BillM

Joseph, Just being honest, I don't think this kind of spirituality would be a good fit for me. I value the mind and our ability to think as reasoning creatures. I also value judgment, without which we could make no moral or ethical decisions. In my opinion, it is the religions which refuse to use their minds to think and reason that often do the most damage to people and our world. Speaking only for myself, love is an act of the will (which arises in the mind), not the absence of thought. For me, this is because love is bound up in actions (which require thought as activators), not in feelings. But I do realize that this form of spirituality appeals to and works for many people. I am simply wired differently. Thanks for the info anyway. As they say, "Different strokes for different folks!"

Joseph, I don’t know as I would, personally, take Bonhoeffer’s quote to say to “live in the past.” I guess we (you and I) are interpreting it differently. There is, IMO, a lot of wisdom in the religions and philosophies which teach and encourage us to “live in the now”, to be present today – for today is all we truly have. We can’t change yesterday and we don’t know what tomorrow brings. So I can certainly see the wisdom in being present to the moment and to make the most of what each day brings to us. Stoicism stresses this to a large extent. But (you knew there was a “but” coming, right?) I don’t think being present to the now means forgetting the past or being unconcerned about the future. I try to seek balance, though I’m not always successful. I know that I can’t change the past, so I don’t live there. But the past does affect my present, speaking only for myself. And the future will influence my children and grandchildren. So though I don’t want to be anxious and worrisome about the future, I am concerned about it. From a practical viewpoint, I don’t want Moriah’s death to emotionally cripple me to where all I do is mourn her loss. That would be, as you say, living in the past. I would end up neglecting the living in my life for the sake of the dead. Nor would I want her death to make me paranoid about either driving or losing other loved ones in my life. That way leads to paranoia. But neither can I follow the way that advocates living so much in the present that I forget that she ever existed or makes me unconcerned for future laws in my state that could significantly reduce the kinds of accidents that led to her death. This is why the question of God’s sovereignty is, IMO, important. If God or the universe conspired to kill Moriah, then, yes, mourning her loss or trying to get distracted driving laws passed is anti-God. I shouldn’t mourn her or try to change anything. I should accept it as God’s plan and just “live in the moment”, forgetting the past and leaving the future to “que sera, sera.” But my conscience will not allow me to take that attitude. I hope you can understand, even if you don’t agree.

Something Marcus Borg brings out in one of his books (I think it is, "The Heart of Christianity") is that the English word "believe" actually goes back to the word "belove." We interpret the word "believe" as "I give my mental assent to", whereas "belove" means "I give my heart to." The first is, metaphorically, a matter of the head which doesn't require much action as a response. The second is, metaphorically, a matter of the heart that does require action as a response. I am the first to say that I find it difficult to give my heart to something that my head rejects. I tend to be a rationalist. But when I say that I believe in my wife, this doesn't mean that I am convinced that she exists (although I am - ha ha). It doesn't mean that I can recite a bunch of facts about her (although I can - ha ha). It means that I am in a trusting relationship with her. To say that I believe in my wife goes to her character. And because I believe in her, there is action required on my part in order to keep the relationship ongoing and healthy. Word-meanings change over time. In our modern age, truth seems to depend upon factual analysis. I'm not against factual truth at all. But I also think that truths of what we be-love have powerful transformative effects in our lives. And it makes me wonder what would happen if we went from "believers" to "be-lovers"?

I found this quote by Bonhoeffer: “There is nothing that can replace the absence of someone dear to us, and one should not even attempt to do so. One must simply hold out and endure it. At first that sounds very hard, but at the same time it is also a great comfort. For to the extent the emptiness truly remains unfilled one remains connected to the other person through it. It is wrong to say that God fills the emptiness. God in no way fills it but much more leaves it precisely unfilled and thus helps us preserve -- even in pain -- the authentic relationship. Further more, the more beautiful and full the remembrances, the more difficult the separation. But gratitude transforms the torment of memory into silent joy. One bears what was lovely in the past not as a thorn but as a precious gift deep within, a hidden treasure of which one can always be certain.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

