DrDon

Dear Soma- Thank you for your last entry. It was good to read centering words. I have a justice problem (I'm not alone in this) and still put myself through the ridiculous astonishment that has so long ago lost the right to do so. It is an indulgence, on my part, to carry this on. I would venture to say that having been brutally judged and found wanting has left me with a desire to return the favor. I'm not proud of that. It doesn't say much about my capacity for compassion nor my own inner conviction. Soma, you are a voice of light and lightness. Living love is more than enough. Such is the method of those who follow the path, the way, the truth and, ultimately, the life.

Something that comes to mind is the absence of power over others when 'belief' becomes personal. Without a 'tribal god' that loves only us and rejects all others, we cannot lever our beliefs into justification of violence and manipulation. Basically, there's 'No Money' in love, compassion, respect and tolerance. It is too individual, too personal. My Literal/Evangelical Christian friend holds firm that, through 'God's Word', there is irrefutable proof that her way of thinking leads to salvation from hell. I know I'm not saying anything new here but I wanted to state that salvation, according to her, is 'from' hell. Hell is the absolute end for ANYONE who thinks ANYTHING different than she. Now that's power. It is out of this kind of power, and the hunger for it, that words like 'inerrant', 'infallible' and 'spirit inspired' become useful. It is the strength of pedigree at work. All of it human assigned. If one questions the pedigree, one is 'attacking' God.

PaulS!!! Exactly! This little shift (not so little) reintroduces the 'Us and Them' of the Pharisaic mindset. Inclusivity just can't be manipulated if left alone. Redefine the whole enchilada, especially with the use of extra-biblical terminology like 'inerrant and infallible' and you have handles to steer the movement.

Creating a viable and cohesive body of writings would certainly require the elimination of the extreme. A Gospel in which two angelic beings exited the tomb and whose height was nearly to the sky, followed by a risen Jesus whose height was higher still with this procession completed by an also heightened and mobile singing cross; such a scene could not be admitted and therefore the Gospel it self was not included. The existing Canon contains significant extremes as they are. Birth stories are unique only to Matthew and Luke. The Jesus in Mark is absent in the Christ of John. Paul, the earliest contributor, seems to have set the standard by which all else is bound. The Letter of James, always troublesome, is the only real counter to this in the Works/Faith/Law arena. To organize something always requires a guideline that is in keeping with the dominant power. The Canon is no different. What concerns me most is not the content but the Administration. The Pharisaic mindset has been at the helm since the 4th Century via the roman formula superimposed over the movement. It is about earning a ticket to a then via 'belief' rather than a 'following' now toward a better world (on earth as in heaven). The Christology has all but obliterated the message.

Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (Spong)-- Terrific read. David and Solomon (Finkelstein & Silberman)

Soma- You bring up an interesting point when you speak of 'worshiping' the bible. I have been told very clearly that holding the bible to be inerrant... is a prerequisite to being a christian. Is this a form of idolatry? Donald

Joseph- So sorry you are struggling with memory issues. If it is an aging thing, I'm with you. If it is an illness issue, my heart is with you. I have never felt pushed by your perspective in our encounters. You have always been most gentlemanly to me. For that I truly thank you. Our perspectives have been consistant, always a good thing! Wishing you all the very best. Donald

Joseph- Not the first time we have sat at this point! I appreciate fully that you find the assurance and satisfaction you do. It does not lend the same to me and, obviously, I stand with my own. Each are sufficient to their adherents! As always, I wish you well in your journey! Donald

Paul- I do agree with you. There is a particular honesty and honor in the Agnostic. Hardly the wimps that they are often accused of being, they avoid the emotional positions of their Atheist or Religious counterparts. I believe what I do because I choose to. It suits me. If I decide that what I choose to believe is the universal truth for everyone, I have abandoned the honesty that keeps me grounded and sane. We must avoid losing touch with our 'inner agnostic'. To do so can easily lead to the enmity that has been ever-present in human history. I cannot prove God exists. I accept that there is not one shred of evidence to support my desire to believe in God. Perhaps, if we will allow for this, it can actually be the best part! Live fully! Love wastefully! Donald

And that, Kaykuck, is the really important issue. God is way, way bigger than any of us can imagine or, especially, put into words. Those with a proficiency (self-assigned) at representing God in any detail have managed to shrink God, generally, into their own image. Those who go to great and authoritative lengths to share with others the nature of God's being, mind, personality, wants, limitations... even where God 'lives', actually ignore the scripture itself in their imaginations. If 'Scripture' is indeed the inerrant and infallible, holy spirit inspired, word of god then those who believe it to be so ought not to say anything other than direct quotations from it. Extra-biblical description and interpretation should be utterly unnecessary and considered an attempt to add to the body, something forbidden. I read a lengthy forum by evangelical christians who worked diligently to disprove Exodus 33:11. Yes, they engaged in the very thing they deny others to do because Exodus 33:11 makes them uncomfortable. It's a MESS!

