BillM

In relation to my OP, it's been almost two years since my granddaughter, Moriah, died. Frustratingly (is that an adverb?), the case has still not gone to trial. The distracted driver who caused Moriah's death is still free. If the accident were truly God's sovereign will, it would be wrong to want to prosecute this guy, for he was only doing what God willed i.e he was God's agent. But that is not what I really want to discuss. I went to see my sister in Boston about 3 weeks ago. We had a nice visit. But she said that she has been having problems sleeping due to my mother's death 3 years ago and went to see a psychic for some help. The psychic eventually mentioned that she sensed that a very young girl had died recently and that my sister should know that this girl was now safe with my departed mother. Hmm. My sister believes this stuff. I remain...skeptical. I mean, Moriah never even met my mother. They didn't know each other and my mother had Alzheimer's the last ten years of her life and was barely lucid of her surroundings. I guess if this info "from the other side" helps my sister sleep, maybe it is okay. But as I lean more toward rationality and science, I don't trust psychics. On the other hand, I certainly don't know everything. This universe is a strange place. So I just listened and told my sister that I'm glad that she is sleeping better, which I am.

I think there is little doubt that Jesus' favorite topic was "the kingdom of God" (sometimes called "the kingdom of heaven"). As a PC (or someone sympathetic to PC or the 8 Points), what does this illusive term mean to you? How would you describe the kingdom of God in modern terms or in language that might speak to us today?

Not to derail this thread further (for many people are blessed by Lectionary readings and study), but I think you make a great point, Paul, about the state of the world and Christianity's role in helping our world. For far too long, IMO, Christianity has embedded itself in the sin/savior myth that posits that the world is broken, in sin, and that the only remedy is for God and/or Jesus to save it through either forgiveness or destruction (in order to create another world). This myth teaches that we can do little to nothing to help our current state except to plead to God to come rescue us. The result of this, in much of Christianity, is escapism and waiting for Jesus to return at any moment with God's divine clean-up plan. Granted, it is an appealing myth. But I don't find it to line up very well with most of Jesus' teachings. I don't see anywhere in Jesus' teachings where he says that we are born in sin. And while some of his statements seem to imply that he would return shortly, he also stressed that his followers should be about the business of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, helping the poor, working for justice, visiting prisoners, etc. I haven't been able to thoroughly plumb all of his teachings about it, but Jesus seems to say that the kingdom is already here, already in the human heart. I don't see this so much as a remedy to some "sin problem" but as a seed to the growth and maturation of humanity that could heal the places in ourselves and in our world that need healing. Yes, the world is a wonderful and amazing place and we are an incredible species. But we are still immature and have a ways to go before we are fully human. And I think, in my own Christology, that Jesus, in some sense, shows us what it is like to be fully human. He was ahead of his time. The Gentile church didn't know what to do with that, so they declared him to be divine. In doing so, he lost his humanity. And I think that changed his role from example to savior, and I think a great deal was lost in this demotion. This is why, for me, Jesus is not a way to get to heaven. Rather, he shows me how genuine relationships grounded in compassion can change the world, not from sinners to saint, but from strangers to friends.

I like this, Steve. I need to read more of Merton. For me, God is no longer a person that I need to find a pathway to. God is, rather, an awareness of the connectness of all things, especially through compassion.

Before his Damascus Road experience, Burl, the apostle Paul was convinced that he was doing God's work in hunting down Christians and having them executed as traitors to the Jewish faith. After Damascus Road, Paul became an advocate for the Christian cause. He even went so far as to say that the Jews were blinded by God. That, to me, would acknowledge a significant change of Paul's understanding of who God is and what God desires. This is why I said that he let go of one understanding of God in order to embrace another understanding, especially an understanding that embraces tolerance and diversity. I suspect that such is the lot of all spiritual seekers. May we all see God more clearly. PS - I by no means speak for all Progressive Christians. I speak only for myself.

Welcome, Teotym. I'm enjoying your story and sharing. I, too, have found many doctrines in both the scriptures and in the Christian religion to be nonsense or immoral. I think our human experiences of that which we call God are meaningful and real. But when we try to turn our personal experiences into "formulas" that others must embrace and follow, problems arise. Our experiences can often bind us together, while our doctrines tend to separate us. I hope you find this a good space for your own spiritual growth where you and your own experience of the Divine are affirmed.