I appreciate your input, Paul. What appeals to me about both pantheism and panentheism is the theme that God works through and in concert with the natural forces of our universe instead of by suspending them as supernatural theism often posits. From my studies, pantheism usually holds that God always was (or at one time became) nature. Nature and God are synonymous, no longer having any separation. I’m not sure if this is animism or not. But many pantheists which I have interacted with seem to think that everything is in, in some sense, alive and conscious. While this view champions the notion that nature is to be respected (because it is God), I’m quite skeptical that rocks and rivers are alive and conscious. Panentheism usually says that nature is found within God, but that God is not intrinsically nature. In this view, God is more theistic (outside of nature) but still able to work in and through it. I see panentheism as “God pregnant with nature.” Both of these views suffer from the fact that nature, while powerful, is not intrinsically moral or good. Nature seems to be morally neutral, although it does seem to lean toward higher and higher complexity (evolution). But God, in these views, is just as much behind a tornado as God is behind a gorgeous sunset. It is just the way the universe is and the way the universe works. Nature is violent and harsh, sharp in tooth and red in claw (if that is how the saying goes). This cannot be denied. As to whether this is God or not, it depends on how one defines God. Christianity *usually* says that God is all-good but that he is a mystery i.e. his sense of goodness is probably not our sense of goodness. When this is asserted, IMO, it makes God’s goodness unintelligible. Recent studies (although I can’t cite them specifically) say that many people (at least Americans) long for churches that affirm the reality of God. But the kind of God that most churches affirm, the supernatural theistic God, no longer makes sense to modern sensibilities and experiences. So, having no other framework for considering God, people leave. People like Spong and Tillich have given Christianity other ways to consider God. Spong admits that his framework probably will not work for the institutional Church, tied as she is to the Creeds and supernatural theism. But he says the Church is not his primary audience anyway. If people are happy with supernatural theism, why rock the boat? But I, for one, am glad for Christian thinkers who give us alternatives. It’s always good to have choices, is it not?

From reading Spong's books and listening to his many talks, I know that he is a fan of Tillich. Spong is, by his own admission, a non-theist. For him, God is "that which calls me to live life fully, to love wastefully, and to be all I can be (as a human)." This rings true for me as well. In this sense, I find "God" both internal and external. God is found in my conscience, in my rationale, in my inner sense of self, in my longings to be the best person I can. But I can also find this kind of God in the scriptures, in the Church, in nature, in astronomy, in my family and friends. And I realize that there really is no separation between the internal and the external (IMO). This kind of God really does go beyond our human boundaries. This is what I think that panentheism points to, Paul. As you say (or quote) "In him we live and move and have our being." Of course, the Bible was written from the theistic, male-God point-of-view, so we have to make allowance for the term "him." But I agree with both you and Joseph that *some* of Paul's writings stress quite heavily that nothing can separate us from God or one another. This notion may come out of Paul's theistic framework, but I think it transcends it. For my own reasons, I am not a huge fan of church growth or "Christianizing" culture. As Joseph has said, we are not much about proselytizing. But I do think that people who consider themselves to be spiritual are seeking for God. In that sense, I, perhaps a little like the bishop himself, seek the kind of God-language that would make the term "God" appealing to 21st century people who can no longer hold to a literal, theistic view. Just some musings.

Joseph, that thread on Tillich's book was an interesting read. I still think he was, to a large extent, way over my head. Speaking only for myself, I'm caught in the middle on the internal/external God. My experience tells me that God does not act nowadays as the Bible said he did 2000 years ago. As I'm sure you're aware, the Bible says that this external God came down from heaven to our world in the form of Jesus, did miracles to prove he was God, died for our sins, was resurrected, and then ascended to return to God in heaven. Along with many of progressives, I think this is probably a distortion of God and of Jesus' mission. But that is another subject. But I know the protective heavenly Father figure no longer rings true with my life-experiences. I am in great ignorance about the internal God. I guess I don't know what it means anymore. When I was an evangelical, I claimed that Jesus lived inside me, in my heart. But I found that I couldn't do what Jesus did, despite my claim. And despite the claims of Christians that Jesus literally lived inside of them, I found that they couldn't do miracles, heal the sick, raise the dead, or do the things Jesus did either. So it makes me skeptical of such claims. This doesn't mean that they are not good people, doing good things. But so are agnostics and atheists and people who know nothing of Jesus. Having said that, I do know that mystics say that they experience God and unity with God directly. Jesus himself made this claim. And, perhaps, if this is a true and valid experience, then the line of differentiation or identity may indeed blur or disappear to where the person experiencing God doesn't know where they leave off and God begins. And vice versa. Whatever it is that happens, and from wherever it comes, it seems to have a profound affect on people and on those these people touch. I admire that. In fact, I'm a bit jealous of it (just being honest). But most say that it can't be transferred or taught. It "just happens." Ah, the mystery of the spiritual life. I appreciate your input and views.

