AletheiaRivers

Don, Thanks for your reply! I don't believe that John's writing is a revelation for our time. I'm just wondering if John believed his writing was for the far off future or for his contemporaries. Again, thanks for the wonderful info you've shared! Aletheia PS: I'm going to attempt to study the Hebrew Scriptures, not the Bible book of Hebrews (although I'm sure I'll get to that soon enough).

THAT is why I want to learn about a preterist view of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. I want to be able to say: "NO! The writer of Revelation wasn't talking about the end of our world. He was talking about _______ " I wish Martin Luther had managed to get Revelation tossed out of the Christian scriptures when he was busy "reforming". I'm trying to think of anything "nice" that can be said about it as a book? Anyone? As an ex-JW I know how Revelation is read to point gleefully to the future when the "great tribulation" culminating in "God's war" will destroy all the non-JW's. (They don't teach the rapture, but something pretty dang close!) And then afterward think of all the houses and clothes and cars they'll have to choose from when they inherit a paradise earth. And what is really sad is that it is GOOD PEOPLE that think this way. Not sociopaths, but normal everyday folk who don't see the sickness, the perversion of this view. Aletheia

Do you believe that the Bible teaches "the end of the world" from a Process perspective? Or do you believe that the Bible teaches "the end of the world" at all? That is what I'm curious about. I've never looked at the Bible book of Revelation (for example) from any view except futurist. Did the writer intend it be applied to the future? If not, then what was its meaning? Thank you for the web page recommendation. I'm looking forward to researching. On a side note: I've studied a decent amount of Process thought, but haven't ever come across anything on a process view of eschatology. What does it teach? At a "mundane", physical level, I would imagine it would be the same as what science teaches concerning the end of the universe. I guess I'm asking, specifically, what Process Theology teaches. Was Hartshorne Christian? Did he look at things from that perspective? Or did he step outside all previous views and try to get a fresh, unbiased perspective? Aletheia

As I mentioned in another thread, I've just recently become familiar with the term "preterism". Marcus Borg seems to have a preterist (historical) view of scripture. He discusses reading scripture historically, in context with the happenings that were occuring when any particular "book" was written. Also he discusses reading scripture from a pre-modern worldview. I've come to appreciate that certain words and ideas meant completely different things prior to the 1600's. I think learning what these pre-modern views were is important and I find it very enlightening and spiritually satisfying. I also find reading the Hebrew scriptures from an "esoteric" view to be soul stirring. My next project (like I only have one ) is to read the Hebrew scriptures purely from a Jewish point of view. All my studies of Hebrew scripture have been as a "pointer" to Jesus. I want to learn what the Jewish perspective (reform mostly) is on their own scriptures. I'm particularly interested in reading Harold Kushner because he looks at things from a panentheistic view. Altheia

I had never heard the term preterism until this week and now I am intrigued. Most biblical interpretation is at least partly preterist. Some scholars like NT Wright are heavily preterist, but still believe that some prophecy is pointing to our future. Pacigoth (or anyone), can you recommend a book that looks at the bible through preterist lenses? I know I can do an amazon search, but I wondered if anyone had any recommendations? Aletheia PS: I was just at Barnes and Noble this week picking up a book from CS Lewis and watched about 6 people come down the same isle, go straight to the Christian fiction section, and pick up LeHayes books. Unfortunately it's still going strong.

If things weren't confusing enough ... Don't confuse "inerrant" with "literal" or vice versa. They are not the same thing but often get used as synonyms. Biblical inerrancy is the view that the Bible is the Word of God and is in every detail infallible and without error. Biblical literalism is the view that certain stories in the bible are literally true, such as the 6 day creation account or the parting of the red sea. I guess one could believe in inerrancy, but not be a literalist? But could you be a literalist and not believe in inerrancy? Yup! I thought about it. You could! It would be hard, but I think it could be done! Hey, what denomination would THAT be? Aletheia

