BillM

Thanks for that clarification, Joseph. Actually, I see it much the same way. Some Christians are "red letter Christians" and believe that everything in the gospels and in Acts are the very words of Jesus. Other people, after thoroughly researching the topic of the "historical Jesus", conclude that because his existence cannot be proven, nothing attributed to him is worth the time and effort to listen to or practice. And I have to concede that after all my studies, the "historical Jesus" may not have, in fact, existed. But, as you have said, his teachings have proven themselves down through history when actually practiced. Christians and others who have tried to do what he taught, instead of just "worshipping Christ", have generally been an influence for good on lives and on society. So I'm not concerned about the topic of whether Jesus existed or not either. I'm more interested in whether his alleged teachings are wise and provable to be good. My point is that I don't find the teachings of "the Christ of faith" to be sensible or good. He is far too self-centered ("I...I...I..."), wanting to be worshipped rather than followed, IMO. Far too exclusive -- "No one comes to the Father but by Me." Etc. I'm sure you know all of this. And it is this "Christ of faith" that dominates much of Christianity. Of course, the Third Quest has sought to get as close to the historical Jesus as possible. As I said, I appreciate their efforts, not because they "prove" the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, but because, for me, they help me to separate superstition from wisdom.

I'd also like to say that I agree with David that this website and forum has the right and freedom to call itself anything they want to. We do enjoy religious freedom here in this country. And this website/forum certainly does NOT speak for those who consider themselves to be progressive Christians everywhere. There are different PC groups on Facebook that have 1000/2000/3000 members. They are certainly not all active here. Nevertheless, and again this is only my opinion and not a judgment (condemnation), I find the general atmosphere here to be more akin to Unitarian Universalism which, over the last 50 years or so, has also moved away from historical Christianity, God-language, and the teachings of Jesus. Only about 10% of their constituency confesses to be Christian. That's okay. It works for them. We generally go where we feel kinship and comforted. Human nature.

Rodge, David makes, IMO, a good point about relinquishing any God talk. Even for the historical Jesus, again as close as we can get to him, God and God's kingdom were extremely important. I suspect that Jesus' view of God, being a Jew in the first century, was quite anthropomorphic. And some progressive Christians, from John A.T. Robertson to John Spong to advocates for Process Theology, say that we need to leave supernatural theism behind. The question is, can we do this and still believe that Jesus somehow reveals God to us? I think we can. But I first have to clarify a couple of notions concerning what I said earlier. First, I'm not at all opposed to speaking of "God within" or the Divine Spark or some other concepts that describe God in panentheistic terms. Panentheism makes more sense to me than any other concept of God that I have found, but it is still a human concept of something (or Someone) that is mystery. So I have no problem with the "God within" paradigm or, as the apostle Paul said, "God was in Christ." The question then becomes, what does that look like? What does a human life filled with God look like? And that, in my opinion, is where Jesus comes in. He doesn't show us "God in human form", but he does show us what a human life full of God looks like. In his teachings, in his life, in his death, Jesus gives us what has historically been call a revelation of God. Seen in this way, if we choose to do so, we are not confined to speak of God in the same exact anthropomorphic terms that Jesus did. But we are called, I believe, to live as Jesus did. He gives us an example of the right and proper way to live wisely with God, with each other, and with the world. Yes, we see in the gospel of John a Christ fully aware of his Divinity, but if we let this (I don't want to sound disrespectful) self-centeredness overshadow Jesus' teachings of social importance in the synoptic gospels, I think we miss something important. IMO, whether we feel divine or not, I think our ego must be secondary to how we treat others. We have far too many instances of people declaring them to be divine and then they seek worship, fame, or power. For Jesus, IMO, if he sensed his divinity, it lead him to love, serve, and sacrifice.