You're right about words and labels, Joseph, but that is usually all we have to work with in order to communicate en masse. As I've mentioned, I find this subject interesting...but not necessary. These days I'm an agnostic as far as an external God is concerned. But Jesus' teachings still carry a lot of meaning and example for me. "So our coming of age leads us to a true recognition of our situation before God. God would have us know that we must live as men who manage our lives without him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us (Mark 15:34). The God who lets us live in the world without the working hypothesis of God is the God before whom we stand continually. Before God and with God we live without God." - Bonhoeffer

I'll have to give it some thought, Joseph. Ideas about both PT and pantheism are attractive to me as alternatives to supernatural theism. As you recall, I was one of the ones here a couple of years ago who were not happy with the word "God" being removed from the revised 8 Points. But events in my life have caused me to see how limiting the word "God" can be for some people. And you well know that we can often make idols out of our words. I know mostly about Process Theology through Epperly and Spong, not through reading the direct writings of Tillich, Hartshorne, or Whitehead. While these people do not seem to posit God as a being external to us, they still seem to advocate the notion of God as "presence", perhaps with some kind of consciousness (depending on who one reads). Pantheism does not usually posit God as consciousness unlike it is in us. In other words, if God acts in our world, it is only through us that God acts. In this sense, there is no dividing line between us and God, between humanity and divinity. It's an interesting notion, but I suspect it leads to religious humanism (which I wouldn't be opposed to). Maybe more later.

Thanks, Joseph. In your view, do you think PT is closely related to pantheism? Why or why not? And thanks for the link. I'll spend some time reading that discussion.

I've lately been reading some of Process Theology and trying to understand Paul Tillich's views (which is a challenge for me). I find this approach to God attractive, but I have to admit that I am stymied as to what "the ground of being" means in common English. Can any of you who have considered PT help me to understand this term better? I know it stands in contrast to theism, but I don't have a good grasp as to what it means. Any thoughts?

Wise observation and advice, Fatherman. Perhaps many or most of us make our way here with some kind of baggage. I know that I did. And I know I probably still have quite a bit. That's simply the way life is. Yes, I could wallow in regret and self-pity, but there is no health or growth there. I can't change anything. All I can do is to try to respond to life and my journey today in positive ways. And I can be grateful that everything I have experienced has lead me to this point in my journey, not a bad place to be. I think you're right about the false notion of certainty. I have erroneously interpreted faith, in the past, as certainty. But I no longer see faith that way. Now, I see faith as trust and hope. For me, it doesn't depend upon certainty, although I am certainly in favor of reason and common sense. Like you, I may see things differently later. But I still find compassionate to be key and core to the journey. (Edited for small additions)

I'm not convinced that we really choose our beliefs, Fatherman. What I mean is that I tend to think that life presents experiences to us and we simply find ourselves where we are, believing what we believe. And then, as you have said, we find confirmation bias in others. This doesn't mean that our beliefs can't or don't change. But I don't think any of us wake up one day and say to ourselves, "I think I'll change what I believe today." I think our changing beliefs are due to our changing experiences, growth, and knowledge. I don't know if I would give up my journey, but I wish I had been smarter younger.

Hi all. It’s been two years since I’ve been active on this forum. I’ve missed it. Not just the content, but, mostly, the people. People here are almost always kind, understanding, and supportive. They challenge me in good ways, in how I think and in how I act. This forum is, in my opinion, a fairly safe place to share where we are in our journeys, to follow the journeys of others, and to encourage one another along the way. My beliefs and values have not changed that much from when I was here last. I do need to apologize for a statement I made in my last update. I wrote: “All I know is that I can't give up on love. Life has taught me that. Often the hard way. But then, Christianity is not love.” I still can’t give up on love. But I was unfair to classify Christianity as unloving. Christianity is, of course, a religion made up of all kinds of people. Within that religion, there is a lot of diversity. So, as might be expected, one can find many loving people within Christianity…and others who may not be as loving as they, perhaps, should be. I have been guilty of this myself. The death of my 5-year-old granddaughter in a car accident last Christmas Eve has caused me to reconsider my theological understanding of God and God’s relationship/interaction with us and our world. Though I am in no way thankful for her death, it has lead me to think of and possibly relate to God in ways that I haven’t before. I’m still in the midst of this and I hope it will ultimately be a good thing for me. Process theology is of special interest to me right now (though much of it is over my head). I wrote in my last update: “I still like Jesus and think he was right about many things.” This continues. He fascinates me and I’m drawn to his teachings and way of life. But I also realize that I have to walk my own spiritual path. In that sense, Jesus is, for me, more of a companion on the way than someone I have to blindly follow. And, at my best, that’s all I wish to be for others also – a friend along the way. Peace to all.

