NORM

Greetings Wayseeker, I see no need to differentiate between the two. In fact, in my observation, the two are inextricably linked. Pluralism is simply the realization that the world doesn't end at my driveway, and relativism is the reason. Personally, I find comfort in variety. It makes it more difficult to choose sides. NORM

Thanks for sharing that Daniel. I often find more wisdom in the lyrics and visual work of artists than a week of Sundays. Prob'ly why I no longer go to Meetin' NORM

This is held to be true among those who call themselves evangelicals. They can differ on interpretation of the inerrant word o' G-d. NORM

Protestant is still a valid distinction, IMO, between themselves and Catholic. Although both claim to be Christian, they differ significantly on the "means" of salvation. Protestants claim that salvation is a D-I-Y kind of thing, whereas Catholics believe in the Sacraments as a means to salvation. Put simply; Catholicism is a "works-based" salvation and Protestantism is a "knowledge-based" system (one could argue, however, that since there is a "special knowledge" required, that it also is a "works-based" faith). Much-ado, however, is made of the Grace-through-Faith argument (For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Ephesians 2:8) first adequately articulated by Martin Luther in his "95 Theses" document nailed to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany in protestation of the Church's practice of selling Indulgences. Evangelical and Fundamental describe variants to the Protestant theme. I don't think I've ever heard of Catholics calling themselves "fundamentalist." I could be wrong. Personally, I don't see much difference theologically between those who call themselves Evangelical and those who call themselves Fundamentalists (I've been long-time members of both) - other than some Evangelicals don't like the word or negative association, as pointed out above, of the Fundamentalist moniker. When I was a believer and a member of either, I referred to myself as a fundamentalist - because those fundamentals are basic understandings of the faith as I understood them. NORM

I guess we are on totally opposite sides of this issue. I don't see naturalism, or scientism as you say, as distant and abstract from reality. On the contrary, I feel more in touch with reality than during my days following religious dogma and mysticism. Since my last post, I've dug deeper into Shermer and Dennett and still have not found any reference to their desire to reduce everything to an object, as you suggest. The quote from Shermer is illustrative of much of what I am seeing. Can you perhaps post a section of either man's writing where they explicitly say that everything must be reduced to an object? Or is this, perhaps, just your interpretation of their philosophy? NORM

The body of knowledge of the existing universe, in my opinion, has been vastly expanded with the advent of the scientific method. Atomic theory, human anatomy and morphology, etc... I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? I don't see this as a cause for concern. So they see science as a valid explanation for perceived reality? You see, I presume, the supernatural as a valid explanation for reality. I happen to agree with Shermer and Dennett and not you. This is not to say that I don't value your belief system, just that I and others see reality through different lenses. Yes, this is an accurate description of naturalism. I hold to this way of thinking, and it seems right to me. Call it a "show-me" state of being. This statement is the equivalent of me saying that all Christians are homophobic. I'm a naturalist and I don't seek to reduce everything to an object. I don't think that either Shermer or Dennett wish to reduce everything to an object. I think the project is moving along quite nicely. As far as I'm concerned, nothing is "settled." NORM

I think that science and the scientific method is peeling back the onion skin of reality. I'm not sure that either Shermer or Dennett are making "religious" (i.e.; Truth) statements of faith. They are merely bystanders watching as the onion is peeled and offering play-by-play and color commentary. In truth, I would say that most who embrace naturalism (as do I) do not look on it as some kind of replacement for religious faith. It is a cavalcade of moments wherein we realize that another layer of faulty belief has been stripped from the core. This process can be quite traumatic at first, but as the skins pile up on the floor, a sort of anxious excitement awaits the next layer. Indeed, it is the practice of naturalists to scoff at the heady words of wisdom proffered by their predecessors, all the while realizing that it may be their skin next to hit the compost heap. BTW, I think that your assessment of the process looking from the outside is quite valid. Whether or not it is the correct observation; only time will tell. NORM

My take precisely. Mr. Bell adds the evangelical coating to run of the mill, liberal, post Vatican II Christianity. The problem for Bell, IMO, is that he still insists on embracing the Bible as something other than a collection of early human writings. Oh sure, he interprets liberally, but insists on calling the Bible the Word of G-d. As a result, he must contort scripture into a hermeneutical pretzel in order to maintain the illusion. Still, I find it encouraging that so many Christians are willing to abandon such orthodoxy as a literal heaven / hell, the virgin birth, the trinity, triumphalism, etc... The best part of his message is his embracing of Universalism (although he curiously shies away from this term). This is what is bringing him the most heat - the idea that unbelieving scum like me can have a place in the Kingdom of G-d. NORM

