fatherman

I have a topic in mind for the near future, Spiritual Health, which I would love to unpack with you and the rest.

Ok. I just reread my post up there about this site and issues I've encountered and it sounded super harsh. Not my intention. This site is a wonderful place, but like any place it has its issues and so do I. No harm intended. This site "should" be whatever it happens to be and whatever people need it to be.

FYI, I took your dad's advice today. Plenty of water! Soma, thanks for sharing part of your story. Helpful to me. For me, coming to terms with death has freed me up to live more peacefully. A while back, my son attempted suicide and I suffered tremendously with the thoughts and images of what could have happened. I remember I was hiding out under the trees by the side of my house sneaking a cigarette, hoping to find some sort of comfort. It was the only day in my life where I believed that I was living in a godless world. He was awfully silent. But I remembered something a former pastor said once. "Sometimes you have to lean into the pain in order to overcome it". I accepted my son's death with serenity in that moment. I accepted that I had no control of his living or dying. Peace dawned on me and has stuck with me through many more trials. It was a hard-earned peace, but it taught me the importance of acceptance in all of the livings and dyings of our lives.

I guess I'm somewhere in between on this one. If we're talking about Christianity as defined by tradition, then yes the divinity of Christ is important in the sense that his actions as a divine being had tremendous spiritual impact on the world...as tradition dictates...and much of the scripture. It's a matter of how much of Jesus story has to be true in order to compel you to identify as a Christian. For some the Beatitudes, love, forgiveness, and social justice message is enough. For others, he has to be the son of God, redeemer of the world, and personal savior or he's nothing worth mentioning. For me, Jesus is a bit of a mystery. I don't always agree with his recorded words. I often wonder if his disciples/gospel writers even understood who is was or what he was teaching. In my prayer conversations with Jesus, I ask who he is in relationship to me and why did he choose to die the way he did. More mysteries. I'm comfortable with mysteries at this point in my life. I don't have to know what truly happened, what it means entirely, how it works. What matters to me about Jesus is that he moves me in ways that no other person has. I can't explain why, but it makes me want to be a disciple. His extra dimension to me is that his presence transcends time and place to be made manifest in my life here and now. I don't know if that's divinity or not.

JosephM, thanks for all you do.

To reiterate for clarity's sake, I don't perceive anyone here as being a troll at all. I think the non-theistic view here is critical in helping people feel like "hey, it's ok for me to question even the very existence of a god in the traditional sense"...which I have at important points in my life. All of this with the caveat that a person who does find meaning in the notion of a God in the traditional sense feels validated and welcomed here.

This is a very interesting development and a very interesting thread. I think it is critical that we come to a God of our own understanding in order to leave behind the baggage of a God forced upon us that just isn't helping us along our paths. I think this is the notion that God is with us, not only in the form of Jesus, but in the form of our own understanding. Our understanding doesn't change God, but it does change the way we experience God (the Sacred) in our lives and I think it matters. Also, let's say that when we talk about God or the Sacred, we don't always mean the same thing. If God is some thing, then our words may point to some other thing than the next person. This is critical in understanding each other...that we not compare apples to oranges. In AA, we talk about a God of our understanding or a higher power. I think that the common core of our understandings of God stems from the concept that there can be something greater than the individual to relate to. Community, creator, inner divinity or spirit, or something nameless that we relate to that we can derive some support from. Whatever it is, it seems important that we don't make our selves the greater thing or make our egos our God. And perhaps that even works for some people. Who am I to judge?

I feel Jen's frustration here. This site isn't really what it should be. But when I started posting in the early 2000s (a little before Jen did), I don't recall it being any different. I was a Christian humanist (or whatever you want to call it). I believed in a non-personal God if at all. I spent most of my energy trying to debunk essential components of Christianity. And so I fit right in. This, and people who felt beaten up by traditional Christianity, were the target audience and that hasn't changed. I changed though. I had a spiritual awakening that put me at odds with the spirit of this site. There was a small group of us who raised up issues of spirituality (Jen, myself, Alethia Rivers, and Soma.) There were many good discussions, but we were always the minority. Also, there has also almost always been a more traditional Christian who gets treated like a troll here. Nothing new here. I've attended an all progressive church which at one time posted the eight points on the wall by the sanctuary. And many of the members share the same atheistic tendencies. But many were also very spiritual and participated in prayer and meditation groups. Everybody gets along there for the most part. No one runs the show really. I think the frustration for people like me and Jen is that atheists are running the show at a Christian site. From an outside perspective, it looks like trolls have long since taken over this site. I know from the inside that that's not a fair characterization, but you have to admit that that's a reasonable conclusion. I've seen members bully on the basis of science and intellect (me included) those who's faith it spiritually, faith-based. I've been called immature for taking a spiritual approach to faith, and it has been suggested that when I "grow up", I'll see that science is the only answer. I've been accused of being mentally ill for having spiritual experiences. This is not in any way in accord with the 8 Points, and it is most certainly keeping spiritual-minded progressive Christians away from what could be a valuable experience within an accepting community. But like I said, it's not like this is new, and there's really no point in fighting it at this point. I accept that that's who were are here, and I do my best to find meaning here among you. I hope to be a participant here for many years to come.

