BillM

Paul, my point about organizing is only meant to reflect my belief that religion at its best makes us good people i.e. we do good, to each other, to our world. It's a pragmatic thing. If PC were to organize, I would hope we would do more than just "talk" as a group, we would actually "do" good as a group. If we did dare to believe that we might have a better theology than what most of traditional Christianity offers to the masses, what better way to show it than in "good fruit"? Progressive Christianity could be more than just a new way to think, it could be a new way to live. How many people come on this forum and want to know where a local church is that discusses the kinds of things we discuss here, that offers an "alternative", progressive kind of Christianity? I don't know how many times I've read that question or a variant thereof on this forum over the years. Our usual answer: "We don't know." There is no such thing as a progressive Christian denomination or progressive Christian churches. We don't train progressive ministers. Obviously, because religion can so often go wrong, you (and others) are against any kind of formal organization (and your reasons are worth serious consideration). But what, then, are seekers left to do? They probably become part of Spong's "Church Alumni Association" or, perhaps, try to find a decent liberal church in their area all on their own (as I have done). I've been on this forum and in the PC arena for a few years now. We have some very fine theologians that are helping us to find new and meaningful and progressive ways to consider God, Jesus, and the Bible. These are to be applauded. But my question is: is that all progressive Christians "do" is to write books and "talk"? To me, I don't think theology ever becomes truly meaningful until it is put into practice. My observation is meant to be a critique from within, not criticizing from without. As I shared in my "Why Are You Here?" thread, I am interested in PC because I am curious as to whether it is an influence for good for people and our world. But if those who consider themselves to be progressive Christians are only interested in "talk" (perhaps as Rom referred to about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin), then while I enjoy many of the conversations here, they are ultimate a waste of my time. PC, as a movement, could be an influence (I don't like the word "force") for good in our world and within Christianity. But if all we are going to do is to talk all the time and never "do" anything, then it escapes me as to what the purpose of PC is. I don't want to sound like a conservative fundamentalist, but anyone can "talk" that Jesus is Lord. It is quite another thing to obey him. That takes more than talking theology, as fun as that may be. It is said that actions speak louder than words. As an insider, it seems to me that PC as a whole is more about words than actions. And I simply think that good actions could be more effective when done in cooperation with others. As progressive Christians, we could do a better job (dare I say ministry) letting our light shine than simply sitting around, talking about the properties of light.

Rom, As you probably know, I am fairly ignorant of atomic theory, quantum physics, light as a wave or as a particle, etc. I like Star Trek, does that count? Seriously though, when it comes to God-concepts, I am much more concerned about the immaterial attributes that we either derive from or overlay on God (I can't tell the difference) than I am the material or physical nature or composition of God. I am interested in the effects, not the first causes. For instance, as an epileptic, I take Depakote to help keep my seizures under control. Now, chemists can tell you that Depakote (Divalproex sodium) is a stable co-ordination compound comprised of sodium valproate and valproic acid in a 1:1 molar relationship and formed during the partial neutralization of valproic acid with 0.5 equivalent of sodium hydroxide. Chemically it is designated as sodium hydrogen bis(2-propylpentanoate). That's fine. But what I want (and need) to know is can it help with my seizures and what are the risks/side effects from it? Similarly, what I want to know from theology (the study of God) is what are the effects of our God-concepts and God-talk upon us and our world? For theists, what and how we think of God influences how we see the world and our place in it. And I find that theology is at its best, not when it is trying to prove the existence of God or scientifically dissect God (as I think Dawkins and Co want to do), but when it seeks to be pragmatic, when it moves from orthodoxy (getting our beliefs right) to orthopraxy (doing the right things). Having a solid understanding of science does not necessarily lead to good morality. Science is a tool we can use to better or destroy ourselves. Likewise, theology does not necessarily lead to good morality. It is a tool we can use to try to understand if God is there, what God might be like, and how we should live wisely in the world. But theology, like science, can be used for good or evil. I'm interested in "good" theology - things like justice, compassionate, mercy, benevolence, good will, making a difference, etc. - the effects of theology. These things don't require me to dissect God. For whatever it's worth, I agree that a classical understanding of the deistic god is a delinquent dad. But I also think that the traditional supernatural theistic God is a meddler who plays favorites with people if they get their prayers and practices right. I don't find that God-concept to be satisfying, moral, or reflecting how the world really works. To me, God is more a source for good that we can tap into to empower ourselves to be better people and to make our world better. But that's me.