I would suspect, Burl, that if Paul had meant "hold to God", he would have said so. Besides, who gets to decide who or what God is? Yahweh of the Hebrew scriptures? The father of Jesus? Allah of Islam? Vishnu of Hinduism? We all know that bad things have been done in the name of God. Good things also. To me, the good is what is of benefit -- that which benefits ourselves, others, and our world. I wouldn't say that it is an entirely objective term, but I would say that we generally know what good and bad are. There is, of course, always room for cultural mores and discussion of what is good or leads to good. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Bible always portrays God as a good, moral, and just character. I have, in practice, let go of many of these images of God, knowing that they are often idols created by humans seeking to understand their place in the world and cosmos. Paul, in his experience, found that he had to let go of a tribal deity who was pro-Jews only. Perhaps in doing so, he embraced a deity who was pro-Christians only? Who's to say? Being humans, I think all of our ideas of God are idols. But I also think that some idols are better than others. Some gods are "gooder" - for us, for humanity, for the world, than others.

It's my opinion also that the scriptures, while valuable, were not intended to guide us in every moment of every day. Jesus is reported to have said that it is the spirit that will lead us into all truth. And this spirit blows where it will. We don't know where it comes from, we don't know where it will go. It is this spirit that gives life. Can this spirit use the scriptures? Certainly. But I also believe that this self-same spirit uses the sciences, the arts, music, movies, technology, and our everyday life experiences to lead us into truth (which I interpret as Reality). We "walk in the spirit", not "in the scriptures." My opinion in this matter does not diminish Jesus or his teachings for me. But if they carry any authority for me, it is not because it is Jesus who said them, but because they have historically proved themselves to be true. So I don't demand any kind of infallible and inerrant text. I do think that Jesus did and said many of the kinds of things the New Testament records, but I also know that he was himself a product of his time/religion and the Church tampered with the scriptures over the centuries. So I consider the scripture's truth to be mythical rather than literal.

CA, the term "Christian" is, of course, an umbrella label that covers everything from Catholics to Protestants to Eastern Orthodox to over 40,000 different denominations now. There is not any one definition that covers all of these different varieties of Christian, though most would claim that they, in some sense, go back in teachings or practice to the person of Jesus Christ. Progressive Christianity, as I understand it, is non-creedal i.e. it does not dictate what a person must or must not believe in order to wear or associate with the label "Christian". Each person has the freedom to determine for himself (or herself) if the shoe fits. I lean toward the label "Christian humanist" in that I'm a non-theist who still finds value in many of the alleged teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. My roots are in traditional, evangelical Christianity, but I don't let that determine where my branches grow. Like many PCs, I consider the Bible to be a human product and I hold to what the apostle Paul said, "Test all things, hold to what is good." So my approach to the Bible is not based in an claimed authority or inspiration. Rather, I approach it seeking that which speaks to me in meaningful ways. Much of it I find to be little more than rubbish. But I also find much of it that is still valuable, which still calls me to life and love. To me, the difference between the PC approach versus the traditional approach is that we bring the tools of modern scholarship and reason to the scriptures. We don't take the "if you don't believe all of it, you can't believe any of it" approach that many Christians do. Yet many of us still find value in the accounts of Jesus' life and teachings.

Hi Burl. I'm sure that there are more than three choices where god is concerned. Nevertheless, within the popular Judeo-Christian culture of the US, most tend to lean toward a controlling deity (lord, sovereign, almighty, most high, king) or towards the anti-thesis that this controlling deity does not exists, with few other options given much press or visibility. The God of the Bible is, IMO, certainly the controlling deity. It is a difficult image to overcome, at least for me.

Good thoughts, Joseph. To me, what you describe is a form of mysticism (in a good sense) in which god or the divine is experienced, perhaps as Process Theology teaches, as the Ground of Being. I know from reading his books that Whitehead, Hartshorne, Cobb, and Robinson have been a big influence on Jack Spong's work in this area. Much of this appeals to me, especially the notion that we are neither separate from the divine (What Is) nor from one another. I also think Alan Watts is helpful in this area. If this is truly the case, then, as you say, nothing is truly gained or lost. But as you well know, we are very "I" centered creatures and tend to experience God, the world, and others as "other", as not part of who we are. I've yet to overcome this hurdle in my own life, having what Dawkin's calls the "selfish gene." I'm not sure I believe in fate or that we are somehow controlled by Reality. Neither do I believe that our will is free, knowing that it is influenced by many factors. But what I sought to do in the conversation with my daughter was to reassure her that God (as portrayed in the Bible) was not punishing her for her sins. Given this popular view of God, these is not an easy paradigm to escape.

