NORM

So I wonder how this sort of violence ties in with perhaps our ideals of a peaceful world. Should we simply let be even if it means that the violent people may in fact kill us and many others, or is violence justified in stopping them?

Paul, I was a pacifist until some thugs attacked my daughter while trick-or-treating (Halloween) in our neighborhood. I was escorting her, but she was a couple of houses ahead of me, and these three young men pushed her down and tried to take her bag of candy. Something came over me and I fought them all off. At the time, I didn't know they were only interested in the candy. They pushed her to the ground and were struggling with her. I thought they were attempting to rape her, which is why I reacted so violently.

I tell you, I did not know I was capable of such a thing. I took on three young men (they were in their mid-twenties, I would guess) and walked away with only a bruised eye.

After that incident, I began to re-evaluate my position on violence. I now think there are times when immediate action - even violent action - is justified.

I think that war should be the absolute last choice, and ONLY in a defensive manner. The aggressive use of preemptive force initiated by the Bush Administration in Iraq, in my opinion, is NOT an example of a justified violent action.

NORM

Norm,

If you agree in principle with the latest version of the 8 Points (or the previous version for that matter), then you are a Progressive Christian according to the TCPC, and very much a member of this community. But even they go a long way to making it clear that you don't need to worry too much about labels.

Thanks, Paul. I appreciate your vote of confidence.

Truthfully, I view myself more a Humanist than a Christian. I derive equal measure of inspiration from the likes of Kurt Vonnegut, Alexander Dumas and George Santayana as I do from Jesus, Mohammed and Hillel.

I am happy to participate in this community as long as I am welcome. And, I do feel welcome! I appreciate the diversity of ideas and perspective.

NORM

What is happening now I think is that the spiritual but not religious folks (and others) are taking progressive Christianity down the same well worn path taken by UU. I don’t see why that is necessary since we have UU doing a much better job performing that function. Why duplicate what UU is doing especially since TCPC organizationally is just not prepared to compete with UU?

I don't see TCPC as symbiotic with Unitarian Universalism even though they may share a similar goal, namely; Spirituality without theism. Mysticism without magic.

Just as there are many variations on the theme of theistic Christianity, why shouldn't there be a corresponding number of iterations on progressive Christianity? I've been to Unitarian Universalist churches on numerous occasions, and it is of a decidedly different timbre than TCPC. In many ways, Unitarianism - for me - focuses too much on mysticism and developing modern interpretations of ancient ritual and tradition.

If you agree with Funk then I think there is a good indication that you would like to self-identify as a Christian but you really need a community to help you do that.

Actually, my question was rhetorical, as I've already made a decision to NOT self-identify as Christian. My faith philosophy is more in line with Judaism than Christianity. My study of the Jesus of the Bible leads me to the conclusion that he was actually a follower of Hillel, who was somewhat of a progressive himself within the Jewish community of his day (Hilllel, I mean).

I am quite happy to join an occasional minyan in the local Jewish community.

There are some communities who are trying to live out such a vision. For them the Christian context is a reflection of ultimate caring about what it means to be Christian. But for many and for most who post here there is either a lack of such concern or there are folks who live “in exile” as Spong puts it or there are those who reject the need for community. Those who reject the need for community I think are the least likely persons to be able to answer your question.

 

I am suggesting that your question about your self-identity as a Christian can only be answered within the context of a community who ultimately cares about the Christian context. The problem of course is that there is not now an abundance of that community trying to live out Funk/Spong/Borg’s vision. That is why it seems to me that so many people feel they have to answer your question on their own but I just don’t see that working real well. I am suggesting that perhaps you have come to the wrong place to ask your question.

I appreciate your concerncs, but I just don't share your assessment of this particular group. Sure, you can find one or two that match your characterizations, but they are the exception and not the rule. And here I am speaking of regular posters, not the drive-bys.

So bottom line here is my response to your question. Without community I cannot really answer your question. I don’t find that community here and so I cannot answer your question here. To me it is like asking you what it means to be a Jew outside your Jewish community. We have ecumenical spaces to attempt that but it seems to me those chairs at the table are occupied by communities and not individuals. Of course we can all meet at your pub and have great discussions also. Those however usually don't last beyond a wonderful evening.