Rodge, those here who know me know that I struggle with this issue myself. It is fairly easy to define what one means to be progressive (often because we are well aware of what regressive or conservative is). But I believe that as far as "Christian" or "Christianity" goes, this website and this forum offer no definitions to this word. It is left up to each person to decide for themselves what being Christian and what Christianity means to them. That is probably as it should be because, from the scriptures, Jesus never teaches about being Christian and I believe Jesus sought to reform Judaism, not to start a new religion called "Christianity." But it is also my conviction, after reading the scriptures my entire life, that Jesus was a very wise person in showing us how to relate to God and to others. His teachings on the kingdom of God illustrate this to a very high degree. If this is the case, if Jesus does indeed teach us how to live wisely, then his teachings (those of the historical Jesus as close as we can get to them) are very important to Progressive Christianity. However, and this is not a judgment of anyone's salvation or standing with God or morality or spirituality, I have been told here by a number of the moderators that the historical Jesus is irrelevant to them. What they seem to emphasize, and again this is an observation not a judgment, is the Divinity or Oneness within that we all have which, essentially, makes Jesus irrelevant. This strikes me as somewhat odd because one of the things the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus has tried to do is to differentiate the "Christ of Faith" (a supernatural, gnostic view of Jesus) from the "Jesus of Nazareth", the man who actually lived in the first century. I, for one, appreciate this effort because I, personally, find the "Christ of Faith" to be unbelievable. So I'm far more interested in what Jesus may have originally done and said. And from what I can tell, his actions and teaching were very progressive, even by today's standards. So I am a bit perplexed myself by the label "Progressive Christianity" when those who speak for it say that the historical Jesus is irrelevant to the PC movement. To me, if Christianity is to progress, then I am with Spong and Borg and Crossan and others who believe that we need to get past the "Christ of Faith" in incorporate the teachings of the historical Jesus into our personal and social lives. I find his teachings to be very socially relevant, especially in our time. And this is why Buddhism doesn't work for me. IMO, it is to far self-centric in focusing only on the inner self and a mystic "oneness with all" that, ironically, is not socially progressive. The above views are mine alone.

Interesting and challenging suppositions and line of thought, David. These days, I'm more interested in different ways we can think of and relate to God than in some kind of systematic theology which has every t crossed and every i dotted. So I appreciate your thoughts and analogies.

Fatherman, I don't think your analogy is crap either. It is, however, and like all other analogies, limited to our human conceptions of God or divinity. In reading your metaphor, it does *seem* to take the view that God or the divine is external to us (i.e. we are separate from the computer) and, therefore, we need an interface to create, develop, and maintain the link. Over the years, at least in Christianity, many interfaces have been offered. For some, it is the bible. For others, it is prayer. Or the church. Or the creeds. Or certain religious practices. But I think it is the nature of this "interfaces" to reinforce the "external God" paradigm. You mention that for many years, you were a panentheist. If this is the case (regardless of where you are now), would you describe the computer as part of yourself, or maybe part of creation? Or how would being a panentheist work with the need/desire for a UI?

Welcome, rjunker! As Soma has said, theism relates to the belief in the existence of deities. But theism comes in many different forms. If we postulate that god(s) exists, then the next step is to describe how we think that god(s) is related to us and the world. The kind of theism that I think Spong is against is what is traditionally called "supernatural theism." This kind of theism postulates God as a being who exists over/above/against the world, but who intervenes (meddles) with it from time to time, either according to his divine will or in accordance with answering prayers. In "supernatural theism", God is a superhuman entity, a very anthropomorphized deity who is "in control" of the universe. And, truth be told, this is the general picture of God in the bible - a deity who is not here with us except on rare occasions, but who rules from heaven. From my readings of Spong, I think he still sometimes thinks of God as a being (even though his recent language seems to support his evolving beliefs in God as more of our highest human ideals i.e. being all we can be, loving wastefully, living fully). Spong seems to be becoming more of a mystic as he is getting older, embracing process theology and a sort of pantheism. PS - another form of theism that is not as well known now as it used to be is deism. Deists believe in God, but they don't believe God intervenes or meddles in the world. Instead, the world operates according to natural laws, not according to supernatural will.