These days I'm more sure of what I don't believe than of what I do. But my daughter (the one who lost her daughter in the accident) called me last night and asked me, point blank, if I was mad at God. I don't generally get into these kinds of conversations because I tend to be so unorthodox, but because she asked, I shared with her what I thought. It seems to me, when faced with suffering, that we have roughly 3 choices where God is concerned. 1. The first choice is theism, the notion that God is a person-like being who is involved and, perhaps, controls our lives. In this view, everything that happens is ultimately attributable to God and his will. He is directly or indirectly responsible for suffering, and he seldom tells us what its purpose is. I didn't find this view convincing, although orthodox Christianity generally holds to it. Some people may find this view comforting, but I didn't. 2. The second choice is atheism, the notion that there is no God. Suffering is just part of the life cycle of nature. It is how things go. There is no one to blame. But neither is there any purpose or meaning to life or suffering. It all comes down to simple survival. 3. The third choice, which I tend to hold to, is that whoever or whatever God is, God is not in control. Like atheism, suffering is part of the life cycle of nature. It is how things go. God, if there is one, calls us to bring whatever measure of comfort, compassion, and understanding we can to suffering. God doesn't intervene in preventing suffering, but, perhaps, God works through us to minimize or, in some cases, to eliminate it. Seeing as I raised my daughter within theistic Christianity, she does tend to believe that her daughter's death was somehow part of God's plan. If she believes that, and if it brings her comfort, I'm not one to try to dissuade her from that view. But, for me, I lean more towards a non-theistic view that sees God, not as a supernatural power to control or intervene, but as the love that can be at the center of our lives to help us to reach out to those who suffer and to help them as we are able.