Rom, Historic Christianity says that God is both transcendent AND immanent. But though it affirms this, I've found that it tends to focus on God's transcendence, as God "up in heaven" or "above". Little is usually said about the God "in whom we live and move and have our being" (the apostle Paul quoting Greek philosophers). Personally, I'm a big believer in "it takes one to know one". If God exists as an objective being, I suspect we would have to be Gods also in order to understand what sort of existence that is. But we're not. We're humans. So I think when it comes to "God-talk", the best we have is metaphors and approximations. So, using a metaphor, I envision God as an iceberg. Only the very top of the total iceberg is visible, maybe 10%. That is the part of the iceberg that is immanent and which we can know and experience from our normal vantage point. The other 90% is transcendent, down under the water where we cannot know its exact shape or qualities. We can ascertain from the top 10% that there is more below, but we need different equipment than simply eyes and binoculars to get a more complete experience. This is where mystics come in. They claim to know more of God than the rest of us 10-percenters do. They claim to have understandings of and experiences of God that make the transcendent immanent. They also usually (but not always) say that the more they know, the more mystery there is to be known. I've only heard of a few of them that claim to know God fully. They are usually more humble than to make that claim. Personally, I am for balance in this area of theology. If God is completely transcendent, there is no use in even wondering about or discussing God. A completely transcendent God would be like a newly discovered language with no Rosetta Stone whatsoever. Gibberish to us. But mystics claim that God can be somewhat known, and, IMO, they encourage others to do so rather than lifting themselves up as God's only revelations. It is in this sense that I don't think God "sent" Jesus from heaven. Rather, I think Jesus was simply more sensitive to God in and around him than most people are. Another metaphor is that radio waves are all around us all the time, but we need the right equipment and the ability to tune in for the signals to mean anything to us. Jesus, IMO, was "tuned in". This doesn't make him God, it simply makes him a spiritual person. On the other hand, if God is completely immanent, then God is no "more" than a metaphor for our best human ideas or pondering about the nature of the universe and the meaning of it all. If that is correct, if there is no "moreness" to God, then, yes, all we have is opinions which lead us to declare that either God doesn't exist or that we ourselves are gods. In closing, and put another way theologically, classical deism is God transcendent. God is not here any longer. Or God does not interact with us in any way (which has the same result as God not being here). Pantheism is God immanent. Everything is God or part of God. In this sense, everything is divine. But there is, IMO, a fertile middle ground of panentheism that asserts that God is more than we are, but can still be in some sense known and experienced. Christianity started off, before the doctrine of the Trinity was invented, by saying that while we can't know everything about God (because of God's transcendence), we can know something of God's human-like attributes in the life and teachings of Jesus. This is Christianity's "middle ground", but it is often lost in the "Jesus is God" paradigm.

Joseph, Perhaps I should. But it is like Christianity in that Buddhism is a fragmented religion. Which type is the true Buddhism? And what makes it true? No disrespect intended, but I can experience oneness and nirvana from a joint. I'm a skeptic. For me, the proof is in the pudding. There are, by most estimates, over a billion Buddhist in the world today. The major nations that are Buddhist are Asia and India. So if the proof is in the pudding, are these nations which practice Buddhism the most compassionate nations on earth with the highest regard for human life and justice? Are they leading the way in human rights and advances to make our world better? I hold Christianity to the same standard. America claims to be a Christian nation. Do we have the highest regard for human life and justice? Or do we worship the Dollar Almighty and profit share? Do we lead the way in human right and advances to make our world better? Or are we using religion and technology to dehumanize and devalue people and our world? Someone once said that you can know a tree by the kind of fruit that it bears. To me, that applies to Buddhism, Christianity, and all religions. Do they help or do they hurt? As I've said, if all your religion does is to help you find inner bliss or to get a ticket to heaven while the world that our children inherit suffers and dies, something is wrong with that religion. To me, religion at its best helps us to experience oneness with BOTH God and others. So when a religion fosters detachment from the world, either to find bliss or to be ready for the rapture, I think something is wrong. Yes, I know, I'm not as enlightened as you are to where I just accept everything as it is. But, like Kathy, I've seen too much damage done to just say, "Oh well, that's too bad, maybe things will get better."

