BeachOfEden

Don't Let This Title Fool You...This Book Is NOT Anti-God This Book Is About Recovering From The Addiction To Fundamental Religions & The Harm It Does. Leo Booth uses himself as an example of what a religious addict is and how by the grace of God he came to understand how he was using his religious position as one abuses a drug or alcohol. How does one indentify religious addiction or abuse? This book shows the signs to watch for and the steps to take to overcome religious addiction and abuse and how to replace them with a healthly relationship and view of God and spirituality. This book only costs about $13 and is available everywhere.

TCPC needs more advertisement. How about avertise TCPC banner on Beliefnet's Progressive Christianity forum? http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/discussion...sp?boardID=9829

"What disturbs me about the "heaven/hell" rhetoric as the membership imperative is the way that it promotes what I see as quite frankly being unhealthy psychological and sociological states that actively prevent people from laying claim to the life, the destiny, that they have received from God. (Hence, my own personal bitternes toward "fundamentalism" in any religion.)" I agree with you 100%. With Fundamental Protestants this unhealthy fear is based on eternal hellfire torment, getting "Left Behind" in the rapture and thus not getting into heaven. With the Fundamental version of Mormon it is the fear of not getting into the 3rd and highest relm of heaven. With Jehovah's Witnesses there is no hellfire but this is replace with a fear of getting killed at Aramageddon and ceasing to be forever and thus not getting into paradise. The question is: WHy do the Fundamental Protestnat constantly pester their family members to come to Harvest Crusades, church and revivals? Why do JW's constantly pester their family to attend the Kingdom Hall meetings and become JW? And with both these fundamental groups why are they so aggressive even after you poltiely say no thanks time and time again? The answer is because all these faith groups are fundamental in nature and unforuantly the spiritual leaders of these groups when they stand up their and give their sermons/talks they constantly stir their congerations up and and cause them to panick because they keep warning their members how their family members who don;t agree with 'their' interpretations of the Bible are going to be eternally screwed. So their devotion and zeal and love for God and family gets mixed up with an UNhealthy fear.

Yeah, same with me,Aletheia. I have never been DF-ed in JW..or never even reproved. I just simply and silently walked away from the organization/attending the KHall in 1996. "Did you used to attend a JW congregation or were you a JW?" Like many, I did attend that KHall to make my perents happy. You know how it is...JW's, like Evangelical protestnats get obsessed with "Gathering together as you see the end drawing near-" concept...in other words...HAVING to attend 'their' church to get and remain saved...Which is kinda ironic, especially when you consider how both JW's and Evangelicals are constantly stating that, "One can NOT EARN their salvation with good works." There were many things that struck me as not right with JW's. First and foremost I got this book written by a Progressive Christian pastor of a Disciples of Christ in seattle named John Temple Bristow. He wrote this book intitled, "What Paul Really said About Women." This book, to me, PROVED that at least '3' women WERE NOT just "helpers" but WERE "ELDERS" who served SIDE by side WITH Paul as equals and yet JW's like Southern Baptists, deny women from teaching the congeration as elders or pastors. This was a turning point for me becuase over my 26 years years being in JW I had seen MANY marriages in which the husbands were sexist and verbally abusive to their wives. Also, while I DO feel it IS correct that JW's teach the conditional rather than fundamental version of hell and also i agree with the belief in this earth being restored..I do NOT agree with the JW's twist to it where paradise is a place ONLY for those who agree with "The JW Organization." I also deteast their Pentacostal-like formal dress codes..as well as their terrible old fashioned hymns. Also and very important is that i felt their obessive force on looking to "The organization" as the channel to jehovah was very unhealthy and cult-like and very opposite of 1 Timothy 2:5..which says that christ is our ONLY meditor to God.

I guess that is what appeals to me so much about TCPC is what it is nOT about and that is that i appreicate that they do not force a dogma in your face and their top interest is to apply the Golden Rule Towards and that this is more important than doctrines.

the fundamentalists feel they 'need' the teaching of eternal hellfire in order to maintain and gain converts. Waldo Emerson once said, "The Bible says that man was created in God's image. But the problem is that man has created God in his image." Unforuantly, much of the human race is revenge-minded. It is not good enough for THEM for the evil to simply cease to be...no they want to image them punshed forever...because it is they way THEY think. They churches that constantly harp on warnings of hellfire or getting "Left Behind" or armageddon and the highest memebership numbers. That is truely sad. They would LIKE to believe it is because they are the real form of Christaintiy and we Progressives are the false version. But the real moviation factor behind their zeal is morbid fear.

I would greatly be interested in hearing everyone's view on this. Also I'd be happy to cutNpast that one gay man's view on all this on here if you all would like.