Over the past week I've had a lengthy dialog with a very passionate literal/evangelical christian acquaintance of mine. As a progressive christian I drive her crazy. We have little, if nothing, in common with regard to our separate faiths. The central issue stems from our differing opinion on the status of the bible. She believes, utterly, that the christian bible, 'Old Testament' and Canon, is the inerrant and infallible, holy spirit inspired, word of god. I do not. She claims that one cannot be a christian if one does not believe in a supernatural status of the 66 books contained in the christian 'bible'. Her reasoning is this; rejection of the supernatural status equals rejection of the contents. I believe that, not unlike lying, calling upon the supernatural as a viable reality requires further 'stories' to cover and maintain the last. The repertoire becomes larger and more fantastic to maintain itself. In our modern age, mankind simply knows too much to maintain even the supernatural repertoire of a mere 100 years ago. In such a climate the necessary increase in the story becomes even more frenetic. Under such weight, the center, and any semblance of truth or beauty, comes under tremendous pressure against the sheer implausibility of its covering. The birth stories in Matthew and Luke, along with their incompatibilities, do nothing to augment the message of the living Yeshua. They do make for better firelight storytelling to keep people listening and they did help compete with other religions but they, like the extraordinary addition of numerous persons resurrected from the dead (Matthew 27:52-53) at the moment of the death of Yeshua do no service to the invaluable message for us all. It is in the supernatural storytelling that the greatest loss is made, never won. I believe that my literal/evangelical friend is champion of the very distortion of the message that she fervently believes she is protecting. What do you think?

This is my point in sticking to the reality of the unproven. By it's very nature it does not carry a universal value, and certainly cannot move forward into further and further defined 'attributes'. The courage of the agnostic really stands here. It is, by no means, a form of wishy-washy cowardice. It is not fraught with the all-to-common baggage of the atheist's rejection. It does shine a clear light upon myself. I believe in my God construct, because I want to. The spun out nature, after that fact, is but a continuation of that desire, that want. It serves my emotional and self-created spiritual needs. It is self-serving but without the usual negatives. How else can we truly distill such things down? Assigning enormous sequential attributes to something unprovable has no effect upon the reality of the core. It is a process that is just as self-serving as my own. I'd like to think that a few rules along the way, encouraged by incredibly insightful messengers of human decency, can steer us into areas of greater harmony and inclusivity than other, more gravity prone, paths may lead. We can see that living in a state of war, violence, disease, poverty and death is far less desirable than the opposite values. It is only a few that benefit from the former and the greater masses that benefit from the latter. The former tends to corrupt even the fabric of our global environment while the latter holds much greater potential for a healthier planet. The message to humankind that urges us to Love EVERYTHING, in all it's forms, including our own kind, is problematic for the gravity heavy exclusionist mind. For you, PaulS, this is the battleground. You are correct. Application speaks infinitely more than theory. The inter-connected 'WE' holds the humility necessary for the defiance of gravity. The message of Yeshua, and so many more, has been this gravity defying leap. As in 'repentance', it is merely turning around and going the opposite (or another) direction.