Hi, Martin. I'm about half-way through Robinson's book and enjoying it immensely. What I appreciate it about it so far is that Robinson seems to seek to instill our notions of God with new (and sometimes old) concepts and images which allows us to maintain our ties to our religious ancestors and past while being open to new ideas. Some people are for throwing out the word "God" altogether and I can relate to that desire. But writers like Robinson help us to see humanity's understanding and relationship with God as progress, with more light to come. I find the book refreshing. I especially laughed when he wrote in his preface that though he thought his book might drive some berserk, that future generations would look back and think he didn't go far enough.

Has anyone here read this book? It's by John A.T. Robinson. For some reason, I've seen it mentioned a lot recently in websites/forums that I frequent. I haven't read (just ordered it), but wondered if anyone else here has? If so, what are your thoughts about it?

Welcome to the forum, Anna! Your experiences, while the details may differ, are not that uncommon amongst spiritual seekers. I was indoctrinated into Christianity as a child and, over the years, experienced a lot of cognitive dissonance with it. All of this eventually lead me to my own "dark night of the soul" which lasted about 3 years or so. What brought this to an end was an experience of what I call the "buoyancy of God", knowing that nothing can ever separate me from God and his love. I still have a lot of questions and do a lot of study and research. But I do it out of passion, not out of fear. Thanks for sharing this part of your journey with us! I look forward to getting to know you better and hearing your insights!

Welcome to the forum, Anna. I wasn't raised Catholic and although the Protestants don't often speaking of visions and such (though some do), they do hold to other such "images" of Jesus such as a Substitutionary Atonement or "Lord of America" or some other overlay placed upon him. This is, of course, nothing new. We usually find in Jesus what we are looking for. This is why we have four different gospels with different takes on Jesus and what he meant to certain early groups. And the message of the gospel that the apostle Paul had is definitely at odds with the gospel that Jesus preached. Paul claims that he didn't learn about Jesus and the gospel from any of Jesus' disciples, but from a "revelation." He even dares to say that the Jewish sage, Jesus, is not to be regarded any longer, that Paul's gospel is the true one. So differences about Jesus are nothing new. As a more rational person (I hope), I have to live in a middle ground where, as has been pointed out, nothing is carved in stone. I do my research and have to live with my findings while trying to remain open to further insight. On one end is the historical Jesus which, biblical scholars tell us, cannot really be gotten to. Jesus wrote nothing down (that we know of). The gospels were written by others and influenced by Gnosticism, Greek thought, and tweaked by the Church from the beginning and down through history so that we don't really know for sure what the historical (flesh and blood) Jesus was like. Although some scholars have made great strides in working on this (Borg, Crossan, Spong), they are quick to say that all we have is probabilities as to what this person (Jesus of Nazareth) was like and what he said and did. At the other end is what I call the "mystical Christ" who, people claim, is alive and well and is with them together. IMO, this "Christ" is so unlittle like our best estimates of the historical Jesus that I see little correlation. Some people seem to think it is some kind of divine inner consciousness or heightened awareness. Others claim to channel this "Christ" and receive continued revelations. For me, being a rationalist and believing that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, this side of "Christ" is a bit to New-Agey and "woo-woo" for me. The claims are, from my point of view, far too esoteric and anecdotal-based. So I live in the middle ground where I judge the alleged teachings of the Jesus of the gospels are their own merit, trying to determine is they make rational sense, are morally good, and bear good fruit. I realize we can't (currently) get at the historical Jesus. But I'm not in favor of creating him in our own image either and making him whatever we want him to be. But his alleged teachings have proved themselves and often borne much fruit. So I would compare any other revelations or visions to the core of these teachings to see how they stack up.

Welcome, UnitedLove! Glad you found us! Like you, I'm a bit smitten with Jesus but disillusioned with popular Christianity. So I think this is a good, safe place to explore both and see where the journey takes you. For me, God is the Reality in which we live and move and have our being. I don't see God as a genie-in-the-sky, but as a Source of life and love all around us and in us. The bible, for me, is a collection of books written by the Jews and the early Christians that describe how they saw and explained God and their relationship to God. Because, IMO, it is a human record, I don't see it as infallible or inerrant or as necessarily reflecting God's views on things. Nevertheless, I think these ancient groups had some spiritual insights that can be helpful today. But I bring the tools of critical thinking and reason to the scriptures, utilizing modern biblical scholarship. My way of "spreading the message" is simply to live what I believe to be the truth -- that we should love God and one another. I think our actions speak louder than our words. You can find these concepts explained better in the "Eight Points of Progressive Christianity" part of our forum. Again, welcome. I look forward to getting to know you better.