See new thread here intitled, "Homosexuality,christianity & Anal Sex, Christianity, Orientation & Sex, Health."

Rev said in another thread here, "Most Christians -- even the conservative, fundamental Christians -- have nothing against the person of the homosexual. It is the lifestyle we do not condone. Personally, I have had a number of friends who are homosexuals. I enjoyed their company and their friendship, however, I am strongly against their way of life. Biblically, it is wrong. God never intended people to mate with the same sex. Just as He never intended people to mate with fish, horse or tree." When it comes to such a topic or subject I have usuallywithdraw from commenting..mostly cause I am not sure how to respond or what to say or where to begin. I have two great male friends who are gay. One is my nephew who is 3 years younger than me and we have been great friends since we were little and the other has been more of a challenge to me because we have been like best friends and we also grew up together. All three of us were raised Jehovah's Witnesses. Since then all three of us are NOT in JW anymore and all 3 of us now consider ourselves Progressive Christians. I had no idea that this other freind of mine was gay untill two years ago when he and I were driving back from a concert and he said to me, "What do you think of gay people?" In the beginning, when he first told me that he was gay..he showed me this article online wrriten by the gay man who discribed himself as a gay man who was not against gay being with gays sexually..but that 'he' was convinced that it was NOT being gay that God was/is against but rather that God is against anal sex for BOTH gays and straights because, he said, medical facts prove that anal sex is thee number one way that AIDS and Hep B is spread. He said that straights often are hyprocrites cause they tisk-task gay men for having anal sex but then the straight condeming them for this also have anal sex with women, which he claimed is equally dangerous and unhealthy, and yet these str8's see nothing wrong with this. I read indepth everyhting this gay man had to say on his issue not against gays or even gay having sex but rather simply anal sex. I study indepth his findings on scriptures and Greek and Hebrew words and their meanings and after all this I have concluded that I DO believe that anal sex is a bad thing for EVERYONE..that is..BOTh gays AND straights.... Beyound this? I have not completed my whole view on this whole issue as of yet. One thing I DO know, though..is I feel strongly that it IS WRONG for straights to try and sweet-talk gays people into trying to force themselves be attracted to the opposite sex. I feel strongly that this is wrong and NOT ethical. It is impossoble for an individual to change what gender they are attracted to..and in this way it is like being born left handedght handed. One thing also is that many gay men, including both of these friends of mine, have told me that many gay men don't like anal sex and will not take part in this act..So if a straight were to base their condemation of gays based on this alone...it would surely shoot down their foundation of biast...and it would also force them to also have to condem many staright people for the same reason.

As a straight person myself I'd have to agree sadly that this statement someone here made, "But, since the majority of Bible readers are straight people, they rationalize their sinful behaviors (remarrige, divorce for reasons other than adultery, premarital sex, etc.) by focusing the attention upon the 5-8% of our population who are homosexual; i.e. straight people make them the scapegoats in order to fool themselves into thinking that they are "righteous"..." Is true. It kinda reminds me how the fundamental Protestants lables ALL Judeo-Christian faith groups that are 'NOT' Evangelical or Fundamental Protestnats as "cults'< this way they make theirselves feel more righteous then everyone else.

Welcome and I'd also add that I like seeing so many Progressives here from all different faith backgrounds because it adds to the verity and perpsective of the Progressive Christians Network.

When Jesus spoke to the people he used interesting examples to make his points to maintain people's attention. Many churches do not have good speakers and my expeirnce has been that when this is the case in fundamental churches, and people comment that their church services are boring, the church tries to shame the congergation by telling them that it is their fault that church seems boring to them...when in realityit is because the church itself does not have good speakers and their music is terrible. It's more easy for those running the church to simply place the blaim on the congeration then for them to have make changes.

As many here have voiced TCPC is about a from of Christianity that allows each individual to define what the nature of everlasting life or the lack of it there of is. It does NOT shove theological interpretations of doctrinal issues in people's faces. So while I can not and would not attempt to explain what each and every Progressive Christian DOES believe...I believe I 'CAN' explain what each and every Progressive Christian does NOT believe. Progressive christians do NOT believe: 1. ..in using a fear of hell or armageddon or getting "Left Behind" to gain and maintain converts/members. 2. They do not believe in banning women or races other than white from spiritually teaching to the congerations. 3. They do not believe in banning homosexuals from being welcomed into their churches or trying to force them to be attracted to and merry the opposite sex. 4. They do NOT teach that those others who embrace different interpretations on Christianity, the Bible, the trinity issue and the like are "Unsaved", "Doomed", heading for hell, nor do they lable them "cults." This includes their fundamental Protestants, Catholic, SDA, JW, Mormon and Christian science peers...and also includes those who's faith is not Christian such those in eastern faiths and Native American Spirituality.

