glintofpewter

All below are excerpts from an extensive pamphlet used by Bruce Sanguin's church to explain who they are. It brings so many strands of current thinking together and weaves them with Scripture. What is Evolutionary Christian Mysticism? Bruce Sanguin http://beamsandstruts.com/essays/item/922-what-is-evolutionary-christianity a booklet to provide a little theological context for his own congregation members practicing what they identify as "evolutionary Christian spirituality", and for those visitors to Canadian Memorial who want to know more about what's going on there. Rather, God “makes” a world that can make itself. The universe moves in a biased direction toward increased wholeness (unity), orderliness (which includes random activity), creativity, and consciousness. But the promise of God is that, even with all of its imperfection, suffering, and tragedy, the story will be meaningful, fulfilling, and ultimately a story of Love’s progress. To be Christian, then, is to take on this spirit that is continually breaking open—not replacing—and advancing tradition. By interpreting evolution from within the Christian tradition, and interpreting our tradition through the lens of evolution, we are being faithful to the spirit of Jesus. It is the very heart of our lineage to be watching for how Spirit is moving to evolve the tradition. But the greatest scientist to have ever lived, Albert Einstein, said that the mystical emotion is the highest emotion available to us. The “mystical emotion” is grounded in an experience of unity: the awareness and experiential feeling that Reality is One, and we are expressions of that unity, manifesting in wondrous diversity. This mystical sensibility that there is only one, seamless reality and that we are an expression of that unity is grounded in solid science and in the mystic sensibility of mystics of all religious traditions, including Judaism and Hubble-telescope-Merging--003Christianity. Science is revealing a universe that supports this mystic intuition. We are the interior dimension of the universe evolving. And this interior dimension is filled with “God”: the Mind (Conscious Intelligence) and Heart (Love) that is the ground of Being or the “divine milieu” from which a universe emerged and evolved 13.7 billion years ago and continues to emerge and evolve. The paradox is that we are That which we’ve been seeking our entire lives. What we mean is that we are embodied expressions of the Mystery of the Holy One and the Sacred Oneness of Reality. These are divine qualities and characteristics that abide within each of us, but it has taken 200,000 years of evolution for us to realize; that is, to make them real within ourselves through conscious awareness. Given that we are evolutionary creatures, the capacity for love, wisdom, creativity, and the wise use of our power is still in the process of being realized. This is evolutionary Christian mysticism: persons on the path of Christ, consciously evolving in community, one with the evolving cosmos, and one with the divine Heart and Mind, in loving service to our one Earth community. -------------------- I would attend this church Dutch

Paul, I like it very much. I am adding it to my collection of statements of faith I like. Dutch

It's too early for my eyes to focus closely but I don't care for the tiled background. I hope your wordpress theme allows for a Single image which I think works best. Your choice of song suggests a narrow target audience. Can you define it? Do you have people already signed up to follow the blog? Will the blog include 2-D and 3_d art in addition to music. Are postings going to include a lot of your writing. Is it restful and will it promote rest in the very reading of it? It doesn't look like you are verbose. I hope not. I would hope to see quotes from many religious cultures which call us to a spiritual and contemplative walk. Can God be proud? of anything man made? God might be in the celebration of community, in the joy of a resting with each other. in the lamentations of those broken hearted that the church is changing in unknown ways. But proud? I think not. Dutch

UCC, United Church of Christ. Should try them. "God is still speaking" is their "slogan". "Open and Affirming" is code for welcoming all regardless of gender orientation. "More Light" is the way Presbyterians (PCUSA) say it and "Reconciling" is how Methodists say it. These days I would gather several weeks of their worship bulletin and read the liturgy to see if that was what I wanted to say every Sunday. I would review the hymns/songs. Some pastors post their sermons online. Look for church websites. Before I ramble on could you tell me what the rest of the title of the topic was going to say? Dutch

"... in the evening the youth came to him [Jesus], wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan." —The Secret Gospel of Mark, The Other Bible, Willis Barnstone, Editor, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1984, pp. 339-342.

