NORM

Should we do so when we know how harmful certain beliefs and indoctrination can be?

 

Should we stand against fundamental Christianity when we have experienced the harm it can cause, or should we let fundy's continue to live their beliefs as they see fit, and continue to push those beliefs and/or indoctrinate children, without voicing a contrary opinion?

The sections of the Christian Testament that I admire most are those that encourage us to act in ways that reveal hope and embrace all that is good within us and around us (Philippians chapter 4 comes to mind as well as segments of the Sermon on the Mount).

Rather than condemn small-mindedness, we ought to embrace inclusiveness and those things that celebrate diversity and the evolution of humanity to greater things.

Paul, the signature at the bottom of your posts by Marianne Williamson encapsulates this idea:

 

 

"...as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”

As for me, I attempt to accomplish this through my writing. My first novel, Tea Party (found here: http://www.amazon.com/Tea-Party-Jensen-Michaels-Cordell-ebook/dp/B00JPV5BBI) is my attempt to convey this notion in an enjoyable format.

The underlying theme of the novel is that we are stronger when we work together rather than tearing each other apart.

NORM

 

I do try and avoid beliefs ... fail miserably of course.

 

With a little bit of introspection ... the thoughts that do pop into my existence are combinations other peoples' thoughts, events that happen in my perview and other physical things like foods etc.

 

So while I might have more sympathy for a strong atheist point of view than say a literal interpretation of the Bible, I realize the literal view, the atheistic view, the progressive view and my view for that matter are simply a reflection how a particular part of the universe has unfolded.

 

So for me, ascribing properties, like Hate, to New Atheists or stupidity to fundamentalists is ultimately pointless. Might make us feel better or superior in some way ... but that too is an illusion.

I agree wholeheartedly with this view. In fact, I think it was actually Joseph on this forum who said that he never uses the words "I believe," but instead uses the words "I think" in preface to a statement on a subject of discussion. I've adopted this practice, and have noticed that I become less invested in my point of view than were I to use the words "I believe."

NORM

Hi Norm.

 

I can offer some additional feedback to add to my last comment.

 

It's been a long time since I've looked into Gnostic Christianity -- perhaps over 25 years, so I am not current with its current activities or new developments. A lot of the insights I gained of Gnostic Christianity was through the now defunct magazine Gnosis.

 

My basic understanding of Gnostic Christianity is this:

• Practitioners do not necessarily believe in Jesus Christ as a physical human being but rather a concept where Christ is discovered within oneself,
• Practitioners may read texts other than the Bible,
• Practitioners seem to have a propensity towards intellectualism and enjoy constructive philosophical debates,
• Practitioners seem to be very liberal, embodying many humanitarian values.

And that's about all I know or remember about it. I'm not certain if it has a hocusy-pocusy-spooky-wooky aspect to it or not.

 

Progressive Christianity seems to embody many of the points I mentioned above, and if it doesn't, it seems to be accepting of the practitioner who does.

 

So that's why I liken it to Gnostic Christianity.

 

At least at this time... my opinions change as I discover new information.

 

Buck

Hi Buck,

That makes sense to me when you put it like that. Good analysis!

Phil.

I am wondering what people on this forum think about the situation in Nevada. I wrote a piece about it for a national magazine, but also posted it to my blog here: http://blog.philipleiter.com/

I truly believe that we have a moment of opportunity to engage in thoughtful debate using this rather unique situation as a catalyst. What say you?

NORM

 

If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Luke 6:29, NIV

 

Is there wisdom in this philosophy? Can it be taken as a directive, or is it more likely to be exaggeration designed to grab our attention? Is choosing to remove ourselves from aggressive situations evidence of limited ability to love others?

 

This verse has always confounded me when one considers the violence of the times when it was originally posited. If you read some of the sayings of Rabbi Hillel, who came earlier than Jesus, you will find similar sentiments. Hillel was in contrast to Rabbi Shammai, who emphasized a strict adherence to The Law.

I recall an earlier time in America during the 60s when Christianity was aligned with liberal thinking rather than the current trend toward rigid conservatism that shuns such "wimpiness." In right wing theology, such displays of tolerance and loving-kindness is seen as weakness.

As a practical matter, I can say that this philosophy of turning away wrath with kindness works only some of the time. Perhaps over the course of a lifetime, one will come away with an overall better legacy than if one is quick to retaliate evil for evil.

NORM

Hi,

I admit this topic is something I do not know much about. I am new to Progressive Christianity. Someone once told me that many content changes were made to the Bible over time. Is this true? If so, do you know of a place to read about these?