Thought this thread would also be worth placing back up.

I thought this thread would be worth placing back up at the top here. Yes and also see "Armageddon, Are We There Yet?"

You are indeed correct that i do not believe that hell menas an eternal firepit of torment. if I did believe this then I would call myslef a fundamental Christian rather than a Progressive one. See thread here intield,"Hell is Not Hot." " You are also correct in that there is a "universal fair chance" at salvation. However, that universal fair chance occurs in this life only! Not after this life is over." That is precisley what I just got through stating that Billy Graham believes. Billy Graham, ovbiously is an Evangelical Christian, as are those who agree with him. "I" am NOT an Evangelical nor Fundamental Christian, I am a progressive one and thus is why I am HERE and thus support The Center For Progressive Christianity as this site's 8 points discribes.

Are you a fundamentalist Christian or a Progressive one?

That was Jehovah's Witnesses used to say. That is, that church is not suppose to be enjoyable. Somehow, they felt that if church did not bore you to death then it wasn't doing it job. It's like they felt that religion had to be painful..no pain no gain.

" I do believe the fundamentalist's approach has some merit in calling attention to humanity's "lost" condition and then offering salvation through a relationship to God through Christ. However, I think they are off base in their understanding of the Atonement of Christ and their concept of heaven and hell as some place or form of existence after death. So, I would disagree with someone who believes in a universal salvation because (1) I doubt there is any kind of "heaven" which exists to which all will arrive, and (2), I've seen too much evidence that many people do not have, but are desperate for, salvation. " I embrace an afterlife hope..and I differ from a vast majority of the liberal Christians...I supose, on this. I believe in a possible after life hope brings me great joy...But I also feel that one of the main flaws of the fundamental branches of Christianity is the way they danger rewards of everlasting bliss or everlasting damnation over people's heads as a way to gain and maintain members. In constrasting with Sponge, I do not believe in universal salvation...rather I embrace a universal fair 'CHANCE'...at salvation. Meaning that I believe contrasting to what Billy Graham teaches...I believe a person DOES get a fair 'CHANCE' after this present life.

The webpage "Christians For Bibical Equality" offer some GREAT free articles using the Bible to SUPPORT women's equality...see: www.cbeinternational.org/ Also see the book, "What Paul Really Said About Women," By John Temple Bristow.

Here is an article I found on this topic that TCPC wrote...let's examine it... Astonishing Assumptions Underlie Belief in Atoning Sacrifice From the TCPC May 2004 Newsletter By Andrew Furlong "—evangelical preachers and certain film makers try to persuade people to believe that Jesus died for them and for the whole world. That is to say they interpret Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice. I personally do not find it credible to believe in Jesus’ death interpreted as an atoning sacrifice.Here, in my opinion, are some of the assumptions underlying belief in Jesus’ death when interpreted as an atoning sacrifice. " (1) If the correct way to interpret and explain Jesus’ death is to say that he suffered and died in the sinners’ place, then it makes God out to be a very severe, harsh and punitive god. It is saying that there was a punishment that had to be borne, there was a penalty that had to be paid. It should have been us sinners doing so; but instead, it is claimed that Jesus took our place. Furthermore, if this theory of what Jesus’ death meant were correct, it would involve God in an unethical procedure, for it is not part of the ethics of justice for one person to bear the punishment due to be borne by others. It is assumed that this does not matter. (2) Our normal explanation of why we die is in terms of natural causes, such as ageing or sickness or war or accident. However to see Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice is to accept a different world view. In this understanding, death entered the world as a curse imposed by God because of Adam’s disobedience to Him in the Garden of Eden. It is held that Jesus’ innocent death in obedience to the will of God lifted this curse, so that we could be freed from the powers of death and be able to enter heaven when we die. It assumes scientific explanations are incorrect, and implies that Adam was a real historical person. (3) To see Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice assumes that there is no contradiction between believing in a forgiving God who is also a severely punitive god. Why is it assumed to be insufficient to simply believe in a forgiving compassionate God (who is not also a punitive god) and who does not require there to be a mediator or a redeemer between God and humanity? (4) It is possible to understand the ancient sacrificial system of Judaism, similar to other such systems in prescientific days, as an invention by human beings in those societies who thought that this was a way to restore harmony between a people and their god. Such systems developed and were modified over time. Indeed much interesting research has been conducted into the Hebrew and Greek equivalents of words such as “atonement” and “sacrifice” as well as their history within the English language. People who believe in Jesus’ atoning death tend to see the ancient sacrificial system of his religion as divinely ordained; they believe God required a human sacrifice so that peace could be restored between humanity and God. By contrast, there are other people who today look on all the religions as the product of our search as to how we are to live and who claim that we have created for ourselves our theologies and our rituals. Such people have an understanding of the scriptures which allows them to say, “this is what people, thousands of years ago, thought to be right or to be the will of their god, but what they believed then does not constrain how I think today.” What is the underlying assumption behind the idea of sacrifice: is it to appease an angry god? If so, is this an idea we still need to hold onto today? (5) Some of the arguments in favour of seeing Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice depend on what he is claimed to have said himself. This assumes that liberal scholars are mistaken in thinking that a good deal of what Jesus is recorded as saying is in fact the theology of the church put on his lips. But whatever the source of the words or the theological ideas, they are still open to our critical judgement today. (6) Many evangelical preachers tell people that if you believe Jesus died for you, and if you believe that he is alive again, then you are guaranteed a place in heaven. How can such certainty be assumed or justified? For we can’t prove either that there is a God nor can we prove that there is a place called heaven. We walk, as it is said, by faith and not by sight. Will these points give some believers or potential believers in an atoning sacrifice pause for thought? I hope they will. Readers of my book Tried for Heresy, A 21st Century Journey of Faith will have discovered that, while I believe in an ultimate reality characterised by infinite love, goodness, graciousness, forgiveness and compassion, I deny the existence of a severe and punitive god and do not interpret the death of Jesus of Nazareth as an atoning sacrifice. " Ok.. this is the issue that the author of the book "Leaving the Fold" brings forword. That she can not accept Jesus as Savior because she can not accept a God who would force their own offspring to die a horrible death to pay for everyone's sins. First, my interpreation is that God did NOT force Jesus to sacrifice himself but rather Jesus willingly came here and yes it is very violent and complicated...but by Jesus willingly doing this he proves himself a fool-proof Savior for everyon. Now one surely can be a liberal christian who merely follows Jesus as a positive model rather than a Savior..but the question is: can one believe in Jesus as savior AND be a liberal or Progressive? Well, bishop Songe believes so and HE surely IS a liberal...and although I may not share all Sponges' views and DO share his social justices views and like him, I too view Jesus as everyone's Savior and I surley am progressive and NOT on the fundamental right.