Perhaps it's because many Christians feel we (progressives) are no better than "unbelievers" and in some views, even worse? However, despite that, I agree with you. I particularly like the following thought: "What about the men who run about the countryside painting signs that say 'Jesus saves' and 'Prepare to meet God!' Have you ever seen one of them? I have not, but I often try to imagine them, and I wonder what goes on in their minds. Strangely, their signs do not make me think of Jesus, but of them. Or perhaps it is 'their Jesus' who gets in the way and makes all thought of Jesus impossible. They wish to force their Jesus upon us, and He is perhaps only a projection of themselves. They seem to be at times threatening the world with judgement and at other times promising it mercy. But are they asking simply to be loved and recognized and valued, for themselves? In any case, their Jesus is quite different from mine. But because their concept is different, should I reject it in horror, with distaste? If I do, perhaps I reject something in my own self that I no longer recognize to be there. And in any case, if I can tolerate their Jesus then I can accept and love them. Or I can at least conceive of doing so. Let not their Jesus be a barrier between us, or they will be a barrier between us and Jesus." Thomas Merton - New Seeds of Contemplation Aletheia

I read the last book he wrote before he died, Farewell to God. I read it right after it was published actually. It was a gift from my husband to help me come to grips as to why I left Jehovah's Witnesses. I read "Losing Faith in Faith" by Dan Barker at the same time. I respect the choice Templeton made in leaving the Christianity he knew, because he saw the flaws in a literal, infallible view of the Bible. That is why I left JW's. In hindsight, now that I've opened my mind to a new way of imaging Christianity, I wonder what kind of progressive Christian he would have been if he had made that choice instead. He admitted in an interview to Lee Strobel that he missed Christianity. It's sad when everything is tossed out because people believe that literalism is the only way. Aletheia

Merry Christmas right back at ya! I thought it was TOO funny when I received it from a friend. I'd expected to get more comments on it here though, either possitive or negative. Go figure. Aletheia

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. Also please have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, and religious faith or choice of computer platform. By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: 1. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. 2. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. 3. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. 4. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher. Aletheia

No, I don't think so. I can identify myself as Christian and also say that I think God is a fuzzy blue gorilla with spots. I wouldn't claim that God's being a fuzzy blue gorilla with spots is a Christian belief. This is where it gets tricky imo. I can say that a "belief" in Christ is a decisive factor, but most orthodox Christians wouldn't agree with that. Also, the term "belief" is pretty broad. I could say that I believe that Jesus was a man who perfectly manifested God's attributes. I could say that I believe Jesus was a divine being, God's son. I could say that I believe that Jesus was God incarnate on earth. All of the above statements have belief in Jesus in common, but all three statements are very different theologically. Some would say that only a very specific belief of Jesus would qualify a person as a Christian. It's in the specifics that we get in "trouble". Isn't that the purpose of a discussion board? To throw out questions and have people comment on them? Aletheia

I found a post over at beliefnet that eloquently sums up my current view on divine intervention and such. It goes well with what I posted above. Hopefully the person won't mind my quoting them here. I put in the italics. Aletheia

Exactly. I believe that the universe/reality is constantly in a state of "becoming" and that all conscious beings (and maybe even unconscious ones?) participate with the Divine in co-creating reality. I think, like you do that I need to "realize" how to better participate in this co-creation. (Boy, this isn't making sense.) I don't believe that we can "push" God's energy into creating anything bad. I do feel though, that our tuning in to God and surrendering to the experience is part of our learning process. One of my meditative practices is to breath white light into a bubble around myself, filling it with love, compassion, acceptance. Often times I'll "send" this energy outward. At other times, I'll sit quietly and try to "hear/feel" the heartbeat of the universe/god. For me, this is the most fulfilling. And at other times I find myself just saying "Hey God/des, it's Aletheia. Just want to say hi. It's been a _____ day."