All good things... I've been on this forum for a number of years now. There's been a lot of good and challenging conversations here. And, as would be expected, people have almost always been kind and considerate of my journey. Thanks to all of you for that. But I've found it necessary for me to move on and I wanted to say good-bye, wish everyone here well, and share, from my perspective, why progressive Christianity no longer works for me. These days, I'd consider myself to be a positive humanist, which means that I'd rather focus on talking about and living out the positive aspects of humanism rather than critiquing or criticizing other religions/philosophies. But sometimes things need to be said for the sake of clarity and truth. I began "coming out" of Christianity about 10 years ago. For about 5 of those years, I was what is called a "Progressive Christian." Humor me while I give you a "working man's definition" for it. PCs don't take the Bible literally. This is their main difference from other Christians who believe that the Bible is the Word of God. PCs believe that humans, not God, wrote the Bible (a belief I still hold to). So they don't believe that God created the universe in 6 days. They don't believe that God flooded the entire Earth. Or that God killed all the Egyptian children 2-years-old and under. Or that God commanded the killing of women and children during war. Or that God commanded that homosexuals should be put to death. Or that people are sent to hell if they don't accept Jesus as the only way to God. Or that Jesus' death was necessary in order for God to forgive sins. Or that we are born sinners. Or that Jesus was born of a virgin. Or the Jesus physically rose from the grave. Or that Jesus will return to destroy God's enemies. As demonstrated, I could go on and on. Although there are certainly variances, suffice it to say that PCs don't "believe the Bible." They don't believe that God is really as the Bible portrays him to be. They usually don't believe that Jesus is really as the Bible portrays him to be or said or did the things the Bible claims that he did. Yet they still claim to be Christians. How do they do this? By making up their own versions of what God is like, what Jesus is like, what salvation is like, which parts of the Bible are true. I did this. For about 5 years. But then I had to face the truth that what I had was not really Christianity as the Bible teaches it or as the Church or Christian doctrines teach it to be. By the time I threw out all the dirty bath water that seemed nonsense or immoral to me, there was no baby left. The "God" I believed in was NOT the God of the Bible. The "Jesus" I believed in was NOT Jesus as the Bible portrays him to be. And I'd thrown out so many biblical doctrines and teachings (because they were nonsensical or immoral to me) that I couldn't say, in any way shape or form, that the Bible was still the Word of God to me. I was just another book written by fallible humans about their ideas about God. Humans giving divine status to their fallible ideas. So, in my opinion, as soon as you say that the Bible is not correct about something (and it certainly isn't), none of it can be believed. If you're not a "Bible-believing Christian", then you simply aren't a Christian, because Christianity is based upon what the Bible teaches, even if it is nonsense and immoral. So I found that I couldn't, with any integrity, be a "progressive Christian" either. If the Bible said to pick and choose, according to reason and conscience, what parts of it were God's Word, then, perhaps, I could have stayed in Christianity. But the Bible says that ALL scripture comes through God's inspiration. We don't get to pick and choose. We either have to believe in talking snakes, or we don't believe the Bible. We either have to believe that epilepsy is caused by demons, or we don't believe Jesus. If this is really the Word of God, then we have no right to pick or reinterpret the parts that we want to. Progressive Christians are trying to "save Christianity" by attempting to bring it in line with modern understanding of humanity and the way the world works. This simply can't be done if it is God's Word that the Earth is immoveable or that the Sun can stop in the sky. It's not God's Word...unless that God is an immoral idiot. I couldn't believe in the God of the Bible any longer. And even progressive Christianity couldn't offer me convincing answers for the nonsense and immorality found in the Christian scriptures. Religion, to me, is more about a search for comfort than a search for truth. I'd rather know the truth about myself, the world I live in, and the universe, than in holding to a belief system that is designed to offer me comfort at the expense of sacrificing my reason and conscience. Nevertheless, as I've said before, most Christians, including progressive Christians, are good and kind people. But I suspect this has nothing to do with believing in God as the Bible portrays him, or believing in Jesus. I suspect it is just because being good and compassionate is our best way forward, our best way to progress as the human race. There is no doubt that progressive Christianity works (and will continue to work) for some people. I wish them nothing but they best. But it ultimately didn't work for me. As I've said before, we each must find our own path in life. I wish each of you nothing but the best. Live long and prosper.

BTW, John, I'm not saying, above, that anything I've said about mystics apply to you, personally. But I do think that mystics (like the religious) tend to divide people into the enlightened/unenlightened category and see themselves as some kind of leaders or guides. Sometimes they see themselves as more spiritual. This is even reflected in the gospels where, in the synoptics, Jesus tells his disciples that the kingdom is already within them, that they are the salt of the earth, the light of the world, and how their social actions should reflect this. But when we turn to the "mystical" gospel of John, Jesus' focus there is on him, on the necessity of believing in him as the only guide/teacher. John's gospel has been used down through the years to assert that as long as people believe in Jesus as their mediator, as their Lord, they are good with God. This is, for me, the problem with the mystical worldview - the notion that the natural world is of no consequence, the idea that it is beliefs alone which enable us to experience God (or ultimate reality). I certainly believe there is a transcendent More to reality. But, for me, that More is best understood and experienced by going deeper into reality, not by trying to escape it.

