AletheiaRivers

I haven't read it Des, but will be looking into it. I'm always up for an INTELLIGENT book on Goddess theology. So much out there is "fluff". It's frustrating.

A Trinity thread would be great, but I'd imagine that your Christology thread would be a good place for that discussion as well?

In response to Lily and Fred's wonderful thoughts on the "Progressive Christianity" thread I posted this. I'll post it here too and see if the conversation migrates.

I tried so hard to write a post for this thread to further clarify what I mean in my previous post. I've erased it three times. I have a "metaphysical idea" as to "why we are here and the meaning of life" and I'm looking for that idea to exist within Christianity. Thing is - I think it DOES exist within Christianity and that someone, somewhere, has fleshed it out and written about it. * Was Jesus "just" a man (like us) who became Divine, perhaps like other humans have (Buddha, etc ...)? And if so, why them? Was it what they did, how they lived? If Jesus was a man, "adopted" or divinized by God - WHY? Is our hope to be "adopted"? If so, how? Does this "adoption" change the adoptee, perhaps in a "born again" way? (See next thought.) * Was Jesus half man and half Divine, born of a human mother but "fathered" by God, making him different from us, and unique? If so, what does that mean for us? (An idea - Jesus, in this scenario, was born of God's spirit. Human DNA+God's spirit = Jesus Christ. Perhaps this is what Jesus meant by being "born again"? Even though God didn't "beget" us in our mothers' wombs, perhaps God's spirit can "beget" us outstide of the womb and change us?" In this scenario, Jesus is unique in how he was born, but we become like Jesus through being "born again" and adopted.) * Was Jesus God incarnate, making him WAY different from us, and unique? If so, what does that mean for us? Did God choose to come to earth to live as a human and to experience firsthand our problems, without the benefit of omnipotence? All three suppositions have both a positive side and a negative side. Fred - Do you consider all this on topic, part of what it means to be a progressive Christian, or would you like a new thread started?

Boy did those words give me a big "A-HA!" moment. If Jesus was God who became man then he would be God/Man. If Jesus was Man who became God then he would be Man/God. Polarity either way. The same, ultimately, either way. I said in another thread a while back, not sure which one now, that I wondered whether Jesus and God's "relationship" was not a Trinity, but a Duality (a polarity), which together is ONE balanced being. (I've talked about duality in unity in other threads too, such as the panentheism one, but not in this context of Jesus and God.) What I meant was - Jesus/Holy Spirit = God (the Godhead, the Ultimate). And actually, in this metaphor, there is still a Trinity! Whoo hoo! Everything keeps coming back to a "dialectic" whole or a "dipolar" whole, like yin/yang. The cross, of course, is a much more appropriate Christian symbol for this "thesis / antithesis / synthesis" than yin/yang, but I do LOVE circles. The vertical bar is DIVINITY, the horizontal bar is MORTALITY, and the whole cross is the synthesis of "God/Man". God/man for God. God/man for Jesus. God/man for us. Cool.

Exactly!

My using the St Francis quote was to show that many Christians (Saints and non-saints, Catholics and Protestants) believe that how we live and treat each other is just as important, maybe more so, than what we say. I have a online acquaintance, a pagan, who was FLOORED this past Christmas by the love and generosity she received from a church in her neighborhood. She is a single mother and very poor. What especially touched her was that it was PEOPLE who gave to her, not an organization. They didn't draw her name out of a hat or have her assigned to them as an act of charity. They (a few members) had noticed her circumstances and approached her. They explained that they were driven by a love of God and a love of neighbor. (That's not to say that "assigned charitable acts" aren't important.) Anyway, that act she says, did more for her and her view of Christianity than any preaching. In fact, the love that was shown to her MADE UP FOR the preaching she endured from others at other times. I'm extremely turned off by the typical "door to door" evangelizing work that some denominations are involved in. HOWEVER, I believe that the Christian church and Christian individuals should be "missional" and by being so, "preach the word".

PS - I thing Rowling would lose too many readers if she killed off Hermione. It will probably be a teacher or one of the Weasleys. I think that Goblet of Fire is my favorite, so far.

Wow Des! Your post made me realize one BIG thing : I NEED TO REREAD ALL THE BOOKS - AGAIN! I've forgotten so dang much. Even though I've seen the movies a gazillion times each, I know they are different from the books in many ways and they don't go into character depth at all. The main thing that I remember from 5 is Sirius. Good thing I own 1-5 (in hardcover no less).