Mcarans, there is a fast-growing segment of our population today who don't hold to any one religious tradition, but synthesize their own spirituality out of many sources. These are know as the SBNRs (spiritual-but-not-religious) or the "Nones". It is a label that is growing. But, as you might expect, it is quite ambiguous.

Mcarans, I hope you don't mind me sharing my views on this. IMO, for me to be a "progressive Baha'i", I would have to give the person of Baha'u'llah and his teachings a fair amount of weight and centrality to my life. I have looked into the Baha'i faith a little, and while I admire some of its approaches to spirituality and unity, I don't find everything there to be progressive or rational. For instance, women cannot serve in the Universal House of Justice. Why? Because Baha'u'llah forbids it. So, in my opinion and as with many religions, its teachings are based in authority (that of Baha'u'llah and his delegated descendants as prophets of God) rather in a search for truth, which, I believe, continues to progressively unfold. Having said that, I don't self-identify as a "progressive Christian" either. Here are my main reasons for not wearing that label: 1. First, Christianity in our Western culture is most often defined against the sin-redemption model of evangelicals or holding to the creeds of the orthodox churches. Neither of these work for me. 2. Second, I'm not a good follower of Jesus as he is portrayed in the gospels and per his stated requirements of what it takes to follow him. 3. Lastly (and please correct me, Joseph or other mods if necessary), I have never found a concise definition here or anywhere else within the Progressive Christianity movement that stipulates exactly what constitutes a progressive Christian i.e. what must be believed, rejected, done, abstained from, etc. It seems to be left up to the individual as to whether they want to self-identify as a progressive Christian. I respect those that do, but I consciously choose not to. However, I cannot deny that Progressive Christianity most closely aligns with my own sense of what it means to be spiritual (experiencing connectedness - to self, to others, to the world, even to what some call God). I have been influenced by such progressive and liberal writers/speakers as Jack Spong, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and others who try to get at the heart of Christianity while saying that it needs to grow and change lest it becomes irrelevant to our culture and future. Christianity is my mother-religion, the religious culture in which I was raised, my native language, so-to-speak. Christianity is my roots, but I don't let it limit my branches. And though I may not self-identify as a "progressive Christian", I find that it helps me with my branches and gives me the room I need to grow.

Roman, I enjoy the way you write. >>But to have faith it means we believe something as true though we can never be sure. I think this is generally true, at least as I see religious faith. However, many "believers" are sure (or say they are) that their religion is the right and true one. What evidence is there for a faith being the true one? It's own claim to be so? That doesn't work for me. Besides, I'm more concerned about whether a faith is good rather than if it is ontologically true. But that's another subject. Well, maybe not seeing as we are talking about pluralism. Charter for Compassion comes to mind. >>Today I had a 4.5 hour drive through the Rockies ... a beautiful drive. I envy you. I was stationed at Lowry AFB during 1983-1984. The mountains were gorgeous. We don't have those in Texas. >>I believed I would get to my destination without incident? Is this faith, belief, or reasoned thought? Because if I thought I would have an accident I would not have started the journey. As an agnostic, I try to base my life on probabilities. If it were my drive, is it possible that I could have an accident? Yes. Is it probable? No. I've driven enough to know (not to have faith, but to have the experience) that while it is possible that I could get in an accident, it is not probable IF I take all the necessary precautions and drive as responsibly as I can. I don't know what I would do if I believed it to be predetermined that I be in an accident. >>Some people put their faith in a personal God, some people don't even think about it, and some understand their capabilities, the engineered roads and the probabilities involved. Very true. I no longer pray for "traveling mercies" or believe in guardian angels. I certainly don't sing, "Jesus, Take the Wheel." >>While it was not necessarily true I would get to my destination safely, it did turn out to be an accurate description of the events. I'm glad to hear it. But did you arrive safely because you trusted in you experience-proven driving capabilities, the engineered roads, and the likely probability that the journey would be a success? Or was it an act of faith? >>There are two terms noumena (things as they really are) and phenomena (things as they are experienced). Some of us think we experience god, but that does not mean there is one. And vice versa. I suspect those are the terms to which I was pointing. Because we are phenomenological creatures, I don't know if or how much access we have to the noumena world. Quantum physics seems to tell us that photons behave differently when subjected to the experience of our observation of them. Why? Further, it seems to suggest that the sub-atomic universe operates, not on laws of immutable math, but on probabilities. Granted, I still live as if Newton's Laws hold sway in my life. I admire that science is trying to get to noumena while acknowledging phenomena. But I dislike it when religions, by faith, claim that phenomena is noumena. I will acknowledge that people's experiences are real for them (just as mine are for me). But if they want me to accept their experiences as binding on me, I need evidence for the noumena-side. Faith, in my case, is not enough. >>I suppose my point is we are forced pragmatically to have beliefs and make choices, but that does not mean we have to believe them as true. I agree. I can't make decisions if everything is likely possible. I have to go with what is probable.