BillM- "...this raises the question, DrDon, of what you mean by "God"? What is the God-model that you are using? I'll be honest and say that my God-model is a reasoning Mind behind and in the universe that has lead to life and consciousness...I don't require 100% absolute ontological, scientific truth before I have faith. If I did, I would never have faith." I agree fully. I have 'fleshed' out my concept of 'God' in my own way, that serves my mind and, therefore, my needs. I'm not sure if you are truly asking me to offer that up. Others in this topic have seen my thoughts on that way too many times to re-issue but, with a few extra 'attributes', I believe the same core as you have described. I am not sure what you mean by models as indicators. There is only the physical universe (including our wee planet and the so-far-unique life upon it) by which to observe. If you are referring to the wide range of human (or animal) interaction as being indicators of a model, that is quite another thing. JosephM- We will always stand at this same precipice in terms. I have come to fully appreciate your stance on Life/Existence and God/Existence. I think we merely have an emotional veil between us in terms. I believe that in the already mentioned depth of my overstated beliefs is the connection between us. It is only the wording that either satisfies or doesn't. The core is the same. Dutch- You are a steady rock. Short and sweet, clearly well versed in your view into what each of us 'cart out' as newbies here. I am truly impressed by the unswerving stance of the stalwart old guard here. It makes things very challenging and humbling. So glad you've taken the time to remain in the 'dog-pile' of new and enthusiastic voices. Thank you for that! PaulS- Right in there with you! You are one step further into the honesty of the issue by stating "I don't care". You have it square on the nose with your consistent voice for the true core of the message of love, compassion, decency and any other word that can be lumped into that anti-gravity grouping! Spong states that in 'Loving Wastefully" we are truly exercising the 'in the image' of God. It is always good to read your words that cut to the chase. I believe that there is something to be said for the idea of 'motive' in the myriad approaches to God. What would a 'God' gain by 'doing' things a certain way? What would we gain by setting up our own personal versions of God, Its nature, mind, wants, needs... It is very important to look at this rather legalistically. I suspect that the'motive' behind such heartless statements as made by Dobson and Huckabee after the latest atrocity in Connecticut and those that Robertson made after hurricane Sandy are this, "See! If all of you people were like me, this wouldn't have happened!". The problem is the utter lack of proof, for or against. I think most of us would agree that even if the entire planet were all clones of Dobson, Huckabee and, especially, Robertson, the existence/occurrence of natural disasters, disease and everything else that 'goes with the territory' of a planet that can sustain life would continue. So, what do we do? PaulS, you've got the ticket! Let's all defy a bit of gravity everyday! Wishing you all a lovely Sunday! BillM, thanks for starting things rolling. If you'd like to know my stance on things, I'm 'viewable' in lots of other Spong threads. If you'd like, we could discuss peer to peer. Best! Donald

It is always surprising to me to read, see or hear well-known Evangelical Christians describing the way that 'God' thinks, feels and acts. I am astonished that such men and women are so privileged as to have the inside scoop on such things. I believe that responsible and mature faith must begin with the honest and unemotional reality that God has left us absolutely nothing by way of proof to His/Her/Its/Their existence. We would love to hang onto emotional concepts that circumvent this but, in the end, we cannot. In my opinion, it is thus that Faith has a grounded and clean foundation. From here we all (myself included) begin to build other attributes to attach to the first unprovable (equally, if not more so) in determining how God 'feels' about the universe and, ultimately, us. Sometimes we get on board with the systems of others who utilize ancient collections of writings that incorporate God in their stories. It seems to be a stronger pull to attach ourselves to such groupings that are referred to as Religion. Religion has a rather consistant way of declaring exclusivity to God and anything else that refers to God. The assignation of incredible supernatural events to ones own religion seems fully reasonable and yet the same assignations claimed by another religion is held as absurdly laughable. This extends to the writings of each religion, writings that are assigned the status of sacred, 'God inspired', inerrant and infallible; further attachments of the nature and character of the unproven. It is an odd image of a soap bubble, fragile in the light breeze, with a seemingly endless man-made construct attached to it, at every possible surface opening, extending outward for miles. As each new 'lego' is clicked onto the last, the actual fragility of the original bubble is further obscured until the self assigned voices for God each loudly and authoritatively inform us of the full emotional profile of God. Is it a coincidence that these 'attributes' of God also happen to be the same as those informing us? Dr James Dobson declared that 'God allowed' 20 children to be shredded with bullets in Sandy Hook, CT because He wasn't getting the attention, in this modern world, that He feels He is due. This statement is merely a repeat of the same idea put forth by former by former Arkansas Governor 'Mike' Huckabee and has been picked up by various other 'mouthpieces of God' on national USA radio. In the end, each of us are faced with our own choices for the existence and nature of God. What is important to try to remember is that it is all utterly and perfectly unprovable from the very onset. That's why it is called 'faith', n'est-ce pas?