I think that you expect too much of an on-line forum. For the limitations inherent within the medium, this forum is just fine. Too bad we can't share libations through the Ethernet.

NORM

Norm,

 

Thanks for sharing that. I'm here with tears in my eyes. What a beautiful story, and a great explanation of another way to see the Bible's teachable moments.

There was a very strange - and long - moment of silence after that sermon. I was in shock. Previously, I was of the opinion that homosexuality was a sin. I'm glad you find it inspirational. That sermon changed my life.

NORM

Hi,

 

I was previously a Catholic, then became an atheist and now I'm probably best described as an "amateur Buddhist with an interest in progressive Christianity". I've been reading some work by John Shelby Spong and also recently Don Cupitt, and find it really interesting and that I can relate to it. I've been thinking about attending Church services again, but I'm wondering about how other people, who don't accept literal belief in the core elements of traditional Christianity feel about attending Church services and what kind of Church services they attend.

 

Regards,

Stas82

Hello and welcome, Stas.

As a Christian, I felt it necessary to put faith into action. So, I would volunteer for the soup kitchen or some sort of outreach program. Invariably, I would be questioned about my beliefs (or, rather; in my case - lack thereof). The reactions were never very pretty. Eventually, I found that I had to lie in order to continue working side by side with other Christians.

Eventually, I converted to Judaism because it is not necessary to accept a theistic understanding of G-d in order to be accepted.

NORM

There are Christian churches that actively promote acceptance.

Sadly, they are the exception, and not the rule.

NORM

Norm,

 

I did not say that this was stupid but that you were smarter than this. I should not have said it this way and I apologize. I look forward to your posts. Your comments have a sense of being real and reasoned. I gravitate to your avatar when looking at a list of new comments.

 

The above is a succinct variation of your criticism of religions. But I don't see how it is useful in the conversation. The generalizations aren't nuanced and don't fit the issues.

 

Deities and what they command evolves, Animal sacrifice is not a permanent characteristic of religion. Common sense is problematic.

 

There have been no animal sacrifices in Judaism or Christianity in two millennia. As George observed the study of religions does include an examination of the costly sacrifice but to say that sacrifice only happens in religion misses much about the nature of sacrifice and its importance of it to any group of people. If animal sacrifice taints a people or practices then the iconic birthplace of democracy, Athens, is tainted. If making a costly sacrifice for a higher good taints a people then the Civil War and Normandy Invasion taint America and Europe. Democracy is often born in the violent sacrifice of human lives.

 

Deities are not counted and measured in general studies of the evolution of religions. Granted, the effect of some higher being watching our behavior is. But that shared understanding of right behavior which stands outside of any group and can therefore critique those in power is essential to the development of modern stable government, according to Fukuyama, who does not think that religion was always helpful. But in the West this independent sense of what is right evolved with the help of Christianity according to both fukuyama and John Keane, author of Life and Death of democracy.

 

Keane says that democracy is the first human government in that it is not dependent on a deity or a religion for authority. In his view we didn't have democracy fully realized until the beginning of the 20th century and in the west religion helped us achieve the first secular government.

 

We should not confuse the past with the future. Our Christian heritage does not make us a Christian nation. That perhaps the crowning achievement of democracy is that it is the first human, secular, government does not mean that the past would be better if stripped of religion.

 

I think a discussion of the effect and co-evolution of religion can be more nuanced. Is the thinking of Francis Fukuyama and John Keane part of the common that makes sense?

 

 

Dutch

Thanks for the clarification, Dutch. Your comments make sense. My comment was me being lazy.

NORM

It seems that you would like to see the demise of religion. How come?

I don't necessarily WANT to see the demise of religion, it's just my observation that it is becoming less and less of a priority for most folks. On a personal level; I don't really see a need for religious belief. I do like the music, though.

Conversely, what would lead you the think that a secular society would be cooperative and compromising?

I think our own SECULAR United States is a pretty darn good example. It's not perfect, but I've traveled extensively in religious theocracies and they kind of suck in comparison, IMHO.

