Neon Genesis

That's an interesting argument and I haven't heard of that interpretation before but Bart D Ehrman argues in his book Jesus Interrupted that Jesus never intended to die on the cross but that he and the apostles thought the end of the world was going to happen within their lifetime and the Son of Man (who Ehrman sees is a separate supernatural being from Jesus) will establish an actual kingdom of God on Earth that would be ruled by the apostles and the Son of Man. But after Jesus was executed and the end of the world never happened, the disciples of Jesus couldn't understand why the prophecy didn't happen so they reimagined the teachings of Jesus so now the kingdom of God was a spiritual realm that wasn't of this world and that rather than obtaining salvation from following the ethical teachings of Jesus, salvation came from having faith in the resurrection of Jesus. I've also heard other arguments from John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack that the apocalyptic scriptures attributed to Jesus represent a later tradition in the Q gospel that was written after the destruction of the temple rather than being a prediction before its destruction. Rather than the gospels portraying one single view of Jesus, the gospels present several views of who Jesus was and the Q gospel's view of Jesus evolves from Jesus being a Cynic sage to an apocalyptic prophet later on in the tradition of the Q sayings. It's good to see you posting again, billmc! I missed your presence on the forums and I hope we'll be seeing more of you again.

The way I see it is that the bible contains both views of universal reconciliation and eternal hellfire. In the Hebrew scriptures, the afterlife is not heaven or hell but Sheol, which literally means the grave and was a place where everybody went to when they died. Although there are passages in the gospels where Jesus speaks of Gehenna rather than hell, there are other passages where both Paul and Jesus predict the end of the world will happen within their lifetimes and how God will cast the sinners into the outer darkness where the worm burns for all eternity.

Another good PC-themed song I would like to add to my list is this song God Help The Outcasts from Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKPEDjUhRO4 I love the part where Esmeralda sings "I thought we all were the children of God" which I think is a beautiful reminder that Jesus' message was one of inclusion and not exclusion and the gospel was meant for everybody, not a social club for the elites of society.

What are your favorite songs that express the values of Progressive Christianity? They don't have to be explicitly Christian or religious songs but any song from any genre that you like that you think expresses the eight points of Progressive Christianity. Two songs that come to my mind are Belinda Carlisle's Heaven Is A Place On Earth: and also Lady Gaga's Born This Way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvFqQ0ALhhA

Speaking as a gay man, the way I see it is any god who would torture someone for all eternity simply because of who they love is not a god worthy of worship and thus cannot be God at all. Whatever the OT says about homosexuality is irrelevant because Jesus' death superseded the old law and Christians are not required to follow the old law. Fundamentalists are cherry picking the bible when they cherry pick the Leviticus condemnation of homosexuality while ignoring the condemnation of eating shrimp or wearing clothes of mixed fabrics. Whether or not Paul condemned homosexuality or if it's all a mistranslation is also irrelevant because Jesus is supposed to be the center of Christian teaching, not Paul. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and even assuming the traditional reading of Paul's views on sexuality are correct, Paul only spoke about homosexuality twice. Both Jesus and Paul spoke far more about religious hypocrisy, sectarianism, and judgmentalism than they did homosexuality. There are passages attributed to Paul that support slavery yet literalists have no problem ignoring those verses. If it's acceptable to "cherry pick" the bible verses on slavery, I don't see why we can't do the same with the two whole verses of the NT on homosexuality.

Have you tried the Metropolitan Community Church?

And in my closing, I will simply post a link to the anti-homosexuality bill itself and let the actual bill speak for itself: http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf Now here's the quote from Leviticus 20:13

What facts have I gotten wrong? You claimed only true Christians can understand the meaning of morality yet "true" Christians are using their literal belief in the bible to form a "kill the gays" bill in Uganda or are you denying there is such a bill? This is not a premise. This is going on right now in Africa. You can see for yourself that this is a real bill inspired by literal beliefs in the bible:

I did not say that the book of Leviticus makes people gay. I think you're missing my point. My point is that you're claiming only bible-believing Christians can have a true understanding of morality if you believe the bible to be literally true. Yet bible-believing Christians in Uganda are trying to pass a law to execute gay people because of their literal belief in the book of Leviticus which commands gay people to be executed because God thinks it's an abomination. These Uganda politicians have specifically cited the teachings of western evangelical Christians like Rick Warren and Richard Cohen as the inspirations for this anti-homosexuality bill. And it goes even further than that, the evangelical Christian, Scott Lively even helped to make this bill. If you can only have a true understanding of morality if you're a bible-believing Christian, why didn't being a bible-believing Christian stop these people from trying to execute gay people or make them more moral people? But there's also a fourth option which many people in the ancient world believed, that perhaps the universe was created by an impersonal god but there's a pantheon of multiple personal deities who worship the impersonal deity.