I am always stunned to hear the 'pedophile' card. It is as utterly inapplicable as would the suggestion that one whose propensity to rape adult men and women ought to be considered as such. That, to my knowledge, has not been offered (yet). The enormous gulf between the activities of fully aware, mutually consenting adults and predators who inflict their own need to control and dominate non-consenting adults (rape) or children (rape) is so large as to be a 'non-issue'. I suspect that this 'card' is not unlike unfurling the religious banner to hide behind. Arrogance, fearfulness, ignorance, self-righteousness all act out in such methods. In the end, such negative positions despise anything that is different from themselves. The Pharisee among us. D

Joseph- I couldn't agree more. The beauty of diversity is in it's innate encouragement to truly 'be'. The constraints of sameness cannot help but suffocate. La diversità è una cosa perfetta per tutto il mondo. Sotto il cièlo, tutto è uguale!! Viva Italia! In the end, the ultimate celebration may well be found in the much deeper understanding that we are all truly one, all truly of the vastness of the universe, all truly 'of' God. No 'outside', only IN. Best. Donald

George- I think the deeper issue might be found in the black or white concept that 'Good' people act and look a certain way while "Bad" people do not. The hard line is blurred when "Bad" people start to take on the trappings of "Good" people. This goes into the need to demonize gay men, in particular, as predators of our young males, flamboyant and in-your-face 'poofs' who think only of gay sex and drown straight men in come ons and double entendre. The phrase I remember regarding Rock Hudson being gay was, "but he's so masculin and manly! He couldn't be gay!". He was too 'normal' to be 'abnormal'. All of that is nothing more than the US and THEM humming along. It has been shocking to many older friends of mine, and peers, to find out that persons they've long known and admired to be genuinely good people have been, all along, gay or lesbian. The root of the shock is generally in the phrase, "but they've always seemed so normal! I hadn't a clue!". Just another version of US and THEM. Regardless of how innocent and seemingly light the issue it still engages negation of others into OUT while we maintain our IN. Such negation can be in the extreme of the torture of Matthew Shepherd, left to die hanging on a fence in wintery Wyoming or the marginalization of co-workers and family members. The best definition I have ever heard for sin is in the millions of possibilities to demonstrate "I COUNT AND YOU DON'T!". Exclusivity. I count and YOU don't. Best to you all. Donald

I have been thinking a lot about the concept of the pharisaic mindset, something Yeshua really really heats up about in the NT writings. The Pharisaic minset is not really one of religion but, rather, of exclusivity. The overwhelming need for a narrow US and a broad THEM. It certainly isn't a Jewish thing and the equivalent to a Pharisee can be found at all levels of gathered humans. I propose that the real problem with acceptance of the LGBT community AND of same-sex marriage is found in the desperation that THEM will surge into US and become indistinguishable. This loss of power and arrogance over others, different from ourselves, is flimsily masked behind a well worn religious banner that has been unfurled in support of so many Pharisaic issues, Slavery, Women's Rights, Civil Rights and now LGBT rights. All of these have been found on the 'wrong side' of history and yet the same Pharisaic patterns re-emerge. My parents have been married 63 years now. My father is angered by the idea of same-sex marriage because, as he says, "It would cheapen his marriage". Even marriage is used here as a way to show superiority over others. US and THEM. The 'in' crowd. God's chosen. Yeshua stayed in the face of the Pharisees. He would not allow them their superiority. They killed him for that. Donald

JosephM and PaulS- Good to run into you again! Paul, what I hear you saying is this, 'Could you fully choose to reject that which you continue to fully choose?'. No, the two are incompatible. I cannot inhale deeply while exhaling fully. One waits for the other. I can modify inhalation, mid-breath, to begin exhaling and, during exhalation, modify again to inhalation but I cannot do them simultaneously. Cessation is required, even to modify. JosephM, I appreciate the poet in you! Indicators point to logical conclusions that we may fully be satisfied with at an emotional level but, like the statement, 'Look at the incredibly diversity of life on this planet! How can there not be a God who created it all?', it does not render proof. The beauty of this reality, for me, is found in the heightened power of faith that no concrete proof allows. Credo, I believe and Scio, I know, illicite very different paths. Credo is vibrant and in motion. Scio is still and rooted. This is not a rule. It is how it rings with my inner-poet! I do appreciate the fine points that each of you adhere to and doubly appreciate the respect you have shown me. my very best to you both on this fine new day! Donald