"Preach the Gospel at all times; sometimes use words.” St Francis

I think Yancey would be considered mainline by conservatives, because many conservatives have "issues" with him. He's still an editor at "Christianity Today", which I think is a conservativie evangelical magazine? (Anybody?) I wonder if Yancey would consider himself "conservative"? Either way, he's awesome! Brian McLaren has him on his recommended reading list. I'd put him in the same category as McLaren, Campolo and Jim Wallis. I have "Reaching for the Invisible God", "What So Amazing About Grace" and "The Jesus I Never Knew". I've only read the first one, but I absolutely loved it. My husband is reading "Grace" right now. Philip Yancey ariticles at Christianity Today Online

English Hebrew Online Tanakh Thought you might like this site. Online Mitzvah Tutor PS - This one too.

I think I'll stick with Harry Potter.

LOL @ Barnacle! Exactly. I feel the stubborn and tenacious need to remain a Christian. I really appreciate this insight. It was something I once knew but have recently forgotten. Judaism didn't form in a box and Jesus didn't live in a box. I appreciate the recent scholarship that has placed Jesus back into Jewish heritage, but at the same time I think these same scholars are making Jesus into "just" a Rabbi. (I know this isn't making sense. This medium can be SO frustrating.) In other words, some Christian traditions, IMO, "spiritualize" Christianity way too much and other scholars "Jewish-ize" Christianity way too much. (Good grief, I'll give up trying to explain this thought now.) Yup yup yup! See, thing is, I have. I've had deeply spiritual encounters with Goddess and I miss them so much. I know it's the same God, but I just can't summon up the intimate relationship with "her" within Christianity. I sure would like to. I don't mind relating to God as Father, and I do, but I miss my Mother sometimes. I don't believe God has a gender, but as humans we relate in anthropormorphic terms, and for me Christianity is "male". Perhaps someday I could envision God/dess as Eastern Orthodoxy does. I'd love to learn more about their insights. Me too.

That was McLarens whole point. Start with 2 or 3, move up to 7, and keep on a going ... Everything can be a sacrament, everything good and created can mediate God. No, unfortunately, not trying to be funny. Guess I'm feeling kinda lost and a bit depressed. I do appreciate the search, but right now, I'm missing certainty.

I didn't say they didn't have valuable insights. If you read back through my posting history here, you'd see how much in awe I am of the Jewish mystical insights into divinity. I respect them so much because they match up with what I've thought up/intuited on my own. Those same insights are found in Buddhism, Hinduism and "Paganism" as well. These common truths, primordial truths, are found in much theology and philosophy and metaphysics. The thing is, I can grasp and immerse myself in those truths WITHOUT belonging to a religion. The other thing is, I WANT TO. Christianity is my heritage. I miss the certainty I used to have. I think we all go through that from time to time. Right now, I'm feeling lost, and I was simply expressing that in a forum where I feel safe to say it.

I thought about this post for a while and wondered what to say. I decided, for a place to start and gather my thoughts, to actually offer my views on the 8 points. So here goes: 1. Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus; I'm trying. Sometimes I feel it so strongly it makes me laugh. Other times I wonder why I'm trying to find meaning in a tribal religion, from another country and another time. 2. 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; Yes and no. I'm not a relativist and I don't think all paths are equally valid, but I do recognize that just because someone belongs to another religion, they are not automatically damned and going to hell, so to speak. 3. Understand the sharing of bread and wine in Jesus's name to be a representation of an ancient vision of God's feast for all peoples; I'm not sure exactly what is meant by the above statement, so I don't know if I agree with it or not. I like what McLaren says in Generous Orthodoxy about the sacraments and why he likes that Catholicism has more sacraments than two or three: "A sacrament is an object or practice that mediates the divine to humans. It carries something of God to us; it is a means of grace and it conveys sacredness. I care little for arguments about how many sacraments there are (althought I tend to prefer longer lists than shorter ones). What I really like about the sacramental nature of Catholicism is this: through learning that a few things can carry the sacred, we become open to the fact that all things (all good things, all created things) can ultiately carry the sacred ... Start with three sacraments - or seven - and pretty soon everything becomes potentially sacramental as, I believe, it should be. I don't see Communion as re-connecting us to God if that means that we have ever been "disconnected" (as in "the Fall"). I see Communion as realizing or remembering that we are connected to God and that God is in us and in all things. Like Thomas Merton said - God is all around, but most men don't see it. (This is the panentheistic mystic in me coming through.) 4. Invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable ... Agreed, pretty much. 5. Know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe; Agreed. 6. Find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes; Not really. Not anymore. I'm kinda tired of searching and questioning actually. 7. 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; Agreed. 8. Recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege. I think I agree, although I'm not sure what is really meant by "renunciation of privilege".