Welcome, Martin. I look forward to your contributions to our forum here!

If you drive, please don't text. Give your loved one a hug and a kiss today. You may not get another chance.

Fatherman, >>We may be disagreeing, but we may just not be seeing the whole picture together well enough to know if we are. That may well be the case. So, I ask sincerely, who or what is this God that you surrender to? (BTW, I hope you know that I am not at all mocking you. I am interested in unconventional views of God. My own view is Reality with a possible Cosmic Consciousness. This is quite different from YHWH or even the Father of Jesus.)

I still struggle with what you are saying here, Fatherman. Most likely, the struggle is on my side, but I'm not sure how to resolve it. IMO, you can only surrender to someone if you trust their character, or, as you have said, you believe they have your best interest at heart. For instance, I can often surrender to my wife because I know her character and know her to be a fine, moral person who puts the best interest of our family at the center. But the God of the bible, well, based on the texts, I'm not convinced that such a God is trust-worthy, worthy to surrender to. After all, the texts say that he flooded the earth, that he killed all the first-born in Egypt two-years of age and under, that he commanded that Israel kill the inhabitants of Canaan land. He allows Japthah to sacrifice his own daughter. And according to Christian mythology, even many of those who bow their knee and confess that Jesus is lord will still end up in hell. Now, I'm not saying that all these portrayals of God are accurate, but they are still part of the whole package. It would be easier for me to surrender to this God if he was ALWAYS consistently loving and merciful. On another level, when I was young (in high school and Bible School), we were consumed with what God's will was. What was God's will for my vocation? What was God's will for my mate? What church was God's will for me to attend? Which version of the bible was God's will? Which denomination was God's will for me? I'm not joking, I took these things very seriously back then. I truly wanted God's will. It was, for me, a dangerous place to be if one was outside of the will of God. Bad things happen to people in the bible if they go against the will of God. But, as I've mentioned before, I don't know how to discern the will of God. Other than Jesus' two commands of loving God and loving others, I don't know what the will of God is in most situations. I have never heard audibly from God as to what his will is. I don't trust the scriptures as a guide. Should we follow the 637 "will of God" commandments in the OT? Should we follow the "will of God" found in Jesus' teachings of selling our things or leaving our families? So, to me (and you'll probably disagree -- that's okay), the fact that we have our own will is a gift from God. We have the ability to weigh things out, to reason, to make up our own minds about what is best. Is it infallible? Not by a long shot. It is a tool, IMO, for discerning reality and how to respond to it. The people who flew the planes into the Twin Towers were, no doubt, convinced they were doing the will of God. The Church was convinced it was doing the will of God when it persecuted the Reformers and the early scientists. John Calvin believed his was doing the will of God when he had Michael Servetus burned at the stake for challenging the doctrine of the Trinity. Many Christians today believe that homosexuals go to hell because heterosexuality is the will of God. So I question how we humans determine what the "true will of God" really is. I won't surrender my will to something unless I am convinced it is of good and consistent moral character. That's just how I'm wired. Thanks for listening. Agreement is in no way required.