Dear All- I've taken a wee breather from this discussion and am delighted to see it is still alive. I've had a number of excellent conversations with a fellow cast member here in Madrid (we are preparing the new Phillip Glass opera THE PERFECT AMERICAN that premieres next week, January 22nd). My friend is a wonderfully human bass-baritone from Connecticut who was raised Episcopalian and remains staunchly so. He has a beautiful heart in faith and we both enjoy our rummaging around in spiritual conversation. It is through these conversations (some of which have been about the core of this topic) that I've come to understand the need for more clarification on my stance thus far. I have realized that the use of the words 'choice' and 'choosing' can easily summon up a sense of reduction. This is by no means my intent. Also, the use of belief as in 'I believe' and knowing, 'I know'. seem to need some clarification. If I am seated in the middle of a restaurant, I can clearly state that the tables, chairs and their occupants within my immediate range of vision and hearing are things that I fully 'know' are there. By determining the patterns of the room I can only state that I 'believe' that the same configurations are in place behind me, outside of my range of vision. Further, I 'know' that this planet exists as does the universe beyond it (in so far as it has been 'viewed' by powerful and amazing satellites and earthbound observatories) because the physical nature has been revealed concretely. I 'believe' that the Universe goes on well beyond the 'viewed' regions because I have been told that it does based upon the models already established. I cannot 'know' what the outer reaches of the Universe contain. The speculations of myself and others are based upon the acquired knowledge along the way but the true nature of such vastly distant space is without precedent. I may form my own 'belief' but it is not something that is in any way 'known'--- yet. It is a rather delicate thing to discuss anything that has no proof of existence. God is right at the top of that list. I firmly believe that to enter into a discussion about God a few things are necessary to establish in order for any hope for a successful dialog. Firstly and most importantly it must be agreed upon that there is not a shred of concrete evidence that God even exists. This can be excruciatingly painful to many usually due to their 'starting line' being quite a way down the course from the starting line itself. It is not in the least a diminishment of God to accept and acknowledge that He/She/It has left us nothing concrete with which to move forward. That is why 'faith' is, from the beginning, faith. It is the central job of Religion to obscure this fact and build vast structures around it to imply that such is not the case. These structures include 'Holy' writings, rules and punishments that even go so far as to establish the mind of God, the personality of God and even the 'tastes' of God. We are informed of what God wants from us and from creation. We are informed of God's needs and what God does when He doesn't get his way. We are informed by 'leading' Christian voices that since we haven't prayed enough to God in schools He shrugged His shoulders in indifference and 'allowed' twenty beautiful little children to be riddled with bullets when He could have stopped it if he had gotten His way before it happened. We have been so over-informed about every aspect of God when God itself has NEVER once contributed to the vast body of His biography. Whew! What all of that mess really is is an incredibly compounded process of fiction based upon nothing but very human choices in belief. There is not a shred of 'knowing' in that mile-high skyscraper. It is all choice. Choice is generated by emotion. I choose pasta not because it is good fior me (it isn't, I'm diabetic) but because I really like it. It comforts me after a rehearsal or performance. I don't choose anchovies, they are most likely better for me than pasta (well, that much salt?) but I simply cannot put one in my mouth, let alone chew and swallow it. That and the smell! I will never 'choose' anything with an anchovy in it. Never. It is very important to me to choose that a creator is at the core of (in fact is) the Universe. The emotion I feel in this belief is so much more 'right' than it ever could be without It. I very proudly say that I make this choice without anything more to go on than my desire, my need, my emotionalism to do so. God doesn't 'need' me to make It real. God is not diminished by more and more people adopting atheism or agnosticism. God is not diminished by the millions who have chosen the Allah of Islam, the YHWH of Judaism (or any other name for God in any other religion) instead of the Christian God. I am in the present act of assigning the attributes to a God that I have no proof exists. I am in the act of making my choices. The odd thing about assigning attributes to God is this; such 'attributes' only serve to diminish. The more we define, the smaller God becomes until, not surprisingly enough, we have reduced God into nothing other than ourselves, literally us. I know a man who is the senior elder of his church. He is sharp tongued, demeaning, judgmental, demands obedience from the congregation (especially women) and is a very angry man. When he describes God, he is always describing himself to a tee. His God is full of rage, wrath and metes out punishment left and right. His God hates the same people he hates. His God is very personal to him. Conversely I know a Pastor who is loving, compassionate, deeply caring, merciful, forgiving and always interested in serving the hurting hearts of those around her. There are not enough hours in the day for her to lovingly serve her church, community, friends, family and strangers. Her God is just like her. I know a very aloof southern man from a wealthy family who holds himself very