Hmmm. I'll have to think about that for a while. I've bopped around so many different thought systems over the past few years that I'm just now coming back to feeling comfortable identifying as Christian. I've been away from the Bible and Christianity for so long that I need to reconnect with Jesus and with scripture. All the views about the Bible, Jesus and Christianity that I had in the past certainly don't apply now. So right now I'd say my main practice as a Christian is studying, reading and learning about progressive thought. I don't believe in divine intervention in human affairs, so I'm relearning how to pray and what it means to pray. I'm learning about contemplation as "prayer" instead of active prayer. But I'd say that "prayer" is a part of my practice. I don't currently attend a church. I don't preach. I'm not involved in any ministries. My faith and practice is a work in progress, so I'll let you know as things go along. Aletheia

Excuse me? I'm confused. Aletheia

Uh... maybe you should have asked what I meant by my tongue in cheek comment? I believe that there are truths to be found in every religion. That when you put everything together and then get rid of the discrepancies, most religions have basic truths in common. I use the term perennial to mean this and not to imply that I follow or believe in the hiearchical pattern of reality as espoused by Aldous Huxley. Most of us are still searching, learning, defining and refining our beliefs. Many of us are in the process of "following a concept to its logical conclusion." I was raised a Jehovah's Witness. They don't exactly encourage thinking or learning. To be able to read, study and think about philosophical and theological ideas is a relatively new experience for me. I spent 1-2 years after leaving JW's feeling I was an atheist. I spent a couple more exploring Neo-Paganism. It's only been recently (through reading Borg, Fox and Moore) that I've realized that I don't have to give up Christianity just because I can't subscribe to a literalist, fundementalist view. Most pantheists that I've come across don't study philosophy. They are usually atheists looking for a way to have some awe or divinity (so to speak) in their lives. They wouldn't describe themselves as perennialists because being a perennialist still involves god. The pantheists I've talk to don't believe in god. Does that make them pantheists in the strict definition of the term? Probably not. But for most of humankind, who don't study theology or philosophy, it's the loose attributes of a philosophy that attract them.

I had to come back to this thread to reread fatherman's post on mysticism. I realized that while I commented that gnosticism isn't the same as mysticism (you can be a gnostic and not be a mystic or be a mystic and not be a gnostic), I didn't comment on the above quote. My comment? Wonderful definition and understanding of mysticism! I want to share a couple of quotes that I really enjoy: "Normal conciousness is a state of stupor, in which sensibility to the wholly real and responsiveness to the stimuli of the spirit are reduced. The mystics, knowing that man is involved in a hidden history of the cosmos, endeavor to awake from the drowsiness and apathy and to regain the state of wakefulness for their enchanted souls." - Abraham Heschel "There must be new contact between men and the earth; the earth must be newly seen and heard and felt and smelled and tasted; there must be a renewal of the wisdom that comes with knowing clearly the pain and the pleasure and the risk and the responsibility of being alive in this world." - Wendell Berry "Everything is full and pure at its source and precisely there, not outside." - Meister Eckhart

I'm so glad you made that distinction. It's frustrating to see mysticism confused with supernaturalism and/or gnosticism. I don't doubt that gnostics have mystical experiences, but gnosticism is NOT mysticism. Don't get me wrong, I find gnosticism interesting intellectually. Studying it has broadened my horizons. However, I can't subscribe to it as a cosmology. I get a kick out of telling fundamentalists that I'm a Panentheistic Perrenialist Progressive Christian Mystic. (Please don't ask me to explain that. Just blame Matt Fox and Joseph Campbell.) Aletheia

I registered for this forum today, so I guess I don't completely qualify as a lurker. However, I'm usually quite quiet. I was turned on to this websight by a chatter over at one of yahoo's religious debate rooms who posted a link. I can't comment on Course in Miracles, because I've never read it. I think the term New Age has become an umbrella term for too many belief systems. I've heard many say that Matthew Fox is "new age", which just makes me chuckle. Aletheia

Beach, This is off topic, but I just had to ask: Did you used to attend a JW congregation or were you a JW? I only ask because I was/am a JW (not disfellowshipped, but definitely inactive). Aletheia

Hello everyone! I'm 36, married and female. I live in northern Utah, near the Rocky Mountains. I'm new to this websight, which surprises me, considering I've thought of myself as a progressive Christian for about 5 years. I don't belong to a local church. I'm considering the UCC or the Episcopalian church. It's difficult to find a progressive church in the area that I live. My favorite religious authors are Marcus Borg, Matthew Fox and Thomas Moore (the Jungian psychologist, not the poet). Aletheia