I'm coming to appreciate the covenental view of baptism and the covenental/missional view of Christianity. NT Wrights writings and Brian McLaren's writings have helped me much in this regard. I also think that infant baptism is quite beautiful and appreciate what it means to the parents to "covenant" to raise their child as a Christian. Hopefully one day I'll have both the health and the desire to visit a few churches, but right now I'm content to "work" in my yard, play with worms and read. I felt so guilty as a JW, not being able to make it to the meetings (3 a week). I felt that I was letting God down. Now I feel God every time I sit in my yard and watch sunsets.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, Third Edition, Click Here Here is one of the reviews. I don't think the author will mind if I post it here. And here's the New Interpreters Bible, Click And here is another review:

I really like the NOAB. It offers definitions and etymology of Hebrew and Greek words. I've heard really good things about the New Interpreters Bible. Cynthia has one, so maybe she could offer an opinion. Both use the NRSV, as WindDancer mentioned.

I've been having fun with Wikipedia today. Six contrasting views on the body and the blood: Consubstantiation - the body and blood of Jesus Christ are substantially present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain. (This view is often erroneously attributed to the Lutheran church.) Pious Silence - the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Christ in a way that is beyond human comprehension; the specific mechanisms and details of this are not possible to understand nor to explain; this view is held by the Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches. Spiritual presence - the body and blood of Jesus Christ are received in a spiritual manner by faith . This view is held by most Reformed Christians, such as Presbyterians. Suspension - the partaking of the bread and wine was not intended to be a perpetual ordinance, and/or was not to be taken as a religious rite or ceremony (also known as adeipnonism, meaning "no supper" or "no meal"); this is the view of Quakers, the Salvation Army, as well as the "ultra-dispensational" teaching of E. W. Bullinger, Cornelius R. Stam and others. Symbolism - the bread and wine are symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and in partaking of the elements the believer commemorates the sacrificial death of Christ (also known as Zwinglianism or Zwinglian view after Ulrich Zwingli); this view is held by several Protestant denominations, including most Baptists. Transubstantiation - the substance (fundamental reality) of the body and blood of Jesus Christ replaces that of the bread and wine, but the accidents (physical traits) of the bread and wine remain; this view is held by the Roman Catholic Church. Anglican author C.S. Lewis famously summed up the Anglican position: "The command, after all, was Take, eat: not Take, understand."

Here's a quote that I thought might bring the thread back on topic (sorry about that Des, didn't mean for it to go wandering sideways ): "The word baptize derives from the Greek word βάπτειν, which loosely means "to dip or bathe", but more precisely means to plunge something entirely into the water, so that the water closes over it. Today, baptism is most famously identified with Christianity, where it symbolizes the cleansing (remission) of sins, and the union of the believer with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. The choice to be baptized is made by a confessing believer (credobaptism), regardless of age, as a confession of his faith; or for a child by his or her parents (paedobaptism) according to the parent's confession of faith. There are differences in opinion about the nature and practice of Christian baptism. Some denominations, such as Baptists, practice believer baptism, and believe that baptism does not save, but rather publicly demonstrates that a person has been saved through his union with Christ. Other people, including Martin Luther, have placed a much greater importance on baptism. Luther states in The Large Catechism of 1529AD : "To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save." Catholics and Orthodox : The liturgy of baptism in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition makes clear reference to baptism as not only a symbolic burial and resurrection, but an actual supernatural transformation, one that draws parallels to the experience of Noah and the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea divided by Moses. Thus baptism is literally and symbolically not only cleansing, but also dying and rising again with Jesus. Catholics believe that baptism is necessary for the cleansing of the taint of original sin, and for that reason infant baptism is a common practice for them. The Orthodox also practice infant baptism on the basis of various texts such as Matthew 9:14 which are interpreted to condone full Church membership for children, and so baptism is immediately followed by Chrismation and Communion at the next Divine Liturgy regardless of age. Baptists: Baptist groups derive their name either from the restrictions that they traditionally place on the mode and subjects of the ordinance of baptism. They typically teach that baptism does not accomplish anything in itself, but is an outward sign or testimony, a personal act, indicating the invisible reality that the person's sins have already been washed away by the cross of Christ, and applied to their life according to their profession of faith. It is also understood to be a covenantal act, signifying entrance into the New Covenant of Christ (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-12, Romans 6). For Baptists, baptism is a requirement for church membership, rather than a necessary requirement for salvation."

Hehehehehehe

I know you know I know that, but I know you know that I wasn't saying that the purpose of Christianity is to help the planet There was much I didn't say with my "etc ... etc ... etc ..." PS - Some wonderful Christians I've read lately feel that the goal of Christianity is SALVATION of the world and that such a goal can be accomplished when Christians quit focusing on "me me me and my relationship to God", but instead become "missional", with a view of becoming a "blessing to all nations". I would have to say that I agree with that view. Such a view doesn't see humans or the world as necessarily "fallen" and needing to be restored to God. Christianity in this view is seen as God's way, his method of bringing the "Kingdom of Heaven" to earth.

Glad we could clear up that I'm not going crazy Des, thanks.