Sorry, this double posted for some reason.

So, if we can only understand the meaning behind morality through Christianity, why are there Christians in Uganda who are trying to get a bill passed that would execute gay people simply for being gay because of their absolute literal belief in the book of Leviticus? I think this is a good point to bring up, Mike. Even if you believe in God, there are still unanswered questions people have about God that have no easy answers to. Even St Paul says in his famous love chapter that we only know in part now and are seeing through a glass darkly. One example of a question with no easy answers is the problem of evil. For centuries since Epicurus first asked the question, both believers and skeptics have questioned how could a universe filled with suffering be compatible with the existence of a loving, personal, god. Likewise, many believers and skeptics have tried to come up with universal absolute answers to these questions but none of these answers have been universally accepted by everyone and people on all sides of the religious spectrum continue to ask this question and the "answers" continue to lead people into completely different directions.

You claim only true Christians can have meaningful morality so why is it that bible-believing Christians are no more moral or holier than thou than non-Christians are? The bible says you'll know who Christians are by their fruits, so where are your fruits that only true Christians can have a meaningful morality? All you have presented in favor of your understanding of morality being correct is theological arguments, but you have no evidence in favor of your arguments, so if you believe Christianity is more than just a leap of faith, where's the evidence that it's more than a leap? On the other hand, I have posted evidence to the contrary that bible-believing Christians are not morally superior to non-Christians at all or understand morality any better yet you dismiss it as being unimportant while insisting non-Christians are going to hell unless they accept your beliefs without evidence.

If you can only have an absolute moral standard if conservative Christianity is true, why don't even conservative Christians agree on what's moral? There's over 35,000 denominations of Christianity in existence, each claiming to know the truth to some degree yet none of them can agree on what's moral and what isn't. There are conservative Christians who are pro-life and conservative Christians who are pro-choice. There are conservative Christians who believe it's God's will for them to murder abortion doctors and conservative Christians who believe the murderer is sinful. There are conservative Christians who support same-sex marriage and conservative Christians who are against it. There are conservative Christians who believe euthanasia should be a legal option for medical patients and conservative Christians who are against it. I could go on with more examples but if you're a member of a church congregation, I wouldn't be surprised if even in your congregation, there's a huge amount of diversity about what is moral and what isn't moral. Why are modern day conservative Christians against murdering gay people even though according to their same interpretation of the book of Leviticus, God permitted it in the OT if morals are absolute? So, if morals are only absolute if Christianity is true, what is this absolute moral standard and why can't anyone come to a universal agreement on what is moral? I have given you dozens of evidence before where religious people have been no more moral than non-religious people but this went unaddressed. You don't need anymore evidence than to look at the situation in Uganda where evangelical Christians are trying to pass a law in Uganda that would sentence gays to death just for being gay because of a literal absolute belief in the book of Leviticus.

Davidk, what evidence do you have that we can only have morals if your beliefs about Christianity is true?

Yet according to all the surveys, the most religious nations are the most violent nations while the majority of the most secular nations are the most peaceful. Just compare the violence in the U.S. to the violence in Sweden and Sweden is the most peaceful nation in the world even though the majority of the nation of Sweden is a progressive Christian or atheist. Even if we narrow it down to the U.S., the states who have the highest crime rates are the most religious, there are more fundamentalist Christians in prisons than there are atheists, evangelical Christians are more likely to support torture than any other group, evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rates, and there was a recent survey that showed the states with the highest teen pregnancies were also the most religious states. There have been religious wars started in the name of religious extremism but I haven't heard of a war started in the name of progressive Christianity yet. This doesn't mean of course that all atheists and liberal Christians are perfect and it doesn't mean all conservative Christians are evil and immoral people. There are liberals out there who can be closed minded and judgmental and there are conservatives who can be very wonderful and kind hearted people. What it does mean though is that it doesn't matter what religion you have or even if you have no religion at all, people are people and all groups of people are just as likely to make mistakes or good things as the next. There's no evidence that evangelical conservative Christians are somehow more inherently good people than the rest of society. I still don't understand why a god that claims to be loving and just would burn people with fire for all eternity that are otherwise good and moral people simply because they weren't a Christian.

What is that answer for hope that you say only Christianity has?