 

Thank you,

SW

Hello Southernwonder,

I'm not really sure it matters much what changes were made to the "original" Bible. As a few have pointed out, we only have fragments and pieces of hundreds of years old copies of copies of copies of these scriptures. Add to that some of the great purges by men such as Irenaeus of material that was at odds with their particular theology, and we are missing literally thousands of books and letters.

I think that religion is mankind's attempt to come to grips with the fact of our mortality and to imagine something greater than what we see before us. I think that this necessitates our religious writing should and will be amended, deleted, edited and rewritten every now and then.

I think that a religion that is static is one that is stale and not serving the best interests of those who depend on it for comfort and healing.

In the Jewish faith, we have the Talmud which was compiled for nearly 300 years (Babylonian Talmud [from about 200 CE to approximately 475 CE] - if you include the Jerusalem Talmud, which is incomplete, it goes back to 70 CE) and reflects an ever evolving religion. There is talk even now of updating some of the Mishnah readings that are out of date.

Events in history have also modified how we understand our faith. For example, the Shoah changed our understanding of both Moshiach and how G-d interacts with us. Prior to the Shoah, many still had faith that a man (Moshiach) would save us from the oppression of the Third Reich and Christian persecutors. Six million Shoah victims later, we gave up on the notion of a savior and began to look to ourselves for redemption.

I hope this helps.

NORM

Hi Chris,

Welcome to the forum. I hope you can find some good debate here.

I would recommend reading the Talmud. Like you, I embraced the Christian worldview and found it wanting. I later converted to Judaism, which is where I discovered the Talmud. I wish now that I would have read it while I was a Christian - it certainly gave me new insight as to the motivations of Jesus and his followers.

NORM

 

 

Because the less a person thinks, the easier they are to control, and the more likely they are to try to control others to think at (below) their level.

 

The individuals who have criticized me have their own followings, and are very likely inspiring people to think (pardon the term) the way they do.

 

Criticizing a fictional story written for entertainment purposes because it is not true, is as you say, ironic, and I also feel it is deeply indicative of a much greater problem that appears to be growing in our society. I hope that the Progressive Christianity movement can help offer solutions to that problem.

I understand. I am hopeful that spending a few months on this forum, and getting out and meeting some other Progressive Christians - or, even us agnostics and atheists (we don't bite!) - will reveal what I think is the truth: the small-minded, theistic drones are on the wane and not on the ascendancy as you presume.

I can even offer some sage advice from a book of moralistic fables with which I am certain you are familiar:

 

 

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. - Matthew 10:14

NORM

Just as an aside, I read a fun book the other day that I'm sure would qualify for similar criticism as that received by Buck. The book is called "Lamb - The Gospel according to Biff, Christ's childhood pal". Quite funny and definitely heretical to any red-blooded literalist/fundamentalist!

I read that book several years ago - it is quite good satire.

NORM

 

 

To me, Progressive Christianity is a reformed and extremely contemporary version of Gnostic Christianity.

 

Buck

Hmm. I am somewhat familiar with Gnostic literature. How is it, in your opinion, similar to Progressive Christianity?

NORM

Hi Paul, Joseph, and Norm.

 

I guess I was really surprised to read the messages expressing those viewpoints -- or perhaps terrified is a better word to use than surprised.

 

Well, I suppose learning how to deal with those experiences will be an interesting journey.

 

Thanks for your feedback.

 

Buck

Why terrified?

NORM

Hello, Buck.

I think not much effort is spent defending the slings and arrows of literal bible-ists. Considering the example provided, does one not appreciate the irony of condemnation of a fictitious account of...fiction?

I too, am a professional liar!

Lovely to make your acquaintance.

NORM

Hello again, Skyseeker.

As I told you in another thread, a number of years ago I was diagnosed with schizophrenia. One of the drugs the docs used on me was Haldol. I had a very bad experience while taking this "medication." It caused what I would describe as a hollowness inside my head. I felt like I was inside an echo chamber. My thoughts felt like they were audible, and they were making me increasingly paranoid. The guilt I mentioned in the other thread intensified to a point that pushed me to the verge of insanity.

I checked myself in to a local psych ward because I was afraid that I would hurt myself. They took me off of the Haldol immediately and put me on the Lithium.

But, and this is another explanation that I found, much of the problem of good and evil has to do with our skewed perception about these things. Remember the story of paradise and the tree? We were allowed to eat from every tree, the tree of beauty, of humour, of wisdom, of fun, of love, of longing, of art, of science, of stories, of politics, of war even, they were all okay for us. But we were not supposed to "base our knowledge" on the good and evil dualism. Because, whenever we find something good, our minds are now bent to fear an evil that might destroy the good, or whenever we find something evil, our minds are bent to seek to destroy it or fear its destructive powers. The knowledge of good and evil does not lead us to fight the evil with the good, it leads us to be perceptively caught up in morality systems instead of being safe and sound in ethical and philosophical systems. For example, I think it is wiser to combat what we call evil by using the powers of truth and wisdom and love, instead of simply sacrificing another good thing to it. A good iteration of this is how Jesus saw love of the enemy. Normally the enemy is the evil person for us, and it is good to fight him with all your power until you have won out over him. But the wise person turns the enemy into a friend so that there would not be a lifelong struggle with all the hate, envy and revenge such struggles have inherent to them.