Hi Kathy! Welcome aboard! Actually, it was Joseph, our Admin, who posted that link. But I'd like to get the book from Marcus Borg about Jesus and Buddha. Share as you like. I've enjoyed your contributions greatly so far!

Joseph, I realize there is much diversity of opinion here - on this board and between us. It has been stated, no doubt due to Buddhist philosophy, that suffering does not exist. Combined with moral relativism in which there is no right or wrong, then people who are hungry or poor or homeless or sick or needing clean water just don't matter much, do they? After all, their suffering is an illusion, right? And moral relativism says that it is not wrong for people to be hungry or poor or homeless or sick or in need, for it is all part of just the ways things are, right? Perhaps necessary to our evolution? I don't buy it. Individual people are "throw away", refuse to be discarded, as long as I find my own personal enlightenment? I don't buy it. With no emotions, we lose compassion, my friend. And it is compassion that leads us to strive to bring peace and love to our world, knowing that our world is suffering and doing our part to help when and where we can. Along with Kathy, I, too, can get overwhelmed with the need. I know the Serenity Prayer by heart. We do need balance. But, speaking only for myself, I don't think the answer is to climb to a mountain-top, sit in a lotus position, and contemplate "oneness" with emotional detachment while the world goes to hell. If anything, I find that to be the epitome of selfishness. Christians of all kinds can and should do better. If we don't, then it is true that our religion is simply our own personal opiate. To put my own spin on what the apostle John wrote, "If we say we experience oneness with God, but we are detached from others, we lie and the truth is not in us." Feisty this morning, aren't I?

Kathy, I cannot personally dismiss the harms we do to one another as a necessary part of the evolution of our consciousness. I don't deny that reflecting on the harms sometimes does help us to progress, but, for instance, I would hate to think that it took 6 million Jews dying in the Holocaust as necessary to my realization that genocide is wrong. And I, for one, would not have simply sat in the booth at the restaurant eating while the gay couples were "attacked", and chalked it all up to the natural course of human events. As Bob Dylan wrote, "How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?" I don't think harms will be mitigated by simply turning a blind eye to them and singing, "Que Sera, Sera." Joseph is a good friend of mine, but we seldom see eye-to-eye on things. Keeps our conversations lively and shows what a diverse group we have here!

Joseph, It seems to me that if there is no right or wrong, then no action is even necessary, is it? Why defend one's family if it is not wrong to kill another human being? Why defend my daughter against rape if it is an illusion that rape is wrong? I don't want to derail the subject of this thread, so my questions are rhetorical. But, to me, wisdom is born out of discernment and correct judgments, not out of moral relativism and uncritical acceptance of everything for the sake of inclusion. ...on to other things.

Here is an interesting example of what can and cannot happen concerning "hot button" issues here in Texas: http://www.upworthy.com/a-hidden-camera-show-goes-to-texas-it-did-not-expect-to-find-this?g=3&c=bl3

Kathy, I was raised conservative protestant, and due to that paradigm, I saw Christianity and myself as part of God's war against evil. Part of that viewpoint entails the belief that it is only conservative Christians who are "true Christians", so I doubt that conservatives would listen to more liberal or progressive views much. And the Protestantism I was in never really taught us Church history and the "sins" of the Church. We were too busy singing "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war", so I doubt we could really get their ear. Their minds are made up. Nevertheless, there is a growing group, at least in America, that considers itself "spiritual but not religious" who believe in God (of some sort) but don't want much to do with Church. Gallup polls say that this group is about 60%. These people long for spiritual connection, but can't or won't find it in church. I think it is this group that could be untapped resources that could help "a new Christianity" to have a new face here in our country. IMO, progressive Christianity could be helpful in showing this SBNR group that it is possible to believe in God and the teachings of Jesus, but to "progress" along with the rest of culture. This is one of the reasons I returned to church (a fairly liberal UMC), as this particular church does a lot of good in our community and presents a different kind of Christianity to our community. Lastly, and in my opinion only, I don't see progressive Christianity as having any sort of goals or direction in mitigating the harms done by the Church in the past or preventing them in the future. It is, IMO, a very passive movement that is more focused on accepting all people and all beliefs in an effort to be inclusive...but with no purpose. It is analogous to having a huge auditorium that is open to all people, but once they are inside, no one knows why they are there or what they should do. I think we mostly talk about theology. It is, IMO, a movement without any movement. Yet I know these things take time. I agree with you about what is not ok for the conservative Christians to do and teach. But I suspect that if there is a successful effort to stop this, it will come from the more secular part of our culture. One of the reasons I am on this board is to see if this part of progressive Christianity will ever become active. While there are many good people here on this forum, I think the main focus of PC here is on finding one's inner bliss in an esoteric manner. With the mantra of "tolerance" being often chanted, I see no efforts whatsoever to get organized to stop what conservative, fundamentalist Christianity continues to bring to our society. PC, at this point and in my opinion, is merely a bunker for the wounded, not a source of empowerment to fight back to stop the conservative agenda.