But did God say it is so or do people claim God said it was so? Why do you think God made it sinful to not believe in conservative Christianity? Why does not being a conservative Christian hurt God? Even if we presume Christianity is the one true way, which version of Christianity should we believe in? There are over 35,000 denominations of Christianity in existence, so how do we know which one we're supposed to believe is the right one? Does it not matter as long as you're a bible-believing Christian? If it doesn't matter as long as you're a bible-believing Christian, why can't progressive Christians be saved as well, and if we can include progressive Christians, why not include non-Christians? Aren't you confiding God to the bible and limiting God's power by saying this is all we need to know about God and all other beliefs are false and deserve to be punished? Isn't that turning God into an engraved image?

But what evidence is there that only true Christians can have meaning in life? There are conservative Christians who have tragically committed suicide and atheists who life satisfied lives. According to that CFI Michigan survey that I mentioned before, the majority of the atheists who were certain about their non-belief that were surveyed were just as satisfied with their lives as the theists who were certain in their beliefs. Interestingly, the people they interviewed who felt the least amount of satisfaction with their life were both theists and atheists who were doubting themselves. Conversely, Canadian atheists were the most satisfied with their lives. It's not being a true Christian that gives people satisfaction and purpose but certainty. Certainty can bring people comfort in an uncertain world where good and evil are not always black and white and there are no easy answers. Unfortunately, the double-edge sword of certainty is that it can also tempt people into thinking that they have all the answers and everyone else is wrong which can easily lead into interfaith violence, denominational schisms, and hatred and judgmentalism and you have to find the right balance in finding purpose and not letting that purpose tempt you into judgmentalism when you've found it. But there's no reason to believe that only conservative Christians can have purpose or meaning. Conservative Christianity may be the most effective at providing people with comfort and certainty, but I think that's more to do with how effective it's been in evangelizing than it being the one true way. If it was only conservative Christianity that gives meaning people to life, why do we have conservative Christian therapists? If everyone in the world was a Christian and there was no one left to evangelize, what would your purpose be?

But even if it was true, why should anyone not a conservative Christian be punished for not being a conservative Christian? I'm not asking you if a non-conservative Christian should be punished. I'm asking why should they be punished just because they're not a conservative Christian. You haven't presented any evidence that not being a conservative Christian somehow hurts other people or that it hurts themselves in some way. If you believe God is all-powerful, then how can not being a conservative Christian hurt God? Why would God make not being a conservative Christian something that deserves to be punished just because God says so?

Why is not believing in conservative Christianity an unrepentant sin that deserves to be punished?

How is not believing in Christianity an evil action? What harm is not believing in Christianity? How are non-Christians or other Christians who are not conservative Christians doing something evil that deserves punishment? And how is being burned by fire for all eternity a justifiable punishment?

Even if we presume that no religion will be special if there is no hell, which do you think is the greater injustice? That a god who claims to be loving would torture someone for all eternity for the victimless thought crime of not believing the right religion or that Christianity might not be special? Is life really so bleak that the very meaning of your existence is dependent on the torture of everyone else? I don't think for a minute that without hell you can have no purpose or meaning in your life. In fact, there was a survey recently conducted by the CFI Michigan on the lives of non-believers which was the most comprehensive study done on atheists and agnostics. One of the interesting findings they found in their research was that non-believers who were certain about their non-belief had just as satisfied and meaningful lives as believers who were certain in their beliefs, so there's no evidence that you can't have meaning or purpose without hell when these people were able to find meaning and satisfaction in their lives who don't believe in god at all. And if the purpose of my life was dependent on another person being tortured for all eternity when the only thing they did "wrong" was not believe in the right religion, I'd rather have no grand purpose in my life than have my purpose be dependent on the torture of others.

I'm not a PC but from my understanding of researching the PC faith and interacting with other PCs here, I think you're misunderstanding PC faith by claiming PCs believe all morals are equal. One analogy I think that would help better understand this position is the parable of the blind men and the elephant:

But where in the bible does it say what the purpose of humanity is? What would you define as the Christian purpose of humanity? If faith is a gift, what makes you think you can decide who Jesus can give salvation to? If it turned out the Christian afterlife does exist and Jesus decided to give salvation to an atheist, would you then question his decision because you believe only true Christians should be saved? No, I don't think I could make a list because I don't think there is such a thing as correct set of things to believe as I think focusing on a correct set of things to believe is missing the point of Jesus' message. I think Jesus' message was primarily about this life and how our actions effect this life rather than about believing the right things to score brownie points with God is turning faith into a work and misses what Jesus was about. I highly recommend reading the book The Case For God by Karen Armstrong but if you want to know what I think the key aspect of Jesus' message was, I think Mark 12:28-34 sums it up as the most important part

And yet the nation of Sweden seems to be doing just fine without the god of fundamentalist Christianity: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?_r=1