BillM

Joseph, I wasn't try to say that you, personally, see thinking as an enemy. Sorry if it came across that way. I meant that, IMO, Eastern meditative religions seem to devalue thinking for the sake of (insert what?)...clearing the mind...not thinking...emptying the self, etc. All I'm saying is that I have tried this, and the more I try not to think, the more thinking I do about why I cannot not-think. I appreciate much of what David has said above. I am certainly not in his league of education or understanding, but, to me, I believe what we perceive as reality is really there (whatever it is made of), but that we can't help but experience it as subjective creatures. This applies to my understanding/experiences of God also. I believe, based upon my subjective experiences and knowledge, that God is really there. But my theology gets really fuzzy if I try to nail everything down. I think God's works, so-to-speak, can be fairly accurately described through science and rationality. But I find that I have to often resort to metaphors in my religious language because, as wonderful as science is, to use Newtonian or quantum physics to describe our God-experiences is like be told to describe a visit to the Taj Mahal with only 4 words. One can attempt to do so, but the description will fall way short of the reality of the actual experience. I'll check out the "What the Bleep Do We Know" in a bit. Thanks for the fruit for thought.

From my point-of-view, because I don't believe that Jesus was either God or omniscient, I think he grew in his understanding of his mission as time passed. It seems that he initially joined John the Baptist's Essene movement that expected the messiah's mission to entail re-establishing Israel as the central nation on earth and burning up God's enemies. And it seems that his inital mission was "go only to the Jews, don't go to the Gentiles." Yet he kept running into Gentiles who came to him in faith or the "unclean" who were not supposed to be part of the reconstituted Israel. And I think this run-ins had an effect on him that broadened his horizons. Whether the end of Matthew is original to Jesus or not, I do not know. But in the Great Commission, he tells his disciples to go into all the world (not just to the Jews) and to teach other nations what he had taught his disciples. If the Great Commission is legit, then it seems that Jesus' understanding of the gospel was enlarged by his experiences during his ministry. He refused the kingship role that John the Baptist said the messiah would have. And he came to preach forgiving one's enemies instead of burning them up like chaff. Plus I have heard dispensationalist use the "go only to the Jews" to support that notion that nothing Jesus said in the gospels applies to the church, that Jesus' gospel and Paul's gospel are two completely different gospels (Jesus' being works and Paul's being grace). I'm not convinced this is a very good hermanuetic to use on the NT, although, yes, I do see differences in Jesus' gospel and that of Paul. But I suspect that, just like us, Jesus' own understanding of God, of humanity, of the role of the scriptures, of his "mission" changed over time, as he encountered people and situations that challenged his initial "Jews only" understanding.

Joseph, To me, I don't see thinking as the enemy. Thinking, IMO, combined with empathy/compassion helps us to find ways to connect. And I see dying to self not as denial of the self, but as learning to not live a selfish life with only the self at the center. Whatever I may think of Eastern religion, it does have the caricature of the religious sitting on a mountaintop in a lotus position, meditating. While caricatures are often hyperbole, there is still often underlying truth there. And, to me, when religion calls us to be separate (either for the sake of being "holy" or for finding nirvanna or bless, etc.), I think it is a distortion of the purpose of religion, the word itself referring to "ligament" i.e. to connect. We (you and I) have had this discussion before on reality. I think it entails BOTH what our senses and sciences tell us as well as the more intuitive, aesthetic experiences. But I don't think, as the Gnostics did, that the material world (what can be known through the senses) is evil while only the unseen is perfect. And I think there is much subjectivity involved, both in what we can observe and what we can't. Such is the human predicament. Knowledge is never perfect. We do the best we can, don't we?