That would be a good topic, Fatherman. Current quantum physics (which I understand only insomuch that I don't understand it) says that reality is not as it appears at all. It suggests that though Reality is real and here, it is mostly 99.99% made up of nothing. My brain hurts.

I think you make a very good point, Jen, concerning Truth and truth. In my words, I would put it thus: there is Truth, which is Reality as reality really is. And then there our human perceptions of Truth which are truth (little 't'). These truths come from our senses, cultures, religions, philosophies, traditions, and our own conceptions of Truth. But because they originate with us, they are subjective and only little 't' truth. Of course, none of this stops prophets from claiming to have the big 'T' Truth. That's simply how religions work. But, for me, it is a process of knowing that all I have is little 't' truth while still strive toward the big 'T' Truth.

Fatherman, I will respect your decision to leave, but I truly wish you would stay. I understand what you mean by wanting to be among people who share a more mainline Christian beliefs. I attend a UMC with my wife. She is fairly conservative and evangelical, but liberal enough to stay married to me. While this is a good church and people there love me, their theology is admittedly quite mainline and I constantly struggle with where/if I fit in. I am definitely a heretic there, but loved as I am nonetheless. There is, of course, something very natural and human about wanting a place of peace. We probably all long for that on some level. But I would gently ask (of myself also), is it in places of peace and tranquility that we grow best? Your friend, Bill

I think I might sort of know what you mean, Roman. I still feel...raw. And in searching for ways to deal with my grief (which continue), I find myself considering things that I wouldn't have before. I'm not sure I'm where you are in being able to now say that Moriah's death was a gift, but it has, in an odd twist, helped me to reprioritize some things and to contemplate what the important things in life really are.

Hi Jen. My wife and I have quite different eating habits. When I was growing up, there wasn't that much food to go around, having 4 other siblings. Plus, my mother would often say, "You better eat all of that, mister. There are children starving in China." As a result, I tend to "clean my plate", don't usually leave food there, and I struggle with my weight. My wife, on the other hand, will almost dissect her food, looking for what she calls her "best bites." I ask, "Why don't you just eat the whole thing?" She replies, "I don't want to eat the whole thing. I just enjoy certain parts." Drives me nuts. So I take the "Whole Enchilada" approach while she takes the "Best Bites" approach. The faith of my youth, in my particular journey, often reinforced the "Whole Enchilada" approach. It said that I had to believe ALL of the Bible (or none of it) or ALL of what my denomination taught (or leave it) or ALL of what orthodox Christianity holds to (or leave it). It was all or nothing. Is this possible? Is this wise? Should I do as Jesus said and leave my family for his sake? Should I hate my father and mother just because he said so? Should I drink poison or handle snakes to prove my faith? Should I seek out a priest to exorcise me from my epilepsy? I am speaking only for myself, but I can no longer with good, rational, or compassionate sense take the "Whole Enchilada" approach to Jesus, the Bible, the Church, Christianity or spirituality. Some of my more evangelical friends have insisted that I don't have the right or freedom to believe as I wish or as my conscience, mind, heart, and soul lead me to. But how can I do otherwise? Anything less would be false. I am slowly (and often painfully) moving to more and more of a "Best Bites" approach to religion or faith. Another apostle put it this way, "Test all things, hold to what is good." Others of my agnostic and atheist friends say that if I throw out the dirty bathwater of the "God Delusion", I will find there is no baby there. I disagree. There is still a baby there worth valuing. It is just that I value him differently now than I did before. Again, Jen, I only speak for myself. I in no way speak for other Progressive Christians. And I don't insist that anyone else believe or disbelieve as I do. All I can do is to share why I believe and act as I do.