Why have I not been told about this? When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite And 700 years later the lawyers said There are contrary indications about the entire ceremony. The late 18th century Orthodox law text known as the Pedalion or Rudder does indicate that the ceremony was [ab]used in this way. http://www.fordham.e...urce/2rites.asp Are there equivalent rites in non-Christian societies? Was this the equivalent of civil unions? Here are arguments against Boswell's conclusions. http://www.rense.com/general50/cath.htm A key point "A ceremony of blessing would hardly sanction------in a subliminal, contextual reading------what Popes and Saints forthrightly condemned." Unfortunately sometimes the church is excellent at just such an exercise. Dutch

If you don't know Gretta Vosper and Rex Hunt let me introduce you. http://grettavosper.ca/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1&limit=4&limitstart=4 http://www.rexaehuntprogressive.com/resources.html

In the three years I have been here, this seems like a high point. More participants than at any time in the last three (I might be wrong) contributing regularly. A good mix of light and heavy discussions. I'm in good company.

Steve said It is in Einstein's thought experiments that data about the external world and observations of our internal world interact. Here he says The intuition came first and then was followed by Einstein's seeking the words to explain the intuition and then working to find all the implications. Then others came to test the these implications as hypotheses. The intuition is part of the fabric by which all entities, actualities are internally related. We call it consciousness or mind, and associate soul and spirit with these internal experiences. Dutch

Perhaps this is best practices but real science doesn't always work this way. What the scientist considers to be true will not be tested. Only what the scientist is free to consider as new possibilities will be tested. Only the visionary/prophet will consider ideas outside the known world that others felt were preposterous. Many scientific discoveries have gone unnoticed for years and decades because other scientists could not believe they could be true. Some maverick ideas found acceptance others did not. as I understand it much of Einstein genius was thinking up thought experiments and not data gathering to arrive at his propositions. Technology was not available for decades to test some of the hypothesis that grew out of his work. The scientific world lived as if his ideas were true until they were or not true. There are differences between the data gathered when studying the external relationships and studying the internal relationships. Dutch

Steve, I used the word belief in a broad sense. That doesn't seem to work for you. Scientists said they lived in an Newtonian universe until Einstein came along. -- there is a long list of changes in the scientific understanding of the world. Each position along way the is equivalent of the confessions a church makes about what it understands. Both religionist and scientist test their hypothesis and gather data. Scientists write papers for each other and journals. Religionists write confessions and give testimony as their data and participate at forums like this. I think that is how humans work. They look for those understandings that best explain the world. These views change for scientists and religionists. Scientists focus on the external relations of the universe and religionists focus on the internal relations of the universe. We say what we think is true today. We live according to our truths. We review our data. If needed we change our hypothesis and live another day. This is true for religionists and for scientists. There are both scientists and religionists who become fixed in their views and do not ever again entertain a new hypothesis. Call it results and conclusions and new hypothesis or call it confessions, which change over the centuries. I think it is the same human process. Dutch

NRSV decided "My hands and feet have shriveled." (with a foot note that the meaning was uncertain) was the best translation. I doubt that humans waited thousands of years until the Roman occupation to learn that a good way inflict pain on the enemy was to pierce hands and feet. When we in the present read an ancient text that resonates with us and our stories it is not the past that looks to us but we that look to the past. We create the past's predictions by seeing ourselves in its reflection. Dutch

Phil, It seems to me that this would indicate that the writers of the Gospels read the Psalms. Is there a simpler explanation? Dutch

Phil, I have to believe them to want to explain them. God holds all possibilities for the next moment but does not, cannot know what the actuality will be. If this non-responsive to the question I'll check when I get home.

Both science and religion are confessional: this what we believe until we are convinced otherwise. Perhaps one is knowledge of how things are externally related and one is knowledge of how things are internally related. Dutch

Neither did I. I was pointing to the difficulty of categorizing scientists view on whether religion and science are in conflict. He would say that they are not in conflict.