To me, the purpose of religion or being spiritual is to experience and live out of being connected - connected to God, connected to self, connected to others, connected to our world. So when a religion thinks that being spiritual means to disconnect (from self, others, the world), I question what its purpose is. IMO, many of the Eastern religions have a purpose of seeking "inner bliss" and see disconnection as a way to achieve this. To me, and to put it somewhat crudely, this is akin to thinking that the sole purpose of sex is to achieve one's personal orgasm with no regard to connection to the other or to their needs and wants. Even Judaism had this approach to religion with the Essenes, and I suspect John's community was the "Christian" form of this approach. I think being spiritual is moving deeper into reality, not escaping from it.

Joseph, As you know, I don't value the gospel of John very much because it is so full of the dualism between flesh and Spirit. Progressive Christian scholars (Jesus Seminar) say that there is likely nothing in John that comes from Jesus himself. And most contemporary Jesus-scholars think that if Jesus was anything, he was a wisdom teacher. Wisdom, IMO, does not come from non-thinking, nor is it simply intuitive. Wisdom concerns understanding reality and how to live aligned with reality in a way that gives us and others the best benefit. This is way, again IMO, much of Jesus' teaching in the synoptics is not focused on himself, but on how compassion is at the heart of relationships. Therefore, the hungry should be fed, the homeless sheltered, the sick helped, prisoners visited, etc. In these ways, to me, Jesus' teaching is very practical, even if not original. But the dichotomy between spirit and flesh is, IMO, unhelpful. Yes, it presents those who "know" (gnosis) as on a higher plane than those who are "fleshly." And this kind of dualistic thinking has, for years, been behind the notions that the physical is evil and that life in the real world is to be avoided for (ha ha) sitting on a mountain top in a lotus position, contemplating oneness. I just don't find that practical, at least for me. To me, all of life is sacred. So I don't see the dichotomy between what is spirit and what is flesh. It is all "of God." In this context, feeding someone is spiritual. Clothing someone is spiritual. Having sex is spiritual. Enjoying the pleasures of the senses, of the flesh, is spiritual, for our Creator has given them all to us. Everything is "spiritual" for God has created all flesh. But I no longer mind if others see this differently. I speak only for myself. Bill

As would I, Rom. I suspect the only times are brains aren't thinking is when we are dead.

Eastern thought, it seems to me, is a contradiction in terms as it seems to value non-thinking.

For me, I try to balance 4 things in "going to church": 1. Do these people truly seem to love? What are they doing in the community to make it better? Do I support and join in those efforts and goals? 2. Can I live with knowing that some of the theology present there no longer works for me? Can I overlook some of what they say they believe in order to appreciate the good they offer? 3. Because I don't know everything, do they challenge me in a good way to grow, to consider things that I haven't before? Is there room there for questions, for seeking? Would being a part of this group make me a better, more whole person? 4. Are meaningful relationships the core of the church? Is the focus of the church on beliefs or on actions? Granted, some of these things make take a while to get a feel for, but we usually know if a place feels like home or not.

Welcome, Gaylordcat! Jump into the conversations here and share as you like! (Love me some Dune!)

I tend to prefer prose to poetry. Always have. To me, poetry tends toward ambiguous images that have no meaning other than what we infuse them with, both as writer and reader. Like a painting, poetry can be beautiful but not have any more meaning than the particular emotions it evokes, the "beauty in the eye of the beholder" that varies from person to person. Some people, obviously, relish in these kinds of languages and images, where all thinking stops and one simply observes or feels. I suspect, in the fifth decade of my life, that I probably have Asberger's. I tend to be a literalist and prefer more concrete ways of communicating. I prefer clear, fairly precise language, especially where religion and philosophy are concerned, which is frustrating for me because I think religion and philosophy want to communicate in poetry and myth, in abstractions. This is one of my problems with the Bible; I can't figure out what is poetry, what is myth, and what is more concrete truth. To me, much of the Eastern religions and New Age approaches to spirituality value non-thinking, some kind of "look at a tree and not think tree" approach. Look, but don't think. Just look. This doesn't work well for me because, IMO, we have made the progress that we have made as humans, not from passive observance of our world, but from thinking about how things work and how we can use that knowledge to make things better. This doesn't mean there is no beauty in my world or times when I do "just look" and feel. I am reminded of Jodie Foster's scientist character in the movie, "Contact", who, upon seeing the beauty of the universe, says, with tears in her eyes, "They should have sent a poet." But, generally speaking, my own approach to religion and spirituality comes from my experiences (subjective) that are considered (thought about) in dualistic ways i.e. what I believe makes sense or is moral. Granted, there is much subjectivity involved. I admit that. But I am not one to take a non-thinking approach to anything in my life. To me, our ability for rational thought is a gift of God and distinguishes us from most of the animal kingdom that seems to, for the most part, operate according to blind instinct. But that is me. I realize that we are all wired differently.

