ComradeInChrist

Yep, God wants us to have his oil.

This calls into question God's perfection. Why did he put American oil under everyone else's land?

I belong to a denomination (United Church of Canada) which is a "large tent" denomination. We have members that range from very traditional to very progressive. I think that as long as you are respectful of other's beliefs you shouldn't have a problem. In our denomination the clergy is often more progressive than many of the congregation.

Marcus Borg may be a better model than Bishop Spong. IMHO Borg can look at traditional Christianity and see the symbolism behind the traditional beliefs. I really like his concept of "postcritical naivity.

I have seen God's spirit at work in conservative Christians, liberal Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, even atheiests. Love is what joins us, hate is what divides us. If someone has love then they are a true child of God no matter what doctrine they follow.

IIRC, one of the aspects of God talked about in the Bible is Sophia (Wisdom). That would seem to me to be a feminine aspect.

Remember what’s been said about religion, and Christianity in particular: is it more like sex or politics. ...<snip>... However, to leave it at that is truly selfish and that is where we cross over to the political side.

 

Right!

 

Christianity isn't like sex OR politics ... it's like sex AND politics.

 

What I mean is (agreeing with you) that our relationship with God is deeply personal ... and the depth to which that relationship touches our hearts moves us to share all that we've experienced with others, who may then want to join us in fellowship (church).

 

In most churches however, individuals in that fellowship tend to have the attitude of "Jesus is my PERSONAL savior." From that viewpoint, a congregation isn't so much a covenental community as much as it is a group of like minded individuals who are all in it for themselves.

 

Like the quote from the first post:

Paul's faith isn't about him and his Jesus and the heck with everyone else. It isn't even about talking other people into a faith that's about them and their Jesus. It is something else entirely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's my take on things as well. If we have a relationship with God, it can't help but change us. My politics is what it is because of who I am. Who I am is caused by my relationship with God. So it's not either/or, it's both.

9lbs 10oz?    Your poor wife! Egads. Any complications with the delivery?

Well, in addition to his size, he was also posterior, i.e. head down, but face forward. If you've ever heard of "back labor," that's it, and it's really painful. She labored as long as she could without any drugs or medical intervention, but ultimately had to be C-sectioned. As much as we advocate and were prepared to go the natural route, we do realize there are times when modern technology does have something valuable to offer!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen Fred! Our first was born naturally after an great struggle, our second was born by C section after a great struggle. Without the technology neither of our children would be alive and neither would my wife.

Natural is good if it is backed up by the appropriate technology.

You are entering into the most wonderful, rewarding and frustrating time of your life.

I salute you!

"Saved," in the fundamentalist's paradigm, often means "changed from the destiny of going to hell to the destiny of going to heaven."

 

I find such a viewpoint too narrow and too limited in scope. I think "salvation" is better described as "healing, wholeness, completeness" that is more appropriate to experiences in THIS life rather than a "get in free" card for the afterlife. I see salvation as a process that is lived and worked out rather than as an event or a status symbol.

 

So, for me, the debate over "once saved, always saved" is somewhat of a mute point. The goal of this debate is often an attempt to answer the question as to if one can sin enough to cause God to change the track back from "going to heaven" to "going to hell." I think this whole foundation of salvation being all about going to heaven or going to hell is a faulty construct.

 

If we saw "salvation" for the way that it is most used in the Bible -- as experiencing healing, wholeness, completeness, new life, knowing God -- it would be much more apparent that salvation is, like marriage, a relationship that should continually be enjoyed. I was "once saved" but I am still "being saved" and I don't see the two concepts as being in opposition to each other.

 

Anyone else's thoughts on this?

 

- wayfaring

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is my experience of God. Every day is a new salvation. My faith in God is a relationship which grows every day. I sometimes think that those who talk about a "personal" relationship with God do not have such. However that is me being bitchy, and it is not my place to judge anyone's relation with God.

Congratulations Fred!

Wasn't it Borg in The Heart of Christianity, that told the story of the young girl who demanded a short audience with her newborn baby brother, so she could ask, "Remind me about God, because I've almost forgot"?  That nearly choked me up!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for reminding me of that Fred. I just got tears in my eyes again.