Deborah, >>And looking around me I would agree with the idea that God 'intervenes' via us. Probably a good question would be: “Well, if it is “us” that intervenes, then why bring God into the equation? Why not just be a humanist?” I wonder about this myself. My best answer, at this point, is that there is an overwhelming claim (not proof, but a claim) that people have done what they have done by tapping into a Higher Power, that they have found some Inner Power that, in their opinion, gave them leadings or strength or courage to do what they did. Could this all be self-delusion? I suppose so. But I think the claims bear serious consideration. >>I'd be hesitant though to limit God's workings to 'just' that. Other experiences, which some would call miracles, also seem to happen to some extent... what does one do with those? I don’t know. Weird things happen in this world. Wonderful things. “Interventions”, so-to-speak. But if we are going to attribute those to God’s actions, what do we do with all the tragedies? Is God capricious? Fickle? Does he play favorites? >>He cannot explain this to himself and has confessed that it is the reason he hasn't left the faith, even though in other circumstances he certainly has had reason to. I don’t say this in callousness at all, but if the only reason I am a Christian is because I think God will protect me from harm, well, I would find such faith, for me, to be insufficient. >>But why the random stories of protection, when other people, who also pray, do die??? It seems so random! Does prayer play any kind of role? Have you wrestled with those questions? Certainly. I write about this a lot in the “God’s Sovereignty” thread here where I talk about my granddaughter’s death. Allow me, briefly, to share with you how my daughter rationalizes this. She is a charismatic Christian (which I used to be: Pentecostal Holiness, AoG) so she very much believes that God is active and in control of ALL events in her life. Charismatics usually claim a very personal and real and constant connection with God. So, for my daughter, God helps her to get parking places close to the doors at WalMart. God helps the Dallas Cowboys to win football games. She continues to smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day because, God, being in control, could take away her craving for cigarettes if he wanted to. Therefore, it must be God’s will that she smoke. Because she believes that everything happens according to God’s will, she also believes that Moriah’s death was preordained by God and that it is a “miracle” that she, her husband, and her other daughter survived the accident. She believes that guardian angels protected her, her husband, and Bella, but that God took Moriah home. There might be some kind of comfort in taking this few of God, God’s will and miracles. But this view just doesn’t work for me. Perhaps this is the only way in which she can deal with the loss. I’ve recommended psychiatric loss-therapy to her, but she considers that to be “ungodly.” She would rather choose to believe that all went according to a divine plan. Is she more “Christian” than I because she believes in God’s sovereign will and that it was a “miracle” that her, her husband, and her other daughter walked away from the accident? Is it a case that she won’t face the truth of how Reality works? Or is it that I am an unbeliever because I don’t trust “God’s will” in this matter? Does she have true faith while all I have is doubt? Why can’t I accept the “miracle” that 3 people walked away from the accident? Is it because I question God’s goodness in knowing that Moriah’s little skull was pushed into her brain? How do we account for miracles when there are also so many tragedies?

I don't know how/if intercessory prayer works. There are always accounts of prayers having an effect in *some* cases. And there are also documented accounts, especially in the field of medicine, where prayer has not had an effect. I can live with the ambiguity of saying, "I don't know if intercessory prayer works or not." What turns me off is when prayer is claimed to *usually* have an effect, such as the motto, "Prayer Works!" or "Prayer Changes Things!". These mottos are mostly prevalent in evangelical circles. Remember the "Prayer of Jabez" that was all the rage a few years ago? People were using that as a "formula" to, supposedly, get God to bless them. I simply don't see God as a genie-in-the-sky that will give us what we want if we have enough faith or say the right words or claim promises from bible verses. The notion behind intercessory prayer is a good one, hoping for the best in people and situations. But the kind of God I believe in doesn't work the way these "name it and claim it" people seem to believe it does.

Where all of this leads us, IMO, is to ask the question of how did the historical Jesus (as best as we can get at him) experience the Reality or Presence of God in his life? I think he obviously felt that his ministry and message came from God. He had a few mystical experiences of his own (at his baptism and at the transfiguration). How much of these accounts is actual history, we cannot know. But it is interesting to consider Jesus' own experiences of God rather than arguing that he was "God in a man suit". I know that many (most?) CCs believe that this is what the incarnation is, but, to me, to elevate Jesus to actual Godhood is to lose what a remarkable, insightful, inspiring, and compassionate man he was. If he was "God with skin on", then what he taught and did is not so surprising. But if he was a human being who was sensitive to the Spirit, then not only is he remarkable and worthy of serious consideration, but he also serves as an example of the kind of people that we ourselves can be. Though I disagree with the apostle Paul on some issues, I think he was right about how we, like Jesus, can and should exhibit the fruit of the Spirit. Within the framework of panentheism, we know that the fruit is not something we accomplish on our own. It is something the Spirit bears through us. As one theologian has said, "Without God, we cannot; without us, God will not." It is our Oneness with the Spirit (however we define and experience it) that makes us, in some sense, like Jesus.