David, I suspect you're right about the need to have faith, and I think that faith is, in fact, learned, or a learned faith, an informed faith. The faith of my youth was rooted in either fear or authoritarianism. I had faith because I feared what might happen to me (here or in the afterlife) if I didn't have faith. And I had faith because I assumed that someone or something had authority over me in order to dictate to me what my beliefs should be. My faith now, though not completely discarding concern about the unknown or the testimony of others, is more related to my own experiences and considerations of what makes sense to me and what, to me, seems moral. In this sense, it goes back to what Paul said about the Golden Rule. This Rule does seem common to many religions and is, IMO, quite reasonable and moral. From my point-of-view, there is a pull towards this in our world, possibly in the universe (though I won't argue about it with those who disagree). This is where I have faith that "all this" is going somewhere, not because of determinism, but due to maturation. IMO, the apostle Paul calls this "the consummation", although I might see the means and goals of it a bit differently. And as we learn, we, possibly with the Spirit's help, fix our own hearts and can bring healing and hope to the hearts of others.

David, like Soma has mentioned, I think there is room for (and we need) a rational spirituality that is not based primarily in superstition or non-sensical worldviews. At the same time, some of our spiritual values are, perhaps, above rational critique, coming more from the heart than the head. So I think there is room for both. One of the problems with rationalism, IMO, is that we have to know a great deal about the subject matter in order to decide what seems valid and what does not. And when it comes to God or spiritual things, although some put trust in holy texts or church doctrines, many of us, when the rubber meets the road, go on gut instinct, on what we feel is right based upon, not thorough examination of the facts, but what makes us feel part of the greater whole. I think we need both. But I also think we need to teach myth as myth, not as historical, factual truth. That way, we can preserve the meaning without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I tend to think that religion is more about a search for meaning than it is about truth (our best understanding of what is). Take the Santa Claus myth, for example. We all know that though there is no real Santa Claus (though there was once a St. Nicholaus), we teach the myth to our children as part of our culture and the meaning of Christmas. And who doesn't love the story? It seems to matter not whether it is historical or factual, the myth endures because of the meaning and symbology attached to it. I think religious notions are much the same. Most people don't put that much thought into how a virgin could conceive or how a man could walk on water. The stories persist because they bring meaning and purpose to people's lives. I suspect that the creation myth, as a literal, historical account, will likely endure also. As has been said, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts." I think we believe what we believe, not because we are convinced of its ultimate truth, but because of the structure and comfort that our beliefs give to our lives. I personally know Christians who believe Genesis is a literal, historical account, and they are very loving people. And I know a few atheists who "know better", hold to evolution, but are mean as snakes. So I question that knowing the truth of a thing necessarily makes for good character. I suspect we are more complicated than that.

