Tea

We have to remember that when we talk about God and about "things of the spirit" that we are using words for things that we don't really know from daily experience. So to some extent we're always going to be a bit like the blind men and the elephant.

Another thing that's relevant is the weight given to details of dogma/doctrine. If you give a lot of weight to that, differences are going to seem larger. If, on the other hand, you see the central idea of Christianity as love and Buddhism as loving-kindness, then you might see more similarity.

Syncretism for syncretism's sake doesn't make any sense to me. But neither does insisting that we must have all the details right and everyone else must have them all wrong. I don't think we should ever think we've got God all pinned down under glass.

To me, the argument comes down to this:

Can something exist that has no material/physical reality?

Science can only deal in measures and detection; anything without a material or physical aspect is inaccessible to science. So I agree with Mike that scientific materialism is so pervasive as to be an invisible bias.

There's no proof either way. They're simply different premises. So I don't usually find the debate to be that interesting.

I believe that healings are possible. A friend of mine had one: He had a wart on his finger and someone prayed over it and it fell off. He was quite shocked, because he's Japanese and not Christian. (I wasn't there, but he told me and he's a banker, not a person who's into airy-fairy stuff.)

However, I don't think it's, like, one person has the power and zaps another, or that God says, "Bingo!" for one person and not another. I think a person CAN be a conduit for God's healing power and another can be receptive to it. (Remember that passage where Jesus said he'd felt power go out of him, when the woman with a flow of blood touched him?)

As to how it operates, I think we need to form a less ham-handed understanding of the relationship between matter and spirit. Dutch says, "Process thought sees that all things, from atoms and cells to humans, are related externally and internally. " I think you have to go to that level to make sense of it and we don't really understand enough about it right now.

I do remember going to healing services regularly at one time in my life (for emotional rather than physical difficulties). When they would lay hands on my head, I usually felt waves of heat go down through my body. You can make up all kinds of reasons about why you think that happened, but for me, it simply happened. For that matter, I've had physical problems cured by acupuncture, and we don't know how that works, either.

So yes, I believe there's such a thing as healing (whether "faith healing" or "energy healing" or anything else), but I don't believe it's either arbitrary magic zapping OR just a placebo effect. Science is great, but it still can't properly account for near-death experiences and it's helpless with the non-material.

It depends what you mean by Christianity, which has a lot of different meanings to different people. In some circles, it's mostly about dogma, correct belief, "faith in" Jesus as a specifically theologically-defined being. That doesn't mean a lot to me.

But when I look at the words "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you," that's really powerful to me. That's an entire world-view right there. What do you make of that? Is it right? Is it an unrealistic, unworkable ideal? Is it the only thing that will, finally, work? Is it truth?

To me, how you engage with that, and with Jesus's view of God as "Abba" ("daddy"), will answer your question better than any ideas about a specific "agenda".

I'm of two minds about this.

I was born a Roman Catholic and i joined the Episcopal Church because it didn't seem to enforce belief on every little point like the Roman Church/Pope did. Now we're about to split over the homosexuality issue, and I wish there was a way to remain connected in our disagreement and to give things time to evolve, as they did with slavery, civil rights, etc. It's odd to me that the church did not split over slavery, civil rights, or abortion, but now this issue of S-E-X has everyone up in arms.

I'd love to have a progressive church, but it too would have to leave room for differences of opinion. For one thing, if I read Spong right, he doesn't believe in ANY physical intervention by God, and I do. On another chain of messages here, you can read about someone's reported healing; I do believe that God did this, but I know that others will not. So I'd want to see a new church that didn't just replace the absolute authority of Paul with the absolute authority of Spong, y'know?

Geographically, too, I'm at a disadvantage re new denominations because I live in Texas.

I think one problem we've had is that we haven't spoken out enough. We've let the media believe that "Christian" is synonymous with fundamentalist or conservative. We've let the word "Christian" come to be too closely identified with "bigot". If we could stand up and be counted more often, maybe we'd find that there are more of us right where we stand. When was the last (first?) time you saw the word "progressive Christian" in a mainstream newspaper article?

Incidentally, I'm rereading "Stealing Jesus" by Bruce Bawer, which I really like.

Tea

I think that the truth of Christ's suffering and his willingness to suffer, his understanding of the ignorance of those who caused him to suffer, and his ability to still profess his love through that suffering is profoundly significant. 

I agree with you. Good way of expressing it too. I didn't mean to suggest it was unimportant or irrelevant, by any means. For me it's more of a continuum to his life, perhaps a culmination, rather than a separate and different act. One minister in my church some years ago also highlighted its importance as an expression of "God with us, even unto this."

Thanks for the mention of the book, too, I'll check it out.

I am very relieved to find somewhere where people are openly talking about these issues from a liberal/progressive perspective. I've often chafed at ministers who I KNEW held liberal views but never brought them to the pulpit. I've felt alone for many years with my thoughts except for some notable books. I used to live in NYC and overseas, but I'm now in Texas, a major bastion of fundamentalism and worshippers at the shrine of Saint Dubya, and I need other liberals to talk to.

Tea

So God took the responsible to mend this unhappy disaster of this planet earth.Life (blood) is to be replace or redeem by life (blood).Holy,justice,merciful and truth is the character of God.Mankind is not holy enough to meet that standard.Neither can he save himself. So God took the form of humankind (incarnation) to give human beings a second chance (eternal life).

OK, but this is where I have a problem with what you're saying (the "traditional" explanation re substitutionary atonement):

First, human beings were made weak, fallible, and capable of evil. God created us this way. This does NOT mean that we don't struggle against our nature, just that I doubt it was a huge surprise to him that humans sinned. So when people say that our general sinfulness requires blood sacrifice because of God's sense of justice... I just don't see the justice part. (I'm not talking here about responsibility for individual sins but the overall "original sin" idea.)

Second, the argument seems endlessly circular: Why did God require placation and sacrifice? Because we sin/sinned and can't help ourselves. Why is that? Because we're human beings and can't not sin. But it's postcrucifixion and we still do sin. That hasn't changed; it doesn't automatically change when we accept to follow Christ either.

Third, do any of us really believe in this day and age that spilled blood "works" as a human purifier? Why on earth would an almighty God find it necessary to spill blood—the blood of an innocent, no less—as a means of placating himself? Or as a means of restoring or reconciling us to him?

Fourth, the idea makes God seem "small", out of control of his emotions, irrational, and unable to do what he asks of us, which is to forgive and reconcile in a spirit of love.

Fifth, Jesus never spoke of himself or his ministry in this way. I do believe that Jesus brought reconciliation, but more through his life and revelation of God's love, there for the embrace of it (through faith and action), than through a death required by an angry God. Surely if his death was THE thing to Christianity, it would have played more of a role in his teachings.

Tea