much separate from other people. He keeps a very clean line of distance between himself and others. His God is so “holy and above everything in His creation" that anything that would come groveling near God's feet would be an "insult and an affront to the holiness of God". Each of these three identify with the qualities of God that they hold close, tightly and dear to themselves. They are each making their conscious choices for the very nature of something that cannot be defined. So now I'll define and diminish. I have struggled all of my life with feeling 'outside' of the group. This has been a weight that has burdened me from my earliest memories in Sunday School, Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, all levels of schooling K- Doctoral School, my Apprentice years at Lyric Opera of Chicago, my first marriage, and the assemblage of each cast that I've been a part of in 27 years of singing. No one 'does' this to me, it has just been my problem. Titles like 'low self-esteem'... do not help. It just is the way it is. Christianity has such a huge 'IF/Then' that the room for 'out' is enormous. I cast God in the role that I need God to be to assure me in my darkest times. There is no 'outside' with God, only 'inside'. This is further assured by my belief that God is not detached from the universe It ‘created’ and, therefore, me. For me God IS the Universe, God IS Everything, including me (and everyone else). I'm not made by God, I am made of God. I am in, along with everyone and everything else. The structure of literal and evangelical Christianity is based upon there being an 'in' for the right people and an 'out' for everyone else. To me it is just another group that claims a unique status and membership to God's club with a sign at the door, "Christians Only". Exclusivity with a golden ticket to heaven holds no allure for me as I am already in the best 'club' in town, along with everything and everyone else. The only ‘club’ I can feel fully secure in is the one in which everyone (even me) can belong to fully and without fear. I do not believe for a second that there is an outside of Everything, no matter what 'club' anyone may have joined along the way. I believe that many will be dismayed when those they distanced themselves from are right beside them in the next experience with God. Loving now is the only club. Sound familiar? It is the Jesus message that is always obscured by the massive religious structure that is in place all around it. I go through all of this because I am attempting to more clearly present the perimeters of choice from that of mere pasta to the biggest choices of our lives. We choose that which is right for each of us. I pity a choice for religion only borne out of fear of a placed conjured up by human imaginations called hell. I would have much more joy in a person choosing their brand of religion because it seemed to switch on most, if not all, of their ‘right’ buttons of emotion and intellectual response. However, in the end and regardless of the process, it is all merely choice. I will declare myself an adherent to the message of Jesus of Nazareth. The command to Love is inescapable. The mindset He Himself loathed was that of the Pharisee. Not the ‘then’ Pharisee but of all Pharisees of all times, including today’s latest brand. I am a part of the creation that IS God, I share this with everyone and everything. I am commanded to Love. Exclusivity is, by it’s very nature, Pharisaic. One group with a golden ticket and all the rest doomed to exile; denied the love of God, is exactly the mindset of the Pharisee. God does not stand on one foot roasting his other foot in a roaring fire. But all of that is nothing more than my personal choice. God has not ‘revealed’ this to me. My mind has worked through the challenges of my life and this is the version that works for me. This brings me back, once again, to my bass-baritone friend. Where we differ is this; I believe that the message of Jesus of Nazareth is the focus while he believes that the resurrection supersedes the message. Does this make one of us a Christian and the other not? Perhaps. That is a distinction that has no bearing, for me, upon my sense of feeling ‘right’. I choose what I choose and my friend chooses what he does. Choice is hardly a light thing, although we can choose things lightly, and is exercised through a certain authority. Such authority is no small thing. Choice bears the resultant responsibility that always plays itself out. I wish you well, especially you, GraceInTheRain. Donald The clash in belief between biblical creationists and the strong believer in Evolution are not fought over absolutes but rather over two dogmas. The overwhelming need to hold onto the literalist view of either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 (It cannot be both as even they are in great conflict) belies a need, a choice, to remain faithful to something utterly improbable in the natural universe and world as we have come to know it. There is much, much more at play here that just how much time and energy it took a supernatural agent to bring about the earth and life upon it as we know it. Conversely, both the 'big bang' theory and the theory of evolution are the best models that we have thus far to account for the existence of the earth, its galaxy and the Universe beyond. Add to this the advances in DNA and we are ever closer to an exciting and orderly process of explanation. The scientific approach clearly contains less, if any, challenges whose implications are much more problematic than mere development. It must take a great deal of fortitude to stand firm on the literal Genesis 1 or 2 in the face of such incredibly exciting discoveries. Either that or a tremendous fear of loss. Would the walls of religion really crumble into dust if the Universe itself was not held to the literal acceptance of the first two chapters of the book of Genesis?