Deborah, >>Our perception of God changes all the time though. I suspect that is the case. My own perceptions will probably continue to change or shift or be tweaked. >>I think there are very clear themes of progression within the Bible...which IMO says more about the authors' progression in their perception of God, than that it says about God changing. I think so, though I can't say for sure. But maybe, over the centuries, the "glass darkly" has cleared a bit. I hope so. >>So does God change his/her thinking? A difficult concept to get my head (and heart) around, which again perhaps says more about my limited view than about God. What are your thoughts on that? It is very difficult for me to get my head around. Process thought was not initially religious in tone. But as progressive theologians considered process thought, yes, they considered that if nature/the universe is "in God", then God also changes with nature. It is more of a Greek notion (Aristotle) to consider God to be the immovable mover. But Judaism, Christianity, and Process Theology posit that God does respond to us and our world. My own thoughts on this are that, if God responds, then God does so through us. In other words, there is no arm bending down from heaven or angels to save us. If God is "here", then God is here and interacts through and in us. But my ideas about all of this are still very much in flux, though even the bible says that we are the body (arms, legs, heart) of Christ. This is not really such an unorthodox view. Many Christians have said, down through the ages, that when/if God acts, God does so through his/her people. So when *some* (not all) Christians assert that we can't be like Jesus because we have sinful natures or we just human, I think they distort the main message of Jesus which was a call to join him in loving God and loving others and working for transformation in this world. Process Theology says that God cares about the world, but he/she is not going to step in and save us, that we need to grow up and do what Jesus and the gospel calls us to do. This is quite different from *some* gospels that say to sit back and wait for Jesus to return to fix everything.

Hi Deborah, >>It is true that cherry picking is frowned upon by fundamentalists, but I recognize that we all cherry-pick...from fundamentalist to liberal. Sure they do. They are big on Paul’s “justification by faith alone apart from works”, but they ignore what Jesus says in the Great Judgment about those who are declared righteous being people who have done works. They are against homosexuality (which Jesus didn’t speak about) but their divorce rate is as high as non-Christians (which Jesus did speak about). They are big on Jesus’ exclusive statement about no man coming to the Father except through him, but they don’t seem to know about Cornelius who Paul said God had accepted even though Cornelius didn’t know who Jesus was. We all cherry-pick. >>So everything you two have written about the divinity of Jesus appeals to my mind and in summary I would agree that the concept of the trinity developed over time. Like the idea developed over time that slavery is contrary to the heart of God ... an idea that is now commonly accepted. Certainly. And the Church has ordained women over the last 50 years, at least in the moderate and liberal camps. This goes against Paul’s teaching. But the Spirit leads us into new experiences, new truth. Some denominations now have gay bishops and pastors. This will no doubt continue. >>So what I'm trying to say is, all the attempts to 'un-deify' Jesus, in my mind, are attempts at understanding our own connection with the Divine. I think that is an accurate statement. I have no problem with considering Jesus to be divine (coming from God) as long as we acknowledge that we do also. If Jesus was, as CCs claim, a “God-man”, then he was not one of us. Therefore, he had a leg up on us and cannot serve as an example. The God-man walked on water. We cannot. The God-man turned water into wine. We cannot. The God-man raised the dead. We cannot (without medical assistance). The God-man rose from the dead after three days. We do not. And the God-man died. God cannot. God is immortal. >>My heart tells me that there is something to this Jesus...a feeling I can't shake. Mine also. That is why I continue to associate myself with Christianity, even if I am not an orthodox Christian. >>Where all those experiences 'just in my head' with some biological/evolutionary advantage? Perhaps, but they don't 'feel' like that. It feels like there is more significance to them, would you agree Bill? Yes, I would. But my mystical experiences were not of a Person, per se. In other words, I didn’t perceive “God” speaking to me within a supernatural framework. My experiences were more of a feeling, more of sensation. The problem that I have with “supernatural theism” is that it has a tendency to say that God only comes through the “supernatural”. In other words, if God shows up, it has to be a nature-bending or nature-breaking demonstration of power. Panentheism stresses that even nature is “in God” and that God speaks to us through nature as well as a multiplicity of other ways (relationships, conscience, science, etc.). Supernatural theism tends to limit God by insisting that God only works through supernatural means (i.e. God speaks through a supernatural book or a supernaturally anointed person). This makes God seem far away or disconnected, because we live in a natural universe. >>Perhaps the natural is divine? Exactly. Why can’t it be? Even the Genesis story says that the natural comes from God and God considers it good. >>Along the lines of 'everything is spiritual'? We live and move and have our being in the divine? In which case you can stop and marvel and wonder at the smallest most natural things...a butterfly, a couple holding hands, an older brother protecting his younger sister, a dead flower that still manages to catch the eye with a certain kind of beauty...life. Who is it that said you can live your life in one of two ways? The first is that there are no miracles (scientism). The second is that everything is a miracle. By miracle, I do not mean a supernatural occurrence. I simply refer to the fact that we are here against literally astronomical odds. There are so many factors that had to be “just right” (teleological argument) for life to be here. It seems to imply that More is going on than just random chance. I call that More “God”. But this is a consideration that each of us must make individually.