Paul, you're a really smart cookie, so I'm sure you know that regardless of whether there is a God or not, or whether God is personable or not, the search for God and any subsequent experiences from that search are personal i.e. they vary from person to person. And this search and these experiences can become very "sacred" or intimate to us, part of us even. Organized religions are not always comfortable with this, so they often come up with creeds, dogmas, and rituals that can be used to control how people think of and experience what we call God. But those of us who tend to be free-thinkers, independents, and even rebels know that, unlike lottery tickets, no two of us are exactly the same. Therefore, it is no surprise that my reasoning does not work for you. It is *my* reasoning and works for me at this season of my life. It is how I deal with the angst of being human and with not having all the answers (perhaps none of them). So I think it is very much the case, as you have stated, that much of this comes down to an individual's personal experience and point-of-view. Some think that in order for truth to be true, it needs to be perceived exactly the same by everyone. But I question that. Perhaps, as with beauty, something of truth is in the eye of the beholder. As I've stated previously, my sense of God as love simply points to the fact that we are here and have the potential to make ourselves and our world better. My definition will certainly not satisfy everyone. I can't prove God, that is for certain. All I can tell you is that I no longer live in fear of rejection and hell. And that is enough for me. Peace. Bill

It would be interesting, Rhino, to do a poll here to see how many participants (maybe those from the last year or so) have some kind of Christianity in their background versus coming from some other religion or none at all. As you probably know, it is doubtful that most progressive Christians do much active "evangelizing" through venues such as tracts, radio shows, TV programs, crusades, or even church programs. So I'm not sure there is a high profile to progressive Christianity that would necessarily draw those from other religions or none at all. This doesn't mean that there is not a presence, for there is, of course, a website, this forum, a place on Facebook, etc. But, IMO, there is not the concerted effort to "get the message out" like we find behind more conservative Christianity that considers most people to be "lost" and, therefore, in need of rescue. Nor is there a "progressive Christian" creed that is presented to tell people what to believe (though there is the 8 Points that, for me, describe values more than anything else). But, again, I suspect most who identify as PC have Christianity in their background and find sympathy with it for the same reasons that liberal Americans don't become liberal Brazilians or liberal Koreans. Culture plays a part.

Paul, The teleological argument for GOD is more than just about odds. Within the context of your analogy, the lottery game does have a designer(s), but the winning ticket has neither sentience nor the ability to reproduce nor the ability to shape its own surroundings and existence. Atheism, at its core, says that all of this happened by chance. So the teleological argument is more than just about existence, but about the EXACT kind of existence that leads to what we call life. To me, GOD is supranatural. In other words, over and above (and yet in) nature, so in my conceptions, GOD is not bound by the laws of the universe (cause and effect being one of them). Therefore, again for me, I have little to say about where GOD came from because I don’t think the law of cause and effect applies. Just my own POV. As to the personability (is that a word?) of GOD, I’m not convinced of it. This is, perhaps, one of the big differences between theism and deism. Theists tend to believe that everyone does or can have a “personal” relationship with God (for Christians, through Jesus) and that God has a unique plan and will for their lives. God answers prayers. God protects and provides for them on a personal level. And, as I’m sure you know, God has a “personal” place for each person to go after death. Most deists reject these notion of GOD, feeling that these things are mainly anthropomorphism taken to the extreme. Having said all of that, yes, I still tend to experience what I call GOD’s presence in my life. And I sense it as something good, pulling me toward the good. How much of this is really GOD and how much of it is me, I do not know. Anyway, Paul, if GOD is really there, it probably does not matter to GOD whether we believe in GOD’s existence or not. This is quite a difference from the Christian view that insists that God MUST be believed in (or else). In fact, to me, GOD may not even care whether or not we destroy ourselves or our planet. I think GOD has given us the potential to make of ourselves, our culture, and our planet what we can. But I don’t expect GOD to rescue us from our stupidity or short-sightedness. So, in this sense, I guess I have a sort of atheistic/humanistic viewpoint…but I believe that the source of the best things in life, in ourselves, and in our world come from GOD. But, like you, maybe I am wrong. Just doing the best I can.