Joseph, I suppose this comes down to how big our picture of reality is, does it not? For instance, going back to something I cited elsewhere, if someone came in my house with the intent to harm my family, I would defend my family and my home. If they had the opportunity, they could argue all day long that what they are about to do is not really wrong, that the problem is mine because my perception of right and wrong is not really right or wrong, but "imaginary human subjective lines..." that "have no real existence in reality". They could argue that because we live in one universe, there is no difference between giving my family life and taking their lives away. This is what moral relativism leads to, the notion that because there is no real right or wrong, anything is permissible. Nothing is forbidden. Do anything you like to anyone and let no one dare judge you or your attitudes/actions as wrong. Survive at all costs, no matter what it does to others. This is the heart of moral relativism and Darwinistic atheism. Frankly, Joseph, I'm surprised you can't see this. I'm glad we live in a country that was founded upon the principle that we each have the right to life and the pursuit of happiness as long as we don't unwarrantedly harm another. I agree that the reality is that we live in one universe where everything happens under one big umbrella. But I reject the notion that all morality is but imaginary subjective lines, mere illusions. I can't prove any of my sense of morals. But as I said elsewhere, I will not allow someone who thinks there is no such thing as real right and wrong to attack my home and family unchallenged just because moral relativism is the "in" thing. They have the right to believe that what they are doing is not really wrong, that right and wrong is only illusion. But I have the right to defend my family, and I will exercise that right. Not riding the "moral relativism" bus, billm

BTW, Gaylordcat, I hope you didn't interpret my first response as advocating that this forum be "Christians only", for that was not my intent. I think much would be lost here if we enforced some kind of doctrinal creed about Jesus, God, the Bible, etc. My own theology is closer to deism than it is to supernatural theism, and most Christians would not find deism to be very "Christian". I don't believe that Jesus was/is God, or that God is some kind of superhuman in the sky, or that the Bible is God's rulebook for all people for all time. I am probably "Christian" only insomuch as I value many of Jesus' teachings and love the people in my UMC church. My response was only meant to say that Christianity, as a religion, has a history. To me, progressive Christianity does well to examine its roots, its mother religion, and to question what is worth keeping and what is worth scuttling, either because certain things no longer make sense, or are immoral, or don't do anything to add to the value of life. To me, it needs to have something to do with Jesus and God. Now, as to exactly what that "something" is or might be, I think we need to have some great discussions about that. In fact, I think that if we don't, Christianity might die out (and some parts of it need to) as materialism seems to be the new god of this modern age. But, as I've stated, that is my point-of-view. And this is where atheists and agnostics can help those of us who still, for whatever reason, wear the label "Christian" to be honest with ourselves and the world with what we believe and practice...and why. "Because the Bible says so" or "because Jesus said" or "because the Church believes" is no longer enough...and it shouldn't be. The individualism that is rampant in our world has just about killed off authoritarian models. This is why we need better answers to life than "just believing" that Jesus existed and gave us the words of God. There is, I believe, truth there. But it is not found in the literalism that plagues much of Christianity and that warns people not to question.