Thanks Juanster! I started reading it. You can find it HERE NORM

Ending poverty is hard work. Condemning behavior that you know for certain you would never be "guilty" of yourself is easy. NORM

I've always been inspired by the lyrics found in U2 songs: NORM

You don't know how happy it makes me to see someone other than me making this point on a "religious" forum! Too often on fora such as this, Christians will compare homosexuality with thievery, alcoholism, debauchery, etc., in an attempt to show that they are not opposed to homosexuality, per se, just "homosexual acts." This frosts me to no end. This issue is particularly personal for me because a young man who was drummed out of a church I attended (using those same arguments), consequently took his own life. I was one of the people to find his body. The image - and the shame of being a member of that church - is forever burned into my mind. NORM

Good Evening Mr. Muir, I too am a Deist, and you make some very good points. However, many on this forum have embraced the philosophy of Jesus as described in the Christian Bible. This man taught benevolence and charity to the poor, shunned wealth and broke societal barriers that tended to divide humankind into categories of worth. I truly believe that were he alive today, he would be in favor of our social welfare programs (as flawed as they are), championing the rights of the dispossessed, such as homosexuals (not all choose their orientation just as you, sir, did not choose your heterosexuality). BTW, prison encounters are rape and not homosexual "love." Jesus said that to whom much is given, much is required. Many in the progressive camp interpret this as a suggestion that those to whom the fates have been kind (and, let's not kid anyone - people gain great wealth by luck, circumstance or conniving. Rarely is it merely the reward for hard work. If this were true, there would be millionaire coal miners. I appreciate the fact that you came over to America with a dream and a vision and worked hard to get to where you are. Let's celebrate the progressiveness of our founders who radically rebelled against the monarchists to forge a nation based on idealism and faith in the human spirit in order to provide a place where you could achieve your dream. Shalom. NORM

Prior to reading Bishop Spong's book Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, I had pretty much consigned the Bible to a dusty, old bookshelf where I kept my dog-eared copy of Bonfire of the Vanities - it seemed just as irrelevant to my life. Now I read the Bible just as you describe - as a glimpse of a people struggling to understand their world. They got many things wrong, but they got some things right. However we came to behold the story of Jesus - myth or history - matters less than WHAT it says about the human condition. LOL! Road rage! That's a terrific way of putting it. Me too. NORM

I certainly hope so. I've been inspired by much of Bishop Spong's books devoted to inspiring a non-theistic form of Christianity. For me, the story of Jesus coming to the defense of the woman about to be stoned is a heroic tale worthy of my attention. Where is that revolutionary Jesus today? I am looking forward to participating in this forum. I tried in vain to begin conversations in a forum called Theology Web on subjects such as homosexuality or non-theistic forms of Christianity only to be shouted and flamed by conservative, childish people who's sole purpose seemed to be score brownie points with other like-minded bigots. It has become overrun by intellectual babies and I've since given up on it. NORM

Heh, makes me wish I were part of the "old" forum! I agree with you 100% As long as Christians, Jews and Muslims worship the Bible, there is absolutely no chance of evolution to a humanitarian Christianity, Islam or Judaism. For a number of years, I was a member of a minyan with three atheists, four orthodox, three reformed and one agnostic (myself). We could only achieve any kind of agreement when we abandoned the Tanakh and focused instead on writings found in the Talmud. Eventually, the orthodox got tired of rending their clothing at every meeting. They shook the dust of secularism from their shoes and moved to Israel. Last I heard they were trying to settle in the contested areas. NORM

I think the issue of sexual orientation is a defining moment in the Church today. So far, I think the Church as a whole is failing miserably. Hell, there are still churches that won't even allow women full participation in anything other than the education of children (and the women who do invariable affirm the patriarchal, homophobic vision of Christianity). I am encouraged by what I read and hear of progressive churches who embrace all members of the human community. I hate to be pessimistic, but I think it too little too late. The rest of the world has passed by leaving the Church in the dust. It's no surprise that the only churches that appear to be growing are those that stubbornly refuse to evolve. I hope that I am wrong (and is part of the reason for joining this forum) and that the Christian Church can evolve past our historic prejudices. I've always imagined that the Jesus described in legend was a reformer and radical element of change. That's the Jesus I wish to follow. NORM

The Ocean Cannot Contain Me.