NORM

While I don't think that Christianity or the Bible causes homophobia, it certainly does nothing to ameliorate the societal stigma directed toward persons of same gender attraction.

A church I attended in my early 20s tried so desperately to deconstruct a young, gay man in our congregation that it drove him to commit suicide. Arguably, there were deeper issues at work, but the layers upon layers of guilt piled upon this poor soul by well-meaning, but WRONG Christians - a group he wanted to belong to more than anything else - pushed him to a final solution at his own hands.

The speaker whose audience dissipated over words that challenged their prejudices underscore the themes meted out within this thread - whether of Christian or secular origin, homophobia is a scourge worthy of defeat.

NORM

Norm, religion does not necessarily entail sacrifice or appeasement.

Ones that have a place called Hell for eternal torment do.

Many, if not most, religions require some sort of self-sacrifice or abandonment of natural human activity (usually regarding sex or pleasure).

What religion are you aware of that doesn't require some sort of appeasement to the founding god / gods?

If the absence of religion led to some Utopian world, you might have a point. But, this was tried by the USSR, Red China and Cambodia and the result was no better and, in a number of ways, worse.

 

I don't recall advocating a Utopian society. I know that that is just folly. However, I don't believe that the absence of religion necessarily equates to a situation like the USSR, China or Cambodia.

There are plenty of small, human settlements in the Amazon rain forest who have no religious beliefs whatsoever and manage to not oppress everyone. The examples theists tend to pull out of the hat had plenty of bad religious karma they were reacting to. I discount those examples.

I think that as we move forward in time, a gradual secular society built on social constructions of cooperation, compromise and negotiation will replace most religious institutions.

Yeah, it won't be perfect.

NORM

Norm, I know you are smarter than this response suggests.

 

Dutch

What about my comment seems stupid to you?

NORM

So, it would be "man-made" in the same sense that the nuclear family, or language, is man-made.

Sure, but unlike a god, it isn't necessary to sacrifice humans, animals, dignity and common sense to appease.

NORM

When I finally die and enter into the Lord's presence I will see, fully, what it is I have rejected or accepted in this life. My hunch, and I am really only speculating here, is that if I fully rejected the God of my understanding here, I will see in totality, the subject of what I rejected. I don't know, but my thoughts are that it will be more difficult to embrace the truth of God then.

This is wild. I had just finished reading some translations of the Book of the Dead in preparation for something I am writing.

Taking a break from my writing, I perused this thread and came upon the above statement.

Consider this from the Egyptian ceremony of expiation in the court of the Goddesses of what is Right, commonly called the "weighing of the heart" because the hieroglyphics from this section depict a man (represented by the single "N") having his heart weighed before Osiris.

Address at arrival at the broad hall of the Two Goddesses of What is Right,

shielding N from all forbidden things that he has done, and seeing the faces of the gods.

Words spoken by N:

Hail great god, lord of the place of the Two Goddesses of What is Right.

I have come before you so that you may bring me to see your perfection.

I know you, I know your name,

I know the name of these 42 gods who are with you in this broad court of the Two Goddesses of What is Right,

who live on the henchmen of evil, and eat of their blood

on that day of calculating characters in the presence of Wennefer.

See, your name is He of the two Daughters, he of the two Chants, lord of the Two Goddesses of What is Right,

See, I am come before you, I have brought What is Right to you, I have removed What is Wrong for you.

I have not impoverished the divine herd (people); I have committed no crime in place of What is Right;

I have not known (explored) nothingness; I have not done any evil...

- Book of the Dead, Chapter 125A

The petitioner goes on to declare that he hasn't committed a lengthy series of "sins."

I think there is such similarity because ALL religion is man-made. In our imaginings of perceived interactions between men and our gods, we are not much different from the "ancients."

NORM

What are your thoughts on the Divine Feminine?

I think Feminism is important, but the divine unnecessary.

In fact, given the fact that religious ideology is one of the last remaining major stumbling blocks for feminism to hurdle in the 21st Century CE, I'd say the divine should be avoided at all costs.

NORM

What defines a heavenly end versus a hellish end is the human choice to embrace God; our Creator or reject Him...