Gaylordcat, you saw (and expressed) what I was getting at...with far fewer words. I think our myths and metaphors can embody the best of who we are and who we strive to be. I suspect there is some historical truth there, but getting to it is extremely difficult because we tend to enshroud history with so many layers of interpretation. Like you, I have searched for the "flesh and blood of Jesus", the historical Jesus (versus the Christ of faith) who was a real Jewish sage that walked Galilee in an effort to reform Judaism. And I encourage you to continue the search. But most "Jesus scholars" (of the critical bent, especially of the Third Quest flavor) conclude that we simply cannot get at the true or real Jesus of Nazareth. If this is true, then it is natural to ask, "Why bother?" But that approach is, to me, akin to casting Pip aside simply because he doesn't really exist. And much is lost in doing so, for Pip is, IMO, a mirror in which we can see ourselves and which asks us to consider what it means to be human. I suspect the same is true to Jesus. How ironic it is, then, for my conservative brothers and sister (who insist that, yes, Jesus is undoubtedly an actual figure of history) to see him as a reflection, not of humanity at its best, but of God-in-human-form. So while they might say that Jesus is/was real, I think they miss the point. Some of this is due to the mythology surrounding him found in the gospels. And I think some of it is due to our human predilection to worship. Like you, I believe we physically turn to dust when we die. As to whether there is a soul or spirit that transcends the death of the body, I do not know. I hope so. But I don't think that was Jesus' central message or what he really meant by the kingdom of God. So I simply try to live in such a way that if all of "this" is going somewhere, I can contribute in some small way to making things just a bit better. For me, Jesus' teachings help me do that...regardless of who said or wrote them. Nice chatting with you also. I hope others chime in.

Gaylordcat, I know nothing of Aslan and Murdock, so I can't address them and their contributions. And as to Jesus, I don't know as I have any real "enlightenment" to offer. All I have is my opinion, my point-of-view. I cannot, of course, prove that Jesus ever existed. Neither can I prove that God exists. My spirituality, such that it is, does not rest upon first cause science. Rather, I am more concerned about whether or not these "symbols" lead us to good values, good morality, towards being more compassionate as individuals and as a human race. So my question is not so much did Jesus or does God exist as it is: Does what Jesus represents and do our best ideas about God make us and our world better or worse. And I suppose that this is a value judgment for each of us. Traditional Christianity often sees Jesus as a human sacrifice to an angry God. Without the innocent blood of Jesus, says the paradigm, God either could not or would not forgive sins. Jesus' reported teachings (in the gospels) are, for the most part, irrelevant. He was simply a means to an end, a sheep to the slaughter to allow God to forgive us in order to take us to heaven. I don't find these ideas satisfying to my sense of morality or justice. But I do find most of the teachings of Jesus to focus on compassion, forgiveness, justice, unity, making a difference in our world. Regardless of whether Jesus actually existed, I find these values meaningful and worthy of holding to. Similarly, I find the notion that God created all that is and has provided us a relatively safe (but short) existence to be meaningful to me versus the scientific notion that it is all but random chance with no meaning or purpose. Whether God actually exists or not, I cannot say with any absolute assurance. I experience what I call God, but these are my experiences, not scientifically verifiable proofs. They help me make sense of my life, but they are not necessarily enough for others. What I contend for, and there are those here who certainly disagree with me, is that any kind of "Christianity" must somehow have Christ and God at the center, because the Christ that we have (if we have any) affirmed and experienced the reality of God. If progressive Christianity scuttles Christ because there is no proof of his existence, or scuttles God because there is no proof of God's existence, then what is left may be a good and satisfying form of humanism (perhaps as the UUA has), but it has nothing left in common with the Christian religion. If/when that happens, it should be honest enough to say, "We are no longer Christian." If we don't have integrity, we don't have much. A Christless, Godless religion may appeal to some, but I don't think it would have anything to do with Christianity as a religion. Still, I think the question is whether or not the best teachings attributed to Christ and our best ideas about what we call God are worth holding to? If they are, then, on a certain level, it doesn't matter that we don't have the grave of Jesus of Nazareth or the stone tablets from Mount Sinai. The only beliefs that truly matter are the ones that result in good actions. Everything else is simply talk. Just my 2c.

Yes, Jonny, wonderful movie. Highly recommended.