Steve has pointed out a key obstacle to getting good results in any study: this vocal and public polarization between the creationism and ID people and scientists and school teachers over textbooks. John Polkinghorne, mathematician and theologian, has been very involved in the struggle to block creationism and Intelligent Design efforts to change learning the scientific method. Followers of Polkinghorne are insulted if I say that he believes in intelligent design - but he says the pure beauty of mathematics is witness to a divine intelligence. He would be a scientist who would say there is no conflict between religion and science and, at the same time, has been on the front lines, fighting off the efforts of Religious fundamentalists who would return us scientifically to the Dark Ages. Dutch

Bill, well said. God and Jesus, not knowing all that was knowable, but nothing about what was going to happen, had hoped that Jesus's preaching would be sufficient; that people would understand and change their lives. It didn't work out that way. But Judas was not the only reason and, perhaps, not even the central point on which all else turned. When the result was not quite what God and Jesus hoped for, they tried something new, resurrection of Christ. That would be a process view. God and creation, including humans, working in partnership. God remembers everything that has happened and knows all the possibilities for the next moment but does not know the future that actually happens until it does. For another view from Jesus Christ Superstar - Dutch

I changed the title to reflect the question in the OP

I have yet to see a survey whose results are not heavily influenced by methodology and language. In a short time, I could not find enough about this study to relieve me of my sekpticism. For the 15% who think that science and religion always conflict their view of religion is creationism. The damage that this survey can mitigate is that many of us just want to avoid the fight. Just as negative political advertising reduces voter turnout this controversy causes people to turn away and stop thinking. But I think that as useful as publicizing this survey is, it should be the topic of Sunday School Classes and subject of sermons. It is not enough to say many scientists are religious; I think we have to find specific language to link science and religious themes. Furthermore it should speak to the concerns of the spiritual but atheist people, who often are given no support in churches that always put forward a theistic God.

I didn't get far. I was struggling to find a focus in this discussion of what 'religion' is and is not - sometimes seeming to be what it is not and sometimes seeming to not be what it is. Not always a wrong way to approach a spiritual experience since it is ineffable. Since I know from other discussion, that "True religion" is a personal spiritual experience, this use of the word "religion' seems careless language to describe both corporate and personal experiences. But the writer is not satisfied with the mystical, "it is what it is not" and introduces "Thought Adjuster" out of the blue Suddenly we are scientific and mechanistic in description.. To visualize the language I thought of a Jackson Pollack painting: lots of action (ideas) dripping splashing, the canvas filled with marks of all kinds failing to bring into focus an idea or two but creating an overall effect that is difficult to describe because the painting is and is not about the drips and streaks and slashes of paint. - and Lee Krasner creating the intellectual space so that others would see the paintings worthy of being called art and carrying meaning. Dutch

I think Bill and George have a viable suggestion, Go to the Authority: Where in the Bible? or What did Jesus say about this? The other idea to consider is to understand her motives because they are not because she is a Christian. That reasoning almost always comes after the reaction. John Haidt suggests 5-6 moral foundations that we all respond to before we start reasoning. The three that liberals ignore, according to Haidt are: Loyalty to your group, family, nation. (He also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.) Respect for tradition and legitimate authority. (He also referred to this dimension as Authority.) Purity or Sanctity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. I think your friend is responding to these gut feelings and adding Christian reasoning. In your list I see concerns that come out of the "disgust reaction" (Purity), tribal loyalty, authority, wanting to feel safe, etc. Maybe you could have a conversation about who "us" is and stretch the boundaries of Loyalty, Purity and Authority. Peter had a vision about what is permissible to eat. Paul fought the requirement of circumcision. Both were stretching the boundaries of what is acceptable and who could be Christian. I think these comments also can be understood as coming from an Interdependent Self Worldview (Hazel Markus Independent Self (generally college graduates) vs. Interdependent Self (not college educated)) The Interdependents perceive a world that is not welcoming, they want to be part of a group and not stand out (for safety?), want to fit in, rooted, geographically and in their world views, and live in a ranked world where everyone has their place. They will follow the lead of people they perceive to be in authority and who have a conservative (in the traditional sense) worldview It may not help the relationship but it is something to think about. Dutch

When I went to Mexico with our youth group we were given a dress and behavior code so that we would not violate any local norms and reflect badly on our enterprise. It is worthwhile to think about our behavior and its effects on ourselves and our community. I don't think it can be a black and white list like the one you have listed. It is simpler but not required or sufficient. Guidelines must be more flexible to give better outcomes. Dutch

There have always been some who do what ever they can to effect this. New technology won't introduce a new motive. But we can be part of the conversation that creates common ideas about the moral limits of the technology.

Working hard followed by playing hard - once again, Paul, can it get any better?