I'm not as orthodox as that, Burl, so I don't feel the need to debate on the subject. My belief is not dependent on scripture. I'll call it a personal belief. It's something I believe because of something that happened to a member of my family.

I'm open to there being an afterlife. There was an uncanny occurrence in my family that was compelling enough to make me wonder. But I don't really hope for it or yearn for it. It will be just a nice surprise if there is. Christians have made it into this complicated thing with rules, qualifications, and expectations. I'm ok with closing my eyes and never opening them again. Like you said, I'll never be conscious to mourn the lack of after life.

It's a hard balance to strike at tcpc and it always has been. You're either too Christian, too un-christian, too trollish, too superstitious, too atheist, too crazy, not intellectual enough, not educated enough, too spiritual. And we tend to let a small handful of participants set the agenda. That's just who we are and have always been. But this place has always been there for me when I needed to work stuff out and romansh has long been a part of that experience here. To be honest, I wish it were a little more friendly to theism, but I have no lack of support elsewhere for that. I don't know what spurred this thread, but I will offer up two thoughts: this place is precious to a handful of us square pegs. Our ideas are often rejected elsewhere. Let's be kind to each other and respect each others' differing paths. And every Christian should have a pain-in-the@ss atheist friend to keep them honest. Romansh is pretty good at that.

I appreciate you point about the role reversal, and perhaps that's one of the appealing elements in feminine-centered spiritual paths. But I prefer a balance. Unfortunately, that does not exactly exist in Christianity either. The language of the faith is almost always masculine. I like Realspiritk's notion of the Father and Mother God's working together. As far as the Neopagans, yes we've had a different experience. I was viewed with suspicion at the very least, and I find it's not just with the pagans it's with anyone who has had a negative experience with Christians, which is a LOT of people. I know many of us on this forum who identify as Christians feel the need to come up with alternative words for Christian for that very reason. I stick with Christian because it's an opportunity to show someone that a Christian doesn't have to be bigoted, judgmental, condemning, and fanatical.

I know, right?

For my belief in the spiritual/supernatural I've been called both mentally ill and immature on this site. But I haven't seen any of those folks for quite awhile. This site is increasingly atheist or non-spiritual or non-theistic, but they are pretty awesome folks and can really help you better discern and define your beliefs through healthy discussion. I fall out pretty progressive but I don't fit neatly into any category. In some ways I'm pretty tradition, just not in the ways that hate people or exclude people them from the church. I spent a lot of time living a new age path and participating on neo-pagan discussion boards, but I found that the people appeared to feel invaded when they found out that I was also Christian. Wiccan folks in particular didn't like the Christian aspects of me...they weren't crazy about the masculine parts of me either! I tried a traditional Christian forum recently and I kept seeing topics like "Did we coexist with the dinosaurs?" Nope, can't do it. I used to do http://www.beliefnet.com/. That's a good place for spiritual progressives...or was. You are welcome here. People will respect you, especially if you respect them. I hope you hang around. But there are very spiritual people here depending on how you define it.

Jen, As you know, I'm as much of a witness as I am a philosopher. I know that we like to talk the hypothetical to death here, but it means little to me without "generous sharing of the ups and downs" as it applies to our discussion. :-) Revelation is a dangerous tool, I agree. I have experienced revelation, but my belief is that it is primarily for me. I'm very reluctant to take on the role of prophet in the world. Those guys tend to become martyrs. ;-) David