As I'm sure you know, John, I'm not much of a mystic myself. I'm open to a Quantum, though I've never seen one. Ha ha! But the, I've never seen an atom either! To me, the problem is our own subjectivity. Reality is probably really there. I hope so. I hope we're not just shadows on the wall of some metaphysical cave. But what is the nature of that reality and how are we related to it? I suspect that this question has been attempted to be answered in two primary different ways: The first is that there is a spiritual layer to reality that cannot be detected through our senses or sciences. This spiritual layer can be experienced (as in mysticism or ecstatic experiences), but it has to be taken on faith or on testimony of billions who have only anecdotal testimony to support their claims. This doesn't mean, to me, that these claims are necessarily false, but that they are going to be highly subjective and varied. To my understanding, the claim for this view is that there is a universal consciousness which unites us. I find this claim to be highly dubious because we certainly don't all think alike. Consciousness does not seem to be the same for all of us. The second is that reality is made up of only (I really don't like that word, but it will suffice for now) a natural realm which our senses and sciences, while still subjective, can verify on some range of probability. This view of reality can be experienced by most people because it is not dependent upon some sort of spiritual sensitivities. It is self-evident that nature exists and that we are part of that nature. We are all part of this world and, therefore, intimately related to it and each other. As you have said, John, what current science is telling us is that reality, such as we know it, is not made up of hard, little balls that always do the same thing, that are always subjective to the laws of cause and effect. But regardless of what is in the microverse, we still live our everyday lives in a Newtonian world. If you pull your car out in front of a moving train, despite the randomness of Quantum Physics, there is still an extremely high chance that your car will be smash and you will die. To me, Jesus' teaching tend to focus more on our everyday lives and how we live them. Yes, there are other passages where Jesus seems to teach more mystical truths. But he certainly didn't teach Quantum Physics or String Theory. So I'm a little reticent to overlay Jesus' teaches on modern science and to say that this is what Jesus was teaching all along. I don't know which of these two primary views of reality is the right one. I'm not a mystic and I'm not a science. All I can do is to say that the natural view seems more evident to me and to make more sense. I suspect that with mysticism, you either have it or you don't. I don't. Yes, I have experiences that, for me, cause a sense of awe, deep wonder, reflection, and meditation of meaning/purpose. But these wouldn't cause me to say that we are "spiritual beings." With my religious past, those terms are too loaded with pride and superiority, or with the goal of being detached from the world in order to find my "bliss."

Rodge, if you click on my name, the BB will take you to my profile. From there, in the upper right corner is a box that says, "Send me a message." If you click on that, another screen will pop up which allows you to type in a "private message" and then send it. On the subject matter, again, I agree with you to a large extent. I was only capitalizing "the Ground of Our Being" because that is how Tillich describes God in a non-theistic way. He, along with many others, are attempting to not throw the baby out with the bathwater i.e. can we still believe in God if we let go of the supranatural framework that our tradition has handed down to us? I suspect it would be an impossible task to remove all God-talk (and capitalization) from religious language/concepts because religions tend to focus on the transcendent and "God" or "Sacred" or "Spirit" (or Tao or any of a hundred other terms) is just the way our language works. But if, as you say, you would value a community that focuses on sharing personal faiths, you are going to have to deal with the different ways people conceive of and share their faiths. I doubt you would have any success in stripping any such community of God-talk and bringing everything down to a lowest common denominator. This forum, IMO, does make a concerted effort to do that in that many people (including myself) say, "In my opinion..." or "It seems to me..." Doing this helps us to remember that our views are subjective. But it also prevents us from coming to any common consensus because we are like 1000 Lone Rangers, each with their own faith/journey and we don't force our views on anyone else.

Having grown up and lived with a supranatural God, it is difficult for me to consider other concepts of God. Nevertheless, I think Paul Tillich may be on to something when he describes God as (my paraphrase) "ultimate reality, the ground of being, that which we take as assume without question." This is quite different from the theistic concept of God where people are always questioning whether God, as an objective other, really exists or not. Most of us (though there are exceptions) don't question the reality of the universe. We generally don't question whether or not love exists. For Tillich (and others), ultimate reality, the depth of being, can only be experienced in relationship with others. God, therefore, is not a Being to be defined, but deepest relationship. And this, according to Tillich, is why the apostle could write that if we don't love others, we don't know God. It's not a matter of know A Being; it's a matter of experiencing our deepest being. But growing up with theism, Rodge, yes, I was taught that I must believe in God as Christianity or the Church or the Bible presented God to me, as if any of these concepts are monolithic. Hardly. God was, essentially, a superhuman who could do whatever he damned-well please and we better get with the program or we would go to hell. In that sense, I am very non-theist. If it works for others, fine. But they better not get in my face or harm my children with it.