I am very used to the term 'the writer of Mark...' in most of the author lists. It is a wee bit less wordy. D

I have a nephew in his last term in Divinity school. He is fired up to save lost souls. I asked him how he would go about such a feat and he quickly replied, "I'd tell them that Jesus died on the cross for their sins!" Wow... Really... Sins? Should he just assume that everyone believes they are covered, head to toe, in sin? If you drag the Garden of Eden into it do you think that that Disney story sounds reasonable to anyone not raised it it? Why would someone, 2018 years ago (give or take a few) need to be horribly executed for something that hasn't even been explained yet. It's already a bad beginning. So, he backs up and quotes the familiar (to us) John 3:16 and sits back contented. So, something possibly as unfamiliar as one person's 'God' has sent His Son (God's can have children?) into the world (how did he 'send' Him? Help??) and if we will just 'believe' in this Son of God (what does 'believe' entail? Believe this Son is real even though he's supposed to be dead... Help??) if we just believe we will be saved (from what? Hell. What's Hell? Are you kidding?). And now the silly fear of hell and devils begin. Countless opportunities lost to introduce a loving, patient, and caring God to someone who, like most of us, longs to feel patiently loved and cared for. I love the Pridigal Son and the Adulterous Woman because they involve people like us who have made bad decisions. More importantly I love them because neither Jesus nor the Father (the indicator of God's love for us) are in the slightest interested in a pound of flesh or atonement through sacrifice for the poor life choices of the two souls in trouble. God doesn't ban the younger son to a perpetual life as the least of His slaves nor does Jesus hammer the woman for how much she's angered Him and God. We focus on the phrases, "Let him among you who is without sin..." and "Go and sin no more" cloud the really amazing one, "No one here condemns you and NEITHER do I". We want God to be just like us. We want revenge, punishment, comeuppance, victory and, indeed, that sweet pound of flesh. We have made God and Jesus into our image. They aren't. God, and through Him, Jesus clearly want us whole, healthy and happy; thriving within the love that permeates everything in the Everything that IS God. God wants us to be safe, warm, filled with joy for the gift of life He's given us. God is way too big to be as small as us. It's time we remembered that. We can love so much more affectively than we can talk about it. It is in loving that we truly take on the image of God.

I jumped into all of this feet first and with my usual over-eager enthusiasm. I'm certain that in those first busy exploratory days of mine, when I had a lengthy opinion about several topics, I must have been like an exhausting toddler in a room full of well seasoned adults. I do have the source material to draw upon from a number of years of my own steady journey through faith issues, religious issues (to me they are not one and the same) and social issues. I've read lots- including my discovery of the good Bishop a few months ago. It is all so alive to me that I am quite certain that I can grate on a few nerves. I hope not too many. I've spent a good deal of time following debates on You Tube with various Christians (Spong included), Agnostics (Mostly Ehrmann) and Atheists (Dawkins, Hutchins) squaring off with such Christian Apologeticists as William Lane Craig and RC Sproul. I've been interested to see the methods that men like Craig use to discredit and attack others. A constant feature has been an unending barrage of quotes from both Christian and Scientific authors to seemingly humiliate into submission the opposition with the image, 'See, men much smarter than you support me!'. To me they merely come off as persons who have not really formed their own opinions and use the razor sharp statements of others. I carry that with me, most likely unfairly, and respond to the same quoting by others to me in much the same way. I would love to ask 'But what do YOU think?'. Maybe it's much more innocent than that. Maybe a satisfaction arrives when a quote from another seems to sum things up and that's all there is to it. I'm not wired that way. Such things as another person's opinion or quote my support something I'm putting together but I rarely find a kind of 'finished' satisfaction to it. I'd like to begin a process of exchange, via topics, that must be kept, to the greatest extant possible to what each of us personally think. I hope this can proceed. Silence is as good an answer as any and must be accepted. Best to you all. Donald

Karen- I'm glad you are finding the Douglas-Klotz COSMOS interesting. It has been very helpful to me as well. There is another book that might be interesting. The Jesus Dynasty author James Tabor. It starts a bit strangely but has some wonderful Archaeological/Historical insights that I found very helpful. As I said, the beginning is a bit of a muddle but... I wish you well! Donald