry about that but I found it worth a look. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TeOtzTaAco Messiah means Anointed one and I feel Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit but he was not the messiah that the Jews were expecting. That said there was a number of messiahs/anointed ones in the OT but when we refer to the Messiah the Jews were expecting who was going to put everything right for the Jews and rebuild the Temple then having looked at differing sources Jesus does not fulfill the bill. Many Priests and Kings were also anointed. None of this does means Jesus has no credibility in his own right, but just not the person that prophesy was about (IMO).

Hi Kathy Welcome to the forum. Someone I also admire who came from the RCC was Matthew Fox who wrote the 95 Thesis - http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/spiritual-uprising/1326 Whatever a persons association a connection to the spiritual is important and also following what one personally believes is crucial (IMO). I wish Fr Marone every success. I also hope you have many blessing in your journey and I look forward to hearing more from you. Pete

Its called being human and I can relate to a lot of what you said. I think that progressive/liberal Christians do so as we do not like people who tell us what to believe. We have to find it out for ourselves.

Please forgive me. Do not take me seriously here. I was just having a joke with your opening comment:- "I am someone who finds it difficult to be in community when that community does not seem to really be devoted to worship in spirit and truth, I find that I have little desire to be in community with people who barely look awake in church, who don't sing hymns, or who are more comfortable with unbelief than belief. I say this with full humility in realizing that these faults I might perceive in others are deep seated faults within me do I have a damned long way to go and slot of work to go. " Joking aside, I was very impressed with your opening comment. You appear to be someone who gives a lot of thought to you beliefs. Respect!

Hi Tim, Welcome to the forum.

Hi Matteoam, Welcome to the forum. I hear you do not want to be in a community were people do not sing songs. Well that counts most of us silent none singing Quakers out . I hope to know you better. I have often seen this life as the fertile soil for the growth of the spirit for the next life rather than a place of judgement for the next life. I look forward to hearing more about you journey and studies.

I personally suspect Paul was gay but there is (IMO) no way to prove it for certain. In the end what if he was? What if he was not? I think it is only important when one considers how some of the said (true or otherwise) quotes from Paul have been used to give gay people a hard time over the years and still do in many churches. I am therefore not surprised that many conservatives want to defend there view of Paul and to try to suggest Bishop Spong has lost the plot because if Paul could be proved to be gay then it would make all biblical suggestion that being gay is due to God giving them over to such natures a nonsense and show how unloving they have been to gay people. The fact that homosexuality is found in many places in nature bares (IMO) testimony that it is nonsense but conservatives seldom want to acknowledge this in my experience and prefer instead to challenge any voice like Bishop Spong's that challenges them. After all what does it matter except to conservatives if Paul was gay or not? I just do not see it matters.

I think all faith goes through a process of synthesis. In Christianity it grows from Jesus' Jewish teachings on Judaism to Paul and his (IMO) helonised version of things through to the establishment of the orthodox opinion by the church. Then through to the focus of the faith being on the church to faith being based on the assembled bible through to what I understand now as faith in the spirit of Christianity. Also given the early viewpoints of the Gnostics, Ebonites, and so many others groups it is hard to say what was the initial meaning. I have strong doubts that what Jesus saw as faith and that which Paul taught as being the faith of the Christ are two very differing things. In this view I would suggest all perspectives today including fundamentalism are a degradation of the initial meaning. How one sees one perspective depends strongly upon where one is standing within the story and its development. For fundamentalism its basis is on Paul and the innateness of the bible which took years to formulate. For the Liberal/Progressive Christianity it is the belief on the influence of the spirit that spoke to all long before anything was written and the continuing growth of the insights into that spirit today. In short I do not see fundamentalism as being any more closer to the initial meaning of Christianity, no matter how strong that voice is today. The faith's earliest focus was on Judaism and its initial followers were Jews following that religion. What we have today maybe based on some of the teachings of the early church but what we have made of them is based on the developing history of the faith. In short I personally do not see a Liberal/Progressive Christian as anymore or less a degradation than fundamentalist Christianity is today. Between the two one can either assert that the whole bible is God's word despite the fact that neither Jesus or his Jewish followers had such a book and the connection to the writers of the bible cannot be proved and took place some time afterwards or we can say the same spirit speaks to all and just it did in the past and we listen and speak about our faith with our limited understanding as did those of the past did with the bible. Its all about perspective (IMO). I think faith grows with further understanding. I see fundamentalism as a resistance to further understanding, but that is just my opinion.