Jen, I sincerely meant no offense. What I meant is that Jesus, as a mystic, believed in God as a father-figure up in the sky -- "Our Father, who are in heaven..." I did NOT mean that all mystics view God this way. From what I know (which isn't very much), mystics experience God on a personal level, often within themselves. Some might call this "Christ in you." There is no mediator for many mystics. They experience God directly. I'd like to clarify one small thing. You speak of the "need" for Jesus. You are correct. On a certain level, I don't "need" him. For years, I was told that I needed him to save me. Now, my path is my own. I don't follow Jesus. I can't. I can't do what he said to do (just being honest). So while I don't "need" him as such, I still find his views and teachings and way of life inspiring and helpful to me. This frees me to choose what parts of Jesus work for me, just as I would with any other teacher. Is this denigrated to him? I think not. I think he was one of the best human beings this world ever had and we would do well to have more like him. But, again, I didn't mean to offend you. Please forgive me. It is always a delicate matter to express one's opinion, not knowing whether it will offend others or not. Peace.

Joseph's advice makes a lot of sense to me. Obviously, if someone is in the path of direct harm, we should help if they let us. But the choice is ultimately up to them. Sometimes (often), the best we can do is to set an example. My daughter chain-smokes probably 4 packs of cigarettes a day. I've preached to her about the dangers associated with the habit. She knows the facts and figures. She smokes anyway. She does what she wants to do. This goes somewhat to our recent discussions of God's will and human choices. As a father, I raised my children as best as I could, with what I knew (which wasn't much). My goal in raising them was not so that they would rely upon me for the rest of their lives, depending upon me to intervene and fix life for them or to rescue them from all of the problems in life. My goal was to teach them to make the best decisions they could and then to live with those decisions, for better or worse. In other words, they needed to grow up and take responsibility for their own lives. I helped give life to them, but what they do with it is their choice. I think that if there is a God, God is much the same. I.e. God wants us to grow up and take responsibility for our own decisions and lives instead of "having faith that he is in control." Nevertheless, yes, I think we learn more by what is caught than what is taught.

Jen, I find your thoughts and views on this fascinating. Although a lot of what you say is over my head (or brain), you seem to champion a holistic approach to what I would call a healthy spirituality that rings true for me. IMO, for far too long spirituality (probably due to Paul's teachings) has had a disdain for the physical body (including the brain), not acknowledging that our physicality affects our spirituality and vice versa. So I appreciate, if I understand you correctly, that you are trying to reclaim us as BOTH physical and spiritual beings and that the two are intertwined. Now, having said that, I do take issue with your view on this: I agree with you that Jesus was a theist, that he viewed God as a father-figure "up" in the sky. Yes, he spoke to God and believed God spoke directly to him, without a mediator. That is what a theist (and a mystic) believes. However, theism carries with it a whole lot of baggage that, IMO, causes a 21st century person innumerable problems. First, the notion that God is "up", up in the sky. Where is he exactly? We've been to the moon and back. We've been around the earth repeatedly. No sign of God out there anywhere. Second, in my readings of Jesus' teachings (as found in his parables and aphorisms), his main focus is not on defining God, but on teaching how we should live with one another in compassionate community that, IMO, is what the kingdom of God means. Forgiveness, justice, acts of charity, caring for one another, investing one's life wisely -- to me these are his focus. Even so, the concept of a "personal" God implies that God speaks with us and we with him as we would a spouse. To be personal requires that God be a person and, IMO, religion and spiritual err when it tries to anthropomorphize God too much, making God a super-human. This "Person", as many scriptures attest to, has the same frailties and weaknesses that humans do -- only magnified to the nth degree. As you probably know, evangelical Christians insist that we have a "personal relationship" with a personal God through the person of Jesus Christ. But there are about 40,000 different denominations now that say how this is to be done -- and few of them agree with one another as to how this personal relationship is accomplished and maintained. In fact, much of Christianity says that if you sin, your "personal relationship" with God is broken. That drove me nuts when I considered how many sins of commission and omission I committed each day. So while I agree with you that Jesus was indeed a theist, I no longer accept his authority on that particular view, just as I don't accept his view that my epilepsy is caused by demons. Jesus was, IMO, quite a unique revolutionary, but not infallible or inerrant. Lastly, because I find his teachings to be very relevant to how we should live with one another in this world, I don't find the concept of a "personal God" necessary to my own path. I have no doubt that others do. But, speaking only for myself, the notion of a "personal God" gets in my way. So, for me, "God" is a placeholder for our highest love, our highest values, our fullest life. I realize my view won't quite do it for most Christians, but I've found no evidence in my life for a "personal God" and feel, for myself, trying to stuff God into a "person" is too much creating God in my image. As always, just my 1.5 cents. Great conversation!