No, not on planet Earth, but on this forum? In light of a few recent conversations here, I wondered if we would like to share why we are, individually, on this forum? What do you seek here? Are you looking for some answers? Or are you seeking to share your journey and what you've learned along the way? Are you here because you are interested in "Progressive Christianity" and how it is similar to or different from traditional Christianity or other religions? Are you here because you have friends here? Are you here just to explore? Are you here to, perhaps, convert others to your point of view? I'm here primarily because I'm curious about how the Christian religion is changing and might progress in the future. I'm curious about what things it might hold to and what things it might let go of. And I have a few friends here. How about you? Wanna share why you're here?

Juris, can I ask, if you are not in need, why, as an affirmed agnostic, does a Christianity forum interest you? Most Christians would affirm that God exists. If your mind is already made up about that, what do you seek here? Are you, perhaps, looking for some kind of "progressive Christian" insight where James is concerned? If so, I think it is a fair statement that progressive Christians have a wide range of views on what is usually called the afterlife and we are usually very non-dogmatic about it. Personally, I think we all return to our Creator. What happens then? Now, that, I am agnostic about.

Joseph, In WTBDWK, I did get a kick out of how Marlee’s character became more and more anxious as she began to grasp the movie’s theme that we really don’t know reality, that all we really have available to us is the constructs of our own mind. Psychology tells us that insanity is not being able to distinguish between reality (what exists outside of us and is verifiable) and fantasy (the way we think things are that has no basis in external evidence). And because we are creatures who seem to need patterns and structures in our lives, repeatability so-to-speak, to think that reality is nothing but fuzziness or the unknowable, utter randomness, could indeed lead one to anxious living. But, to me, the fact that we don’t know what the tiniest bits of reality are made up of doesn’t bother me in the least. This aspect of reality doesn’t affect my day to day living. As you know, I am a metrologist for Lockheed Martin. My job consists of measuring unknowns against knowns in order to determine how close an unknown actually is to the known. So accuracy in my job matters. But there are levels of accuracy involved. For instance, if I measure gauge blocks, I measure them down to millionths of an inch, usually to within plus and minus 5 millionths. But the users of the gauge blocks only use them down to thousands of an inch. They don’t care if a gauge block is 3 millionths too thick or 4 millionths too thin. For their purposes, a 1 inch gauge block is 1 inch, but they can look up the certified value if they need that kind of accuracy. The company that certifies our gauge blocks has even better accuracy than we do and at that level, no two gauge blocks measure exactly the same. There are variances and that is okay as long as we take those variances into account if we need high accuracy. This is how physics work in my everyday world. I know that I don’t work with absolute values. But the practical needs that we have don’t require absolutes, only close approximations that give us repeatability and reliability in our measurements. So just because I don’t know the absolute value of a 1 inch gauge block, it does not follow that the gauge block does not, therefore, exist. Similarly, just because we don’t know the smallest bits of reality or exactly how they work, it does not follow that reality is not, therefore, real. It is real enough. It gives us enough repeatability and reliability that we can build our lives on it in meaningful and satisfying ways. I don’t know what things (?) like quarks and gluons and dark matter really are. I find it fascinating to consider what theories might speculate about these things. But my day to day life does not require me to be knowledgeable about the workings of these things. I don’t need that kind of accuracy in order to live my life. And if I did, then I, too, would be as anxious as Marlee’s character who seems paralyzed because she doesn’t know what is real and can’t be sure whether or not she can know. Perhaps it is all a dream within the mind of what we call God. But it seems real enough. And that is enough for me.