Agreed. The Israelites needed a "God" to deliver them from Egypt and to help them conquer Canaan. The Jews of Jesus' day needed a messiah that, in their hopes, would destroy "God's" enemies (their enemies) and establish a kingdom here on earth. They lost big time on that one. Constantine needed a "God" to help him unite his Roman empire. The Church needed a "God" of punishment and reward to keep its members in line and supporting the institution while giving it political and social power. The Reformation needed a "God" that would challenge the authority of the Catholic Church and confine "God" to the scriptures. Modern evangelicalism needs a very similar "God" that, it believes, made this a Christian country and makes it blessed by "God." It wants "one nation, under God" with the Bible as our Constitution. I hope that never happens. And, as you have noted, there is then Progressive or Liberal or Emergent Christianity that needs a "God" that sanctions its social programs and challenge to the domination system that we live under. This "God" is said to care about many of the things that Jesus did - feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, etc. But this "God" seems to leave the work up to us. And then, in my opinion, there is the "God" or the "Divinity" of the New Age movement who exists primarily to make a person feel good about themselves. I suspect this is a reaction to the "God" of the Judeo-Christian tradition who seemed to what to make people always feel guilty, shameful, sinful, and unworthy. It is not the case that one of these "Gods" is THE biblical one or THE Jewish one or THE Christian one. I suspect, rather, that we all simply create our "God" concepts according to what we need. God, as an ontological person/spirit may, in fact, exist. But if it does, it doesn't much seem to care about setting its record straight about who/what it REALLY is. It is, therefore, a mystery. And we are each left to discover for ourselves what makes sense to us and meets our particular needs. I don't see anyone going up in smoke for having the wrong concepts. So I suspect that what we call "God" is very different from ANY of our human notions, or that it just doesn't care. It may be busy creating other planets and moons elsewhere.

Rodge, I can't answer your question about sharing your email except as I stated above, via Private Messenger. Back to the topic: For many people (I would say most) there is a NEED for God. As Spong says in one of his books (can't remember which one right now), humanity's belief in and trust in a controlling deity helps us to deal with existential angst - the awareness that we are constantly in danger and are going to die. For the majority of humans who hold to a theistic religion, belief in God provides for their perceived NEED for structure out of life's chaos, morality, comfort that someone is in control, and a promise of an afterlife. Now, having said that, I don't personally have a NEED for those particular things. The laws of nature generally give existence structure, my morality generally comes from my conscience, I seek after truth rather than comfort, and I'm agnostic about an afterlife. But I am, by far, in the minority, especially amongst traditional Christians who believe that God/Christ is LORD (almighty) and that Jesus died to guarantee us an afterlife. Spong is, IMO, onto something else good. He says that the goal of religion is not to become more divine, but to become more human. He believes that we are not fully human (humane) yet, and I'd agree. This is why, to some extent, the philosophy of Star Trek appeals to me. It is tolerant of those who have religious beliefs, but there is no need for God in the Star Trek universe. Star Trek is not about obtaining divinity or deification. It is about "the human adventure." It is about us going bravely into the future where we have not gone before. But there is still morality and understanding and compassion there. There just isn't a need for a divine judge or for a rewarder of good actions. The reward is the adventure, the journey, the wonder of life and being. I find this, for me, deeply inspiring. And Roddenberry was an atheist! But as to why "we" need...well, that is a question that, ultimately comes down to each person. My wife is a fairly creedal Methodist (though raised Baptist). She needs her faith. It helps her make sense of her life. She feels it makes her more compassionate. She feels that the spirit of Jesus lives in her heart (a notion that I don't hold to as ontological truth). But she is the best "Christian" I know. So I don't tell her that she doesn't need Christianity. We all do what we do and believe what we believe to survive.

BTW, Rodge, if this BB doesn't let you post it publically, you can always share your email via PM.

Rodge, if you don't already know, there is a book by Arthur Broadhurst called, "Christian Humanism." Arthur posits that we can be Christians and follow the teachings of Christ without any definitions or concepts of God. As I'm sure you know, for most of the religious world God is a supernatural deity "out there" who controls the world and/or intervenes from time to time according to his will or in answer to prayer. Many recent theologians (Robinson, Spong, Broadhurst) say that it is time for this name and concept to go. Even the 8 Points here, in the last revision, removed many references to God, opening up more universal (?) and inclusive (?) understandings and definitions. I don't think that the theistic God can be proven or unproven. But if the term God is simply a place-holder for our highest human ideals (life, being, love), well, those concepts certainly do exist. The question is, can we or should we attempt to infuse the old word "God" with these superlatives (as Spong advocates). Or should we drop the term altogether, much as we have done with Zeus and Juno? Has God died and should we leave him that way? Or should we resurrect him with new life, new terms, new concepts, and new meanings?