...or whatever your particular interpretation divines:

There's a great text in Galatians,

Once you trip on it, entails

Twenty-nine distinct damnations,

One sure, if another fails.

If I trip him just a-dying,

Sure of heaven as sure can be,

Spin him round and send him flying

Off to hell, a Manichee? - Browning, Soliloquy of the Spanish Cloister

The bargaining one must do to appease the gods we make seem like so much tilting at windmills, IMHO.

NORM

Thanks for posting that, Steph.

Here is a copy of a sermon that changed my mind on the issue of homosexuality. It's rather long, but you won't be disappointed. Interestingly, from another Episcopalian.

http://stpaulsfay.or...ossinglines.pdf

-----------------------------------

Replaced extremely long sermon/post with link.... JosephM as Moderator (Also note sermons and other pieces of work should not be copied and pasted without express permission except for smaller excerpts were credit is given. See copyright guidelines)

-----------------------------------

...I did some training in the art with a group dedicated to such work, but sadly dont make much use of it, simply because too many around me, that I'm in contact with, are frightened of it, and me, for it....

If it works, why care if the process is "scary?" I don't understand this.

Magical healings? No. therapeutic, yes.

I'm not sure I buy into the "healing energy" thing, but I am aware of some studies that conclude that the placebo effect can "heal" with often better results than pharmacological methods. In other words, because we think that something a trained professional gave to us will make us better, our minds / bodies are tricked into eliminating the manifestation of the original illness or malady.

My mother did this with me as an adolescent. I had terrible allergies and asthma and was prescribed a panoply of drugs (mostly steroids) and breathing apparatus. The drugs were making me sick to my stomach.

So, she took me off of the medication, made all of our food from scratch, bought meat from a local farm and butcher, and never served anything with preservatives, additives or refined flours or sugars. She read somewhere that the chemical additives to food could be responsible for many modern illnesses.

She also purchased bulk capsules and loaded them with raw sugar and gave them to me when I was having particularly bad allergic symptoms. Of course, I didn't know that the capsules only contained sugar. Amazingly, shortly after I took the "medicine," my symptoms would subside.

My mother continued to do this for quite some time until I came home early from football practice and caught her filling the capsules with sugar. She explained her subterfuge, and I had an epiphany: if there were no drugs, then my mind was responsible for relieving the symptoms.

Actually, when you think about it, all antihistamines do is relax the inflamed nasal passages. So, I began to will myself into relaxing the nasal passages WITHOUT taking anything. 90% of the time, it works.

I still do this to this day. However, when I know that I will be unable to totally relax (like during a meeting or when work needs to get done), I will take a mild antihistamine.

No magic - just human will.

NORM

I read an op-ed piece awhile ago which concluded that American democracy is ill-suited for the polarized climate we are in. Unfortunately American democracy does not work well third parties. So power will switch back and forth with each side taking down what the other side put up and unilaterally building their own projects.

This may accurately define our current condition, but I think it will come to a head in either violent revolution or an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression seem like paradise.

Or, perhaps we will emerge beyond the Talk Show Cable News era before its too late.

NORM

Where do you stand on this?

Well, like Jenell, I voted reluctantly for Obama, as I was a Hillary supporter in the primaries.

However, over time, Obama has won me over. I thought he would be an unmitigated disaster because of his inexperience.

Instead, he has been open to change his views, and adapt to the realities that unfold before him. Many of my clients are Fortune 500 manufacturing corporations, and things are beginning to move in a forward direction - particularly the auto makers. I have a large General Motors plant in my territory, and they recently added 1,000 employees and added a third shift.

I have personally witnessed several institutions and small companies directly benefit from the President's stimulus package. In fact, our company won bids associated with two stimulus projects. I have more money to spend than I did a couple years ago.

I've always been skeptical about Keynesian economic policy, but it appears to work - at least at the local level. It probably isn't a good thing for the mega-corporations because most of the recipients of the stimulus package are smaller contractors and educational / healthcare institutions.

At first, I thought his embracing Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals philosophy was a gimmick, but apparently, he has successfully implemented Lincoln's strategy of taking in his rivals to help sharpen his worldview. Selecting Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was perhaps his best move, as we have regained the respect we lost overseas during the Bush years. His team of economic advisers could not be more diverse, and certainly not representative of the so-called "community activist" model.