 

 

This is a very good analysis of the problem of good vs evil.

I hope you are on the road to wellness, Skyseeker. I know what is like to question what is real and what is delusional. For what it's worth; I think that demons do not exist and that evil is how we describe that which we cannot yet understand.

NORM

The only reason we fear G-d is because we've imbued it with the imprimatur of everything that is hateful within the human mind.

NORM

Daniel,

I couldn't empathize with you enough.

I was once diagnosed with Schizophrenia many, many years ago. It is my understanding that the extreme guilt I felt because I could not believe in the supernatural brought on my depression. I felt inadequate because all of my peers and my entire family "talked" to God and felt him "in their hearts."

The "docs" fed me Lithium and weekly therapy.

I came out of my Schizophrenia when I ceased my obsession with an angry god. I embraced the Unitarian Universalist god that doesn't punish, but only loves.

Now, I am completely Deity, Doc and Lithium free, and follow a non-theistic blend of Judaism and Christianity. Never been happier!

NORM

I recall as a child desiring with all of my heart that I would experience some sort of mystical, supernatural ... thing. Anything. I kept wondering why everyone around me could "feel" God's presence, but I could not. Why was I being left out?

So, when I was a teenager, I would lie about experiencing "God." I even faked speaking in tongues so others would SEE that I was in tune with God.

Later, I gave up. Tuned in, turned on and dropped out.

Then, one year, I made a trip out west to visit my cousin in Arizona. He took me to a Shaman encampment and we drank Peyote tea. I finally had my first "mystical" experience. I thought I was seeing things that The Great Being (I had no name for this thing, and I couldn't understand what the Navaho guides were trying to explain) was showing me. They were very personal things, but they were very distorted and troubling.

Since that time, I experimented a lot with LSD and began to have the ability to control these experiences (I no longer consider them mystical, because I understand how the drugs influence the optical nerve and the brain).

I think if we wish to believe these "mystical" encounters are God or The Great Being, or G-d or Allah, or The Buddha, or good drugs strumming our optic nerves - if it brings any kind of peace in this chaotic universe, it's cool.

NORM

 

 

In other words, salvation is more a recognition of that which IS, not a change of the Divines attitude towards us, i.e, from only the promise of love to love itself, or as more commonly understood among some, from wrath to love.

 

This is similar to Jewish tradition. In the Yom Kippur service, we are told that G-d will forgive our transgressions. It is a statement of fact rather than conditioned upon our belief or some "confession of faith."

According to my understanding of Judaism, G-d can only forgive corporate (community) sins and unintentional individual sins (against G-d). Sins committed against one another can only be forgiven by those we've offended. The weeks between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, we are encouraged to seek forgiveness from those we've wronged in the past year.

NORM

Hello Buck,

I think that the Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete text of the Tanakh in existence. It is dated 1008 CE (the date on the cover). The Aleppo Codex is earlier by a few years, but is not complete. It was partially destroyed in a fire in 1947.

The Aleppo Codex was used as a reference by Maimonides when he was writing his portion of the Talmud.

As far as I know, there are no complete New Testament manuscripts in existence.

NORM

 

Without a rock solid foundation, - everything else falls short.

 

Heh! I prefer sand - particularly when it is on either the east or the west coast!

NORM

Hi Zen,

Thanks for the rather interesting take on Panentheism.

I am curious about a few things. If God did not create these immutable, unchanging laws, then where did they originate?

Also, I notice you refer to the Christian Bible. Do you consider this book divine and inerrant?

Do you consider Judaism as the basis for Christianity?

Just so you are aware of where I am coming from, I am a secular (non-theist) follower (more or less) of Judaism. I don't consider the G-d of the Tanakh and the God of the Christian the same at all. I think they describe completely different mythical beings.

I agree with much of what you say (regarding human behavior and your emphasis on love). I just don't think the deity is necessary.

NORM

Lo,

I don't think I can add much more to both Joseph's and Paul's comments. I don't view the Bible as any different, than say; Homer's Iliad or the Epic of Gilgamesh. There is plenty of horror and awful behavior among the deities in those types of works.

I think that it only emphasizes the realization that our gods are created in our own image, rather than the converse