I assume that there are those in South Carolina who would oppose them. Is it the camps or gas chambers for them? Maybe just expropriation of their property and forced emigration.

Follow Progressive Christians, please add your thoughts on this. Thanks:)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My political involvement is not overtly religious. However my faith defines how I view our relationships with the world and each other, and so influences my politics.

I am a social democrat because I believe social democracy is the best way to build a society based on justice and compassion, which are the core values of my faith.

So the way I see it, the religious left is politcally active, just not in an overt way.

BTW, I saw it and thought it was awesome. It looks like it will be a bit of a series.

 

Funny thing, I was watching this and thinking about all the domesticated species, the list of requirements-- social, group oriented, hierarchical, etc. Well there's gotta be some explanation but what happened with cats? (Some people say that cats aren't exactly domesticated. I'll buy that. :-))

 

--des

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyone who lives with a cat knows you don't own a cat. Cats will choose to live with you or not.

I've just started his new book, "Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed". It looks very interesting. I loved "Guns, Germs and Steel". I will definitely check the listing for the special.

I think part of the reason we tend to label people is we live in a culture of brands and labels. Almost any character in a television show or movie is a stereotype. Most of the news programs give us 10 second sound bites, and never spend more than a minite or two on a story. Most of talk radio spews nothing but stereotypes.

It takes conscious effort to break the conditioning and think about ideas without falling into the old habits.

As a Progressive Christian I ovbiously am strongly FOR social justice..but I try and not force my leftist views with my faith or esle I would simply feel I was left answer to the xtreme right..and I don;t want to do that.

Well, not force; that's part of the mode of religious-right style politics that we reject. But I would try to argue strongly for my social and political beliefs from the angle of faith.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As a progressive Christian and a social democrat I can not separate politics from my faith. My spiritual experience makes me the person I am and so has to inform the view I have of the society I would like to see us create.

Micah 6:8 says it best to me:

What does the Lord require of you,

but to do justice, to love kindness,

and to walk humbly with your God?

To me, justice means economic and social justice (you can't have the legal kind without them), and we are called to DO justices which implies action. To love kindness means to treat others with love and respect. To walk humbly with God means to understand that God may manifest himself to each of us in a different way, and it is not my place to judge someone else's spiritual experience.

I believe God calls us to make a difference in this world. I believe the only way we will see the "New Jerusalem" is to build it ourselves with God's help.

As Obiwan said "Trust your feelings". For me, reading about theology and other spritual things loosened my world view up enough to begin to experience God in a personal way. Things went into a positive feedback loop once I was able to do that. That is, the more I experienced God, the more I was able to experience God. I see a relationship with God as a mystical experience that goes deeper that the intellectual or emotional, although it has elements of both.

I strongly feel that each of us must find our own path to God. God reveals himself to each of us in the in the most appropriate way.

5. read Borg

6. read some more Borg (he's been the most useful thing in the whole of my journey, though that's not necessarily the case for everyone)

I agree. Borg does not provide a new set of beliefs to replace the old. He provides resources to discover your own relationship to God. For me, the realization that one can think and still be a Christian was very important. Probably the most important thing I learned from reading Borg is that faith is not believing a set of doctrines, faith is having a relationship with God.

In the end Starwars is just a movie. Looking for deeper meaning in it is like looking for deeper meaning in a comic book. The religious elements are only there for plot development.

Guns, Germs and Steel was excellent.

I've just finished Ken Macleod's Fall Revolution series: "The Star Fraction", "The Casini Division", "The Stone Canal", and "The Sky Road". SF with a left wing twist.

I've already said on numerous occasions that I think PC has to be more than a social agenda. 

I can only speak to my own understanding of this issue.

I believe that God gives us the wonderful gifts that he does so that we can make a difference in the world. There needs to be a balance between our inner life and outer life. I feel it would be wrong for me to focus on one at the expense of the other.

If I focus on the world at the expense of my spiritual life I lose the peace and strength to make a difference in the world. If I focus on my spiritual life exclusively I get spiritually plugged up.