I can see, Wonnerful, how being an atheist could be somewhat beneficial in a time of loss. Though I am more of a panentheist or a non-theist, I don't have to wonder why God let the tragedy happen or what God's reasons for it are or how "all things work together for good for those who love God." And, like you, I don't worry about whether Moriah, being only 5, accepted Jesus as her personal savior of not in order to enter the pearly gates. That is a non-issue for me. Yes, being human there is a part of me that would enjoy seeing her again. As you say, perhaps something survives, we don't yet know. I remain open to it. But, to be quite frank, it makes me sick to my stomach when my well-meaning family says, "God needed another angel in heaven" or "God had his reasons for calling her home" or "We know she is in a better place." These are all statements of faith with no evidence behind them except for folklore, things we tell ourselves in futile efforts to make the loss bearable. As painful as it is (and it is), I would rather stare this straight in the face and say, as you have, "Reality has brought this along. Life happens. Death happens. It is simply how Reality works." This doesn't mean that I deny an afterlife or the possibility of being with Moriah again. It just means that I'm not going to assert what I don't know. I don't mind if others hold to this folklore as long as they don't become too pushy with it. I tend to think that faith is often an excuse that people use to avoid dealing with Reality. I know I did.

Wonnerful, I wasn’t really putting forth arguments as much as I was asking, “Have you considered….?” >>2. I completely agree with awe and wonder. When I stare up at the stars and fathom its un-fathomable-ness, I feel awe and wonder. I like what Carl Sagan says on awe and wonder and spirituality. Carl is one of my heroes. I got hooked on his POV through Cosmos and reading “The Demon-Haunted World” and “Contact”. >>Basically, this concept of God you speak of BillM, I have no issue with. What I get annoyed with is when kids die of cancer daily and some church attributes one kid's recovery to the prayers of the congregation, as if the deity needed more praise before he'd act. But I digress, because Spong, Borg, and Crossan are all NON-THEISTS! As you know, I don’t buy into the supernatural theistic God either. When my granddaughter died in a car accident last Xmas Eve, that event pretty much washed me clean of any notions that God is a loving parent in the sky who controls events down here on earth. My daughter pleaded the blood of Jesus all the way to the hospital. It did no good. My granddaughter was pronounced dead on the helicopter on the way to the hospital. There were no guardian angels and despite my wife’s family being united in prayer in Jesus’ name, Moriah still died. To me, the supernatural theistic God is very much a creation of our own minds, wanting someone to fix things for us and control things so we don’t get hurt. >>Maybe a Tillichian ground of Being does exist, and something MORE does exist, I hope so. I just have no experience of it. Well, Wonnerful, that is the kicker of the process theology “God”. If I understand it correctly, the fact they we exist is proof that God exists, for our being comes from God’s Being (not “a being”, but existence itself). >>Could there be more to Reality than physics? Yes. I think so also. I can think of realities such as love, joy, compassion, mercy, tenderness, etc., none of which we can “measure” with our 5 senses. Yes, we experience them. But they don’t strictly line up with scientism (all that exists is the material). Scientism folks say these are nothing but chemical reactions. Maybe so. But they sure influence our lives to a large extent. >>Of course, in the face of death or in mourning, do I long for immortality, for a heavenly Father, a deity to embrace me and welcome into a mansion in the clouds. You bet I do. I WANT to believe, Lord help my unbelief (as we read in Mark 9:24). As do I. But, like you, I see no evidence for this except for anecdotal accounts. We experience the angst of being human and mortal. It is a fearful thing. I truly wish there was a More beyond death but, to date, I’ve seen no convincing evidence. I remain open to it, though.