As far as religion goes, he seems to go out of his way to be inclusive of religious (and non-religious) persuasions historically ignored, such as Paganism, Atheism, Islam, etc.

I am still suspicious of our two-party system, and am somewhat disappointed that our younger generation has not become more involved.

I would still rather see the rise of a vibrant third party challenge to the status quo, but in the meantime, Barak Obama is a welcome change from the previous experience.

NORM

Heh, when I think of things like Holistic and Herbal Medicine, Reiki, Chakras and Chiropractic, I can't help but recall this episode of Seinfeld:

I love Jerry's response: "I'm strictly here for the material."

NORM

I am a man of first impression judgments often never revisited.

I resemble that statement!

My wife, however, managed to convince me to rise above those first impressions and discover all the gold I've overlooked because I couldn't get past the tattered containers.

NORM

This book is just out, I think. Bart is not my favorite author so I am looking for any knowledgeable comments before I am seduced into a "one-click" purchase.

 

http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/0062204602

 

Dutch

Dutch,

I would highly recommend this book.

When I was a practicing Christian, I would often turn to his scholarly works even though I knew he was an agnostic. He is a gifted writer with a talent for explaining complex and often counter-intuitive narratives concisely and expertly so that anyone can understand it.

He manages to deftly dance around the cow-patties without soiling his pant cuffs.

NORM

Paul,

 

I think the point here is that IF one is cured of some disease or affliction and it is verified in some way, saying well that can't be true because there is no record of faith healers causing new arms to grow, in my view, in no way invalidates that there is no valid faith healing. The question of whether 'faith healers' have even prayed for arm amputees growing new arms after prayer, i am not aware of. Why God would give faith to an individual for one thing and not another IS a valid question for which i personally have no answer. But to me the argument does not invalidate 'faith healing'. Of course if one thinks it does, to me that is fine as i have no quarrel with those who choose to believe differently. I would just disagree.

 

Just my own thoughts,

Joseph

Joseph, your comments do make sense. I think what you are saying is what Dutch, perhaps, was trying to say. Dutch?

I still disagree.

But, I think our disagreement is just on the agent of healing. What has been called "internal" healing, in my mind translates as mind over matter, or what has been called the placebo effect, as Paul pointed out. Your take on this phenomenon is that it is not the human mind that is doing the healing, but some supernatural being or entity. And, some prefer to call this entity G-d. I'm OK with that.

What I do have a problem with are those who loudly proclaim that THEY are the conduit of such healing, and that in order for it to continue, you must send them money.

When we did our research on faith healing, a sad truth we discovered is that there were so many dishonest people wearing the robes of righteousness, bilking vulnerable, hurting people of their last bit of savings on the hope of a miracle healing.

Maybe, at times, the placebo effect caused this "healing," and maybe there were those who were conducting the healing ceremonies who genuinely felt that it was because of them that this happened. However, there were many that we discovered who were only doing it to enrich themselves.

However, it is still a valid criticism that if so-called faith healing was originating from G-d, who the Bible says is omnipotent, then why do we not see limbs regenerated?

NORM

The amputated arm aimless looking for an elbow to lean on is an incomplete challenge in the world of process thought. Process thought sees that all things, from atoms and cells to humans, are related externally and internally. There is the external world which is what we refer to as objective and there is an internal world, which we call subjective. In a process approach to faith healing the reports of those who have experienced such healing are evidence to be considered not demeaned.

 

Dutch

Right. Like being cured from gum chewing.

I would never mock that!

Sorry Dutch, but invisible, "internal" healing is not very convincing.

NORM

Just one single documented case of somebody's arm growing back would seem such an excellent way for God to demonstrate that nothing is impossible for him/her/it.

When I win the $600 Million lotto, I will offer $50 Million to someone who has G-d make their arm grow back. No, wait; I'll give them $550 million. Hell, I'd settle for a regrown hand - not even the whole arm!

James Randi is still waiting to pay out $1 Million: http://www.randi.org...-challenge.html

NORM