" The UMC wasn't created until 1968 via the merger of the Methodist Church and the United Evangelical Bretheran Church." This may explain the problem. My mother who is 75 said she was raised in United Bretheren in a German neighborhood of Kansas and said it was very fundamental in nature. She said it was not chrasimatic but they did harp alot on hellfire and the end coming. My mother left the church as a young adult and then started attended Luthern instead. Her father told her of this merging of United Breathern with United Methodists..but by that time she had long been out of that church. When i told my mom that I had read that UM was way liberal she said that she could not imagine United Breathern merging with a liberal church.

It you look back at the United Methodists Church back in the Victorian days....it's roots seem very fundamental. I rember reading this Anne of Green Gables book, which was writen around 1909 and in it the writter spoke of how Anne visited a United Methodist church that her and her husband Gilbert did not like because the preacher kept harping on hellfire. I personally don't know a whole lot on UMC..accept I tried visting one here in Ventura on Santa Clara street 2 years ago on Easter. They had just started an attempt at a contemporary service and there was only like 11 people there and it was held in the small chapel. I got the feeling that a a small group within this UMC wanted change..but that very few of the congergation's older majority cared to suppose this.

Great ideas! How about send an article to your local newspaper in the religious section that explains the Basic of what TCPC is about? You could simply highlight and cutnpast the follwoing and/or add your own tuch to it. Print it or e-mail it to your local newspapaers... The Basic Points of Progressive Christianity What if there could be a network of Christians who truely believed in not only talking about equality for all..but actually practiced it? A version of Christianity that was neither sexist nor racist? Where people of all sexual orientations were actually welcomed? Where some sort of theological threat is not preached to gain and keep members? Where people actually care about this earth and all beings on it - both human and animalkind? What if I told you that such a version and network of Christianity ALREADY exists? It Called The Center for Progressive Christianity and if such values discribes you..then this may just be the place for you. By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who… Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus; Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us; Invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (including but not limited to): believers and agnostics, conventional Christians and questioning skeptics, women and men, those of all sexual orientations and gender identities, those of all races and cultures, those of all classes and abilities, those who hope for a better world and those who have lost hope; Know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe; Find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes; Form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping one another for the work we feel called to do: striving for peace and justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God's creation, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers; and Recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege. Whether you are a representive of a Progressive church or faith group that already embraces these values..or maybe just an individual without a faith community, we invite you to connect with us.

Yes, that is precisley what i was thinking..and my question is...once it becomes a fact that a church's majority is fundamental and the majority has embraced this fact..then like in Southern baptists..WHY would a progressive even WANT to be in that church anymore or indentified with it?