I really appreciate your input and point-of-view, Wonnerful. I have to admit that the few "experiences" that I have had may be delusions. I can prove them to no one. I have no evidence. They are idiosyncratic to me. They may even be occasions of my own psyche, as you say, writ large into the sky or into my life. In fact, being more rational in nature, I would be very tempted to write these off as delusions except for two things: 1. First, there is overwhelming consensus by many people down through history who have had somewhat similar experiences, though the details differ. 2. Second, most mystical experiences don't involve what we might call the supernatural or "God breaking the laws of nature." Most are simply experiences of overwhelming awe and wonder. Certainly they can be experiences of the More or of Oneness or Connectedness. But common to almost all of them is a sense of awe and wonder. Can we attribute these characteristics to just our minds alone? Yes. But maybe, just maybe, it truly is something more. I've only had 3 experiences that I would classify as "traditionally mystic". But I have had many, many other experiences that have filled me with awe and wonder. Listening to an orchestral symphony. Seeing a play. Reading a book that touches my soul in the deepest places. Hearing a song which completely changes the way I see things. Being with friends and family who have loved me when I am the most unlovable. Can these experiences not also be experiences of what we call God? Granted, we all like the light and magic shows, myself included. We like the experiences that leave us with no doubt that God has shown up. We want to see his tracks, so-to-speak. But sometimes, maybe most of the time, God shows up in the still, small voice -- the echo of a whisper. These are no less mystical experiences than the light and magic shows. In keeping with what Borg and Spong (and even the bible), perhaps if you have felt love, you have experienced God. I'm not getting all wishy-washy here. I'm just suggesting that perhaps God is indeed bigger than the boxes religions have put around him/her/it. This guy I really admire once said that you could recognize people who seek his Way by their love for others. Is there any greater experience than that?

I pretty much agree with Joseph in this matter. I don't think it's a wise idea to force others to believe or disbelieve. I think we can and should entrust them to God. Of course, my views are predicated on the notion that no one is going to burn in hell forevermore, so while I may be concerned that others might be wasting their lives, I don't fear for anyone's "immortal soul." My wife and her family are committed evangelical Christians. I get along with them fairly well as long as we avoid certain topics and hot-button issues. If we discuss religious issues at all, we tend to focus on the commonalities and avoid our differences. I'll answer questions if asked, but then state that my views are how I see things. One thing that I think is important is to realize that they, like us, are on journeys, and at many different points. So I would never imply to them that I am enlightened while they are in the dark, or that I am awake while they are asleep, or that I am wise while they are foolish. Even if I thought this to be the case, not only would this language come across as prideful and "holier than thou", it would demean them and, IMO, devalue what God is already doing in their lives. Again, it comes down to trusting that God is working and, as Joseph has said, believing that God's grace will sort things out. So while I wouldn't want to force my beliefs on anyone, I'd be happy to answer their questions with my own reasons and to walk beside them for as long as I can. This is not always easy to do, because bumps in the road do come along. (For instance, my daughter is gay and I'm okay with it. The family is not.) But love can definitely be the tie that binds and I think if we err on the side of grace and love, we will seldom come out on the wrong side.