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1318-from-jesus-intro-to-the-practice-of-forgiving/?hl=%2Bpractice+%2Bforgiving Jen, talk about synchronicity. Not only have I been searching for this thread this month, I used the information to quit smoking. And now I'm using it to bring my body into better general health. I used it to help my brother to deal with anxiety. I've read articles recently that support what you and J have written. There are people/events which I have struggled to forgive which go all the way back to high school. But lately, I've been making progress. I Facebook friended both of my high school bullies. All of my anger at them melted away. They did not ask for forgiveness. They may not even remember what they did to me. Or perhaps they were feeling guilty and didn't know how to bring it up with me. But I knew that if I made that small gesture, I would no longer be subject to the pain. I would be taking control. The moment the requests were accepted, my pain subsided. I forgave. Perhaps I even helped them be released from their guilt. This is known material. Forgiveness is not necessarily a process by which a person apologizes and I say that I forgive them. In my case it was an acknowledgement that we are all capable of hurting others and the scorn I felt was really only hurting me. So my forgiveness had less to do with them and more to do with me. I read the word self-compassion lately in an article about bipolar disorder. I wish I could find it again, but this is an important notion to consider. Compassion is something loving we do and feel when another is suffering or, I would add, causing suffering. People who are causing suffering are most likely suffering themselves in some way. In a way, self-compassion isn't logical. But the intent of the word is. I can judge myself which means I can have compassion for myself. I can hate myself because of what I do or how I look or whatever. So why should I not be able to have compassion for myself? I think that is where the notion of the Observer element of the mind steps in. This notion that there is a higher consciousness which can create our perception of reality. It can look down at it's own suffering man and have compassion. Given full reign, it can help the man heal from suffering. It can help cultivate forgiveness.

I resonate with this. I think agnosticism in the broader sense is the only honest way of handling information. I often cannot claim to know something for certain. Phrases I commonly use: I've been told that... One source whom I trust says that... In my experience... I cannot be certain, but I believe that... I heard on NPR that... I feel that... So, we have stuff that people tell us who may actually know, stuff given from a trustworthy source, stuff which I have experienced, stuff that I believe as a matter of faith, stuff that I believe because of how I feel. When I use these phrases in a conversation, I leave open the possibility for an honest, meaningful dialogue. As far as God goes, not only am I open to the possibility, I've actively engaged in a relationship with a God of my understanding. But does that mean that I know for certain? That depends on the question. Do I know that my relationship with God has had a positive effect on my life? Yes, I'm certain. Do I know that God is real? In the scope of my life, he definitely is. Can I say for certain that God is objectively real? No, I cannot. I can know what I've experienced, but I cannot say that what I've experienced is proof of the existence of God. BUT, I am open to the possibility that someone can know for certain that God exists or does not. I strongly believe that something exists, and if that is the case, I have a very limited understanding of what that truly is. I'm a Christian, so I fall in line with what many Christians believe about God, but I also believe that God exists outside of what Christians believe him to be.

It comes and it goes. Throw something out there.

Roger Wosley - "Kissing Fish" He used to be a regular contributor here. BrotherRog

BillM, the concept of worshiping Jesus is poorly supported by scripture. We are in agreement. I can see the argument, but I've never felt comfortable with it. It just doesn't ring true for me. Jesus presents himself as a signpost to a worthy object of worship. My favorite Jesus movie adaptation of the musical Jesus Christ Superstar. It is a film based on the perspective of a Gospel of Judas. It's fanciful for sure, but there's something about it that is compelling to me. In it, Jesus' followers worship him; whereas, Judas sees Jesus as an intimate friend of whom he is both enamored and deeply concerned. He does not recognize his unique divinity. But his human presence is powerful. There is something about him that makes people want to worship him. Judas and Mary sing "I don't know how to love him. I don't know why he moves me. He's a man. He's just a man. He's not a king. He's just the same as anyone I know. He scares me so." And yet they cannot deny his sway over there lives. A theme of the film is that Jesus is greatly misunderstood by his followers. They worship him, and his response is a paraphrase of his mourning for Jerusalem and of his assertion that his way is not a way of victory in the sense that they are expect but of suffering and death. There is scriptural support for this perspective. The problem with the Gospels is that Jesus was likely misunderstood and the Gospel writers might be included in this misunderstanding which brings their stories into question. A Gospel is not a history, it is a persuasive form. Each of the writers is trying to persuade a particular target audience of different points. Matthew, for example, is trying to persuade the Jews (exclusively) that Jesus is the new Moses with a new law. Rodge, you said, " But I disagree when any individual, or the web site's goals, suggest that God of a certain nature exists, because such assertions cannot be supported. " You are ever making a differentiation between personal faith witness (which is therefore not admissible as tenant of a PC website ) and verifiable "fact". The truth, as I see it, is that every aspect of any faith/religion is personal. If you insist on a objective reality which can be proven then you've eliminated the possibility of faith. We're all here with some form of faith. Faith that God doesn't exist. Faith that God does exist. Faith that doing good in the world is good for the world and for ourselves. What is good? Our country cannot even agree on what is good. It's all subjective, and all requires a decision to believe. Even science (go ahead and crucify me) requires faith. I'm trusting the scientific method to tell me something that I cannot personally verify. I can read it and choose to believe it...or not. Science evolves. It both verifies and disproves itself. I confess that I sometimes make an assertion that I'm not 100% convinced of, and that's the reason I write it here; so that I can work it out. So my assertion here is that there is no such thing as a Christianity that relies solely on verifiable truth. What say you?