I hear you, Rodge, and probably share many of your questions and concerns. When I teach Sunday School from time to time (which I don't do much of anymore), I simply can't do "Adult Christian Education" with time, resources, and people that I have. It would be unproductive for me to start class with, "Now, we really have no idea who assembled our Bibles just as they are and to what extent they have been edited and redacted. We have no idea who really wrote the book of Mark, despite that title in your Bibles. And we really don't know if Jesus existed or if he really said any of those Red Letters you have in your Bibles. Nevertheless, let's turn to Mark 8..." I certainly agree with you that the message is important. But even then, it is a message embedded in its own context and culture and requires translation. Add to that that I'm generally confused about most things anyway and you can see what a hopeless situation it is! So these days I spend far less time "teaching" and just serve where I can. I certainly don't fit with standard Christian orthodoxy, but what's a person to do?

Rodge, we do seem to agree on many points. I don't hold to the doctrine of the Incarnation for the various reasons you have mentioned. But I do think it is a fairly reliable notion that the NT Jews believed in a theistic God "up there" and that, possibly, some (but not all) saw God as descending to earth in the form of Jesus. Personally, I like what the apostle Paul says about this, "God was in Christ..." That is enough for my own Christology. In that sense, I'm a Unitarian. Jesus was a man filled with God. As for God, I'm still rather agnostic about who or what God is. Being human, I can't help but think of God in human terms and concepts. It is like Spong says, "If horses had gods, those gods would be horses." I tend to favor panentheism or process theology. Nevertheless, even these are human constructs of something that doesn't quite fit in our boxes. Knowing that, I would rather say, in such discussions, "Here is what Jesus believed (or taught) about God...does this still ring true for us today? Why or why not?" This helps me avoid the literal trap of saying, "Jesus said XYZ and, therefore, we, too, must believe XYZ." We don't have to. Jesus was a product of his own religion and culture. Does this mean that Jesus was wrong about God or that we need to completely drop our God-language? Not if we are going to be "Christian" enough to still talk about Jesus and what he taught. But if he doesn't matter, then, yes, God-talk isn't necessary. But if so, why call it Christian?

Rodge, the caricature of the Buddha on the mountaintop illustrates my point. He sits on the very top of the mountain in a lotus position, and, as Soma says, "relaxes in the peace and love that is everywhere". This is, no doubt, a very good subjective experience for him. But he seems to be completely unaware of or unconcerned about all the people below who are hungry, thirsty, in poverty, oppressed, enslaved, sick, dying, and suffering. He sits on the mountaintop, perhaps experiencing a sort of oneness on a spiritual level, but completely detached from the rest of humanity on a social or physical level. "He got his", as the saying goes. And as long as "he got his", what does the rest of the world matter? From my point-of-view, he is so wrapped up in his own ego-trip that he is "so heavenly minded that he is no earthly good." This is why Buddhism holds little attraction for me. It is not, for me, a matter of making it to heaven. I don't even believe in going to heaven. It is a matter of living a wise and compassionate life while we are here on earth in community. And I don't find that sitting alone on a mountaintop is wise, compassionate, or communal. The metaphorical meaning of the Incarnation, for me, is that God comes down from the mountaintop in order to teach us and show us how to be wise, compassionate, and communal. Another distinguishing aspect of PC, for me, is that my "inner life" is more Stoic in nature than in Eastern philosophy. Rather than seeing the mind as an enemy, as Eastern philosophy tends to do, I see it as a gift of God that we can use to understand ourselves, our world, and which enables us to reflect upon our lives as necessary in order to make course corrections.

Rodge, you said, "You (BillMc) suggest that our self-consciousness must be secondary to others. I disagree, because that suggests that we need not respect our own self-consciousness." If that's how you heard it, that is not what I meant. To put it more simply, I think it is more important to follow Jesus' teachings than to worship Jesus. Worshipping Jesus is to admire and praise his ego (which we mainly see in the gospel of John) where Jesus speaks in very lofty terms about who he is. Following Jesus is to take his teachings to heart and to prove them out, regardless of our "Christology." Similarly, and what I was trying to say, is that I think it is more important that we love and serve others rather than going around talking about how holy we are or how centered we are or how "at oneness" we are. There is, IMO, a proper place for these assessments of our ego, but I think it is more beneficial to us and our world if we do good works rather than just toot our horns about how spiritual we feel. Again, just my opinion.