Wow, Aletheia, talk about exclusive! :-)

Another thing about requirements of baptism say, well what about the fact that many

Christian churches baptize babies? If a church would accept that baptism, then the person really hasn't made any decision. The family has-- but that's quite different as all us ex- ___s

would attest. So if they say ahead of time, all you who are baptized (or whatever) do they JUST mean those who are baptized as adults? I'm quite sure they don't say that.

 

--des

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a very good point Des. I was baptised as an infant. I did not make a choice in the matter. Am I worthy to take communion as I never made a choice to be baptised?.

I don't believe that all Christians have to view the sacrements or the rituals of the Church in the same way. We each have our own path.

Abortion will go away when . . .

When every child is wanted, when every family has the the resouces to raise their childeren, when violence against women has ceased . . .

Sister Joan Chestecher (sp?) did an interview with Bill Moyer which I really liked. She said that the "pro-life" movement was not so much pro-life as pro-birth. If the people who are pro-life are willing to financially and spiritually support the fetus until they are of age they have a point. If not, what they are spouting is bullsh**.

In my view, it is the Lord's table.  Jesus welcomes all.  It is not up to us to decide who is worthy.  In our church (United Church of Canada) we welcome all who are seeking to the table.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It doesn't have to be about "worth" Comrade. It can be about preparedness. It doesn't have to be couched in the language of condemnation or elitism. All are encouraged to experience baptism and to partake of the joys and mysteries of the sacraments. The Way is not barred to any. Jesus does welcome all.

 

All are welcome at the Lords table. I just favor the tradition of keeping an "agape" feast or meal among all who seek separate from the Eucharist or Communion or the Lords Supper that those who have been baptised in Christ partake of especially. I have a hard time actually understanding why this would offend anyone. No one is forbidden baptism who genuinely seek it, so the sacrament of the Bread and Wine is freely offered to all, just not before you're baptised.

 

I don't want the "form" of baptism to take precedence over the substance or reality of baptism to the believer. There are those who have been dunked, sprinkled and nearly drowned who are not baptised in Christ, and there are those who have never been baptised in water who are nevertheless baptised in Christ. It isn't, to me, about empty form, but about substance and aesthetics (which should not be overlooked or dismissed as irrelevant - its about beauty and ritual and keeping the sacred Sacred) which gives meaning and resonance and inspiration and passion to our faith, it's about commitment to a path and dedication to it, it's about CHOOSING to go this Way, it's about sacrificing whatever is necessary to discipline oneself along The Way. It's not about, "oh, I think I'll go take the sacrament of buddy Jesus today, maybe it will make me feel better."

 

In my opinion we've already been steadily neglecting these things; we've been there, done that. Why not look back, at what our spiritual ancestors may have done; why not make it MORE difficult to be a Christian instead of less? I mean, it IS difficult to be a Christian or to be in process of becoming Christ-like. Isn't it? Why give what is precious away to those who are not committed or serious or prepared to receive it? Why not instead persuade those who come how precious the experience of the sacrament and baptism is, or has all the potential in the world and Gods own Grace to be, instead of choosing to do away with what makes a tradition a tradition?

 

lily

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand where you are coming from. The liturgy and ritual of the church are very important to me.

But, with respect, I do not think we can look at the church as a lodge with degrees of membership. There are as many paths to God as there are seekers. I don't think we can decide for others what their spiritual status is. And as I said, it is the Lord's table, not ours.

These are my feelings on the matter. But it is also not up to me to dictate how others look upon the sacrements. To me inclusiveness is an important part of Communion. I have no problem if it helps you in your walk to see it as more exclusive. Our fellowship with God and each other is more important than doctrinal differences.

Peter

I don't see how politics can be separated from religion. I don't see how you can separate Jesus' social message from the spiritual one. Jesus calls us to make this world a better place. We may disagree on how to do this, but to do it will require social and political action.

In my view, it is the Lord's table. Jesus welcomes all. It is not up to us to decide who is worthy. In our church (United Church of Canada) we welcome all who are seeking to the table.