This is a good visual for me. The visual I've been working with is more like a hurricane. Living the beatitudes is a process, a spin who's effects are felt wider and wider the more strongly we spin. Beatitude is a state of supreme blessedness which cannot be achieved by focusing on the self; rather, it is received by playing our part in bringing about the Kingdom of Heaven. The Beatitudes is a path which fulfills both the person and society, unlike self-help paths. The person is fulfilled when they serve the world. In Jesus' view, that is the secret to happiness or beatitude, not care of self, but care of others.

Hey Rodge, This notion that Progressive Christianity should be something is false. What is important is that it is progressing, emerging, evolving. In order for that to happen, we must be open to change and respectful of other's ideas and beliefs. I believe the 8 points lay a foundation for this. I can believe in the "Christ of Faith" if it suits me. What makes me progressive is that I believe that you don't have to believe it at all. I do not believe that one's self-identification of Christian has to put a theistic God at the center. But I disagree with your assertion that true Progressive Christianity should not include "God and Christ". Historical Jesus' teachings very much include a relationship with God (Father, Daddy). As far as what the nature of Abba is, I think that you don't have to look much further than the use of Abba as a name for God. Jesus popularized this name for God. Jesus is saying that God is like a father. A relationship with God is like the relationship you would have with a father whom you would refer to Daddy. Of course, that may not mean the same for this day and age or to any individual. But I think this is a big change from Lord or Jehovah. I still challenge the term "The Church". I do not believe there is such a thing anymore. It's a way for people who do not got to "a" church to refer to what they perceive as a singular institution. It would be like saying "the Hospital" should stock up on more q-tips because when I went to Norman Regional Hospital, they were low.

BillM, I feel the same way. The root of faith, for me, is relationship. With each other and with God. Without that it's just ideas, stories, traditions, and rules. Those are valuable things, but not compelling enough for me to devote myself to.

I can see why this analogy could be interpreted as an external God paradigm. But let's pull back a bit from the user interface to an app analogy. An interface is a human construct for relating to God. Panentheism is another way of interfacing with God. In panentheism, we and all things are the parts which make up God. The key to relating to God starts with getting in touch with our own participation in divinity. When we do that, we can become aware of our participation with divinity or life force. But when it comes down to it, it is still a human construct. It is still an interface. Software which gets it's computing from the cloud is closer to panentheism. Rather than doing the computing on the device. The data and the processing happens within the greater scheme. We cannot escape our personality (personal device), but we can surrender to the cloud rather than try to do all of the computing on our limited personal device we experience the power of all of the servers in the cloud rather than our own tiny little server. Moreover, software is an extension of a computer. To the user, software is the computer. In panentheism, the user is the software. That doesn't work very well in this analogy. Essentially, we are the Borg, but with free will. It's pretty flimsy. The analogy works best with an external God interface. I don't believe I AM God, but I believe I am a part of God. Jesus says that he and the Father are one. Perhaps this is a model for living. However, no matter what the reality, if we want a conscious relationship, we have to work with some kind of construct. The point of my analogy is that regardless of the true nature of God, assuming he exists, we will relate in human terms because we are human. We can imagine that we are manifestations of God stuff, and it may be reality, but for lack of knowledge of ultimate reality, we must imagine something. Imaginings may be more than imagination. If that imagining helps us be in relationship with God even if the relationship begins with self in the context of the greater world, then it is a good interface. It's hard to define what a "good" interface is. Perhaps a person doesn't want an interface which provides anything other than life. For example you'd give up your desire for a personal relationship with God for what you believe is ultimate reality, let's say for a non-personal God incapable of love or personal attributes.

Yes, that really gets to the heart of my interpretation.