Joseph, I do admire your gift/talent for being able to let things pass without judgment if you can't receive them. That is, I suspect, a large part of what makes you an amiable moderator here. I, on the other hand, and for better or worse, have a compass that, at least for me, still points to a true north. And I tend to be a pragmatist, so some of the technicalities of theory are lost on me. For instance, theory says that atoms are made up of tiny protons, neutrons, and electrons (plus mostly empty space) that are constantly in motion. But we find fossilized bones that, despite having their molecular makeup made of tiny moving things, have not changed significantly in millions of years. I'm no scientist, but I can't help but wonder why these things haven't dissolved in all of these years if their reality is nothing more than tiny bits that are constantly in motion. On the other side are claims that people make to know what is real (especially in spiritual areas) that have no way of being verified. One of the reasons I find Progressive Christianity appealing is because it is a way to still value some of Jesus' teachings without having to believe that he walked on water or turned water into wine or cast out demons or was born of a virgin. PC, for me, helps me to get behind and beyond the myth which has no basis in reality (the way the world seems to work in a consistent, rational manner). I know that these things are not the end-all. There are intangible realities, such as the fruit of the spirit, that I believe are very real without having a molecular makeup as such. And many of these do make life worth living. But I was under the power of institutional religion for so many years that told me I had to believe in things which are not real or don't make sense, that, yes, I do tend to be judgmental. The good thing is that I really don't care what people like Mrs. Knight believe or how they understand reality as long as they do no harm to others. I can say that I don't see things as they do without saying that they are going to hell (ha ha), and I like having that kind of freedom. Have a good day!

You ask good questions, Veratatis. I suspect that your questions are ones that each of us must wrestle with individually and decide for ourselves what (or who) we think God is. As you have said there are plenty of ideas about God, not just from religion to religion, but even within Christianity. My own ideas are fairly close to those of deism, but they don't fit comfortably into any one label. I, too, doubt many theistic notions of God. And I tend to think that God is more than just the best of our human emotions or ideals multiplied to the nth degree. Is God as systematic and logical as you hope? I don't know. I guess that's where I am where God is concerned. I don't know. I suspect God is more than our human definitions of God, but I think we are limited to our own human experiences and language of God. So, to me, God is sort of a connectedness. God is a connectedness to reality, a connectedness to ourselves, a connectedness to others, a connectedness to our world. And the goal or purpose of this connectedness, IMO, is to bring harmony to things, which is not quite the same thing as unity where there is no differences, no differentiations. Harmony, to me, is where things work together for the good of all. So I experience and conceive of God as Someone (I don't mind the language) or Something (I don't mind this language either) that pulls us toward harmony, toward the good. To me, that is the nature of God. But because I, like you, think on this subject much, I reserve the right to change my mind about this.

Joseph, I watched half of "What the Bleep Do We Know" and while I found it entertaining, I found it to be far from scientific insight into the nature of reality. As I understand it, quantum physics is not true science at this point, but only speculative theory. This doesn't make QP wrong, but neither does it make it right. But the notions presented in the film that there is no reality outside of us, well, to me is pure New Age clap-trap. For instance, the authors of the film say that what we think to be material reality (chairs, tables, rocks, etc.) are mere illusions in our minds. And then when Judy Zebra Knight, who claims to be channeling a 35,000 being, started in with her assertions, I knew that, for me, this film abandoned any serious science or documentary format and went into mystical claims with absolutely no way to verify them. To be fair, Christianity often shares this same approach. Paul claims to be "channeling" Christ. And the gospels are replete with accounts of miracles that don't line up with reality as we know or understand it. I do believe in positive thinking in that we can and should have a positive effect upon the physical world. But I don't believe we create reality. I think we perceive it and interpret it. If you looked at a chair and said it was a chair while I insisted that it was an elephant, reason tells me that one of us is wrong, no matter how "one" we may think creation to be. As I've said before, I have a paradigm that, for the most part, works for me. There is still mystery in my world. But I don't have much use for these kinds of claims that have no basis in the reality that most of us live in. Entertaining, yes. And I really like Marlee Matlin. But I don't see how any scientist could claim that this movie reflects the best current understanding of quantum physics. To me, it is simply more of the New Age "you are god" message that is little more than idolatry. It was interesting though, until I could take no more.

Welcome, Amy. I look forward to your contributions!

Good for you, Veratatis! I hope it is everything you are looking for and more!

Welcome, BeachGal, Your journey is very similar to my own (you can find it in a link under my profile if you need something to put you to sleep ). I also now attend a fairly liberal UMC which I love. Join in on our conversations that interest you, or start one of your own! Bill

For Christian denominations that tend to be more liberal and progressive, I would look for UCC (United Church of Christ, not to be confused with CoC), Disciples of Christ Christian Church, Anglican (but high church), or maybe some UMC (United Methodist, but would vary from church to church). If you want progressive, humanitarian but without the Christian focus, you might want to consider Unitarian Universalist congregations.