Well, I think it best, for the sake of peace, to simply state what *I* think and not comment on what others may think or say. Here's how I see it: From a teleological viewpoint, I think there is evidence (please note that I did not say proof) that the universe was designed in such a way that existence and even life is possible. The odds for all of this happening by chance are, quite simply, astronomical. So it seems to line up with current scientific understanding that there is a Creator. Now, what is this Creator like? Classical deism usually says that all we can know about the Creator is what we see from creation, from nature. This is in opposition to revealed religion that says God reveals himself through prophets or holy books. But beyond what we might be able to ascertain from creation, so says deism, we don't know what the Creator is like. From this alone, there is (as far as we can tell) a pull towards order and even life in the universe. Is life rare? It would seem so. But we know of at least one planet that has achieved this. Was this God's plan from the start? That, we cannot know. Granted, I have within me the same kind of atoms that exist within a rock or a flower. And certainly rocks and flowers show no sense of morality. Nevertheless, morality does seem to accompany higher life forms. Humans, apes, dolphins, whales, they are show some sense of care and compassion, some sense of belonging to one another and caring from one another. We could, of course, attribute all of this to evolution, that it was best for species to develop compassion and caring and some sense of how to act and how not to act socially in order to continue. But I would postulate that if there is a Creator who designed the universe in such a way that, against extremely high odds to the contrary, life could happen, then it is a possibility that something of that Creator is within the creation that continues to pull it toward life, compassion, and caring, sometimes at great personal risk or cost. If this is the case (and I'll grant that it is a big IF), then there is a very real possibility that the Creator does has some sense of morality that would accompany what we call "higher life forms." If so, then our morality is not simply another astronomically-against-the-odds by-product of evolution, but than our morality, in a general sense, does come from our Creator. The seeds for this are in each one of us. Christians might call this "the image of God" or "prevenient grace." But I find this concept much more persuasive and sensible to me than to think that our sense of morality "just happened by chance." The odds against far exceeds the odds against there being a Creator, at least to me.

Joseph, I would, however, like to contribute something a bit more "constructive" to this conversation. Rom said, in an earlier post, that it seems that the universe has unfolded in such a way that there doesn't seem to be a morality to it, that things just happen. You have said elsewhere that you don't think that God is love. There may be a great deal of truth to this. Things do just happen. Perhaps the universe is amoral. Perhaps it is we who assign the labels of what is good and what is evil. Speaking from a deist perspective, this is a very real possibility. Classical deism says that we can know nothing more about God than what we see in nature. And what we find in nature is that it does seem to be amoral. Things are born, things die. Tragedies occur. People get cancer and die, Christian or not. Plagues decimate whole continents. I don't attribute any of these "evils" to God's intervention or God's punishment upon our sins. I simply think that how things are. But, again, let's be honest. This is not the general view of the bible or Christianity. Christians tell us, endlessly, how God is love and quote John 3:16 as the most important verse in the bible. So if God, whatever or whoever God is, does not ontologically consist of love, then, IMO, it undermines the whole of Christianity, progressive or not. If God is not love or does not love us, then it makes no sense that we should love God. And if our Creator doesn't love us, why should we bother to love one another? Why should we attempt to be "moral" if God and the universe is amoral? To me, if this is the reality, then Rom is right - we can say "yea" to everything and anything - for there is no such thing as morals and love. It is all ignorant illusion to try to give our lives meaning when they truly have none. This is, IMO, a very real possibility. But, unlike Rom, I do find it sad. Sad that so many of us could be so self-deceived for so long in believing in and living out what we thought were virtues, but were nothing more than our deluded imagination. The only ontological truth in this scenario is "ashes to ashes, dust to dust." Everything we do in the meantime matters not, does it? And it means that my own personal experience of God as love and acceptance was just my own self-delusion. Perhaps Spong is right, we are just making all of "this" up. Very imaginative apes, are we not?

Joseph, Saying "yea" to something is a way of giving it approval, sanction, support, encouragement, etc. Surely you have heard of the "yea's and nay's" in voting, right? Those who are for something vote "yea" and those against vote "nay." And let's be honest, Joseph, the context of this is not running a red light or copying off from someone's test paper. Rather, as quoted, it is "the most abominable" person, act, or condition which could come to a person's mind (Rom's quote). All I have done is to place the concept into a real-life, hypothetical situation. I am a person, not a rock or a flower, so I take things "personally." Personally, I think you are simply upset that I implied the "f-word" which is, granted, usually a social no-no, poor net-iquette. So I find it incredible (beyond comprehension) that you could take offense at my implied language and tone while allowing this sort of moral relativistic nonsense to go unchallenged. It is analogous to moderating a forum where people can say "yea" to the most despicable acts we can think of doing to one another...but telling them that they can't use profanity. So people can say that rape should be given a "yea", but you can't say the word "damn." I went too far in saying I would defend my family, but Rom did not go too far in saying that the most despicable should be said "yea" to. How is this in any way sensible? Yes, help me understand.

Welcome, Veratatis. You and I share a somewhat similar background and maybe some similar views. I think you're correct that all of our definitions of God and God-talk is manmade, but what else can we do? Some might say that because we do not and cannot know, we should remain silent. For me, I just think we should be aware of the tendency and then be humble about our claims. As a deist, I would agree with Spong that God is not manmade. But I'm not convinced that Spong thinks of God as a being or entity. I tend to relate to God as a "Thou" external from myself but nonetheless present with us. But that is me.

Rom, I think I understand exactly what you are saying. There is no such thing as good or bad. And even the most abominable things should be accepted and encouraged. This kind of thinking is the hinge-pin of moral relativism. I find it interesting that you can assert these things with no challenges, but my post stating that I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones against moral relativism is rated down.

“ … one of the greatest challenges in life is to say “yea” to that person or act or that condition which in your mind is most abominable.” >>Don't you think? Obviously, not as Campbell and his followers do. I see no way that I could allow someone to come into my home and want to rape my wife or daughter and say, "Yea, go for it!" To me, harming someone for no justified reason is bad, for it dimishes them and their life. Now, having said that, believe as you like, Rom. Just keep in mind that if you come into my house with the attitude that all things are permissible because nothing is bad or evil, your beliefs will be met by my 16-gauge shotgun and I won't hesitate to blow your f*****g head right off.

Rom, I'm not sure I think of our language as dualistic, but I do think it is comparative. Words have meanings by comparing them to one another, but I don't think they always fall into one of two boxes. For instance, there is a difference between you and I as humans, but that doesn't mean that one of us is human and one is not. As far as God goes, no I require neither proof for or disproof for God. I've already shared what I believe God to be and how I experience God. But Campell's notion, if it has been correctly represented, that there is no such thing as good or evil (or right or wrong) would certainly go along way, if it were true, in dismantling my notions of God, wouldn't it? Personally, living in such a society where nothing is considered to be right or wrong would not appeal to me. Although I sometimes question them, I do think we need social mores to guide us along the way.

Rom, if, according to JC, we need to stop thinking in terms of good and bad, then to say my prerequisite could be bad fail does not follow, does it? From what little I know of JC (and I need to know more), he likely saw the Garden of Eden as a myth story, right? I know I do. In my interpretation of the myth, mankind was intended to eat the fruit (why else put the tree in the Garden? why else let the tempter in?). So I don't believe that our goal is to get back to a state of innocence. I don't believe we "fell." I can't even find the word "fall" in the Garden story, although our Bibles label it as such. And, just speaking for myself, I wouldn't find it beneficial at all for humanity to adopt a "no good, no evil" policy about ourselves or our world and just let anything happen. To me, if current astronomy tells us anything, it is that life in our universe seems to be rare. So I think it should be cherished, enjoyed, and respected. The fruit of the Spirit, the Golden Rule, and Jesus' two commandments are a few ways we can do that. It has nothing to do with proving (or disproving) an Old Man in the Sky like we find on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Now for the fun turn-around. Is love God? How would you describe love? Does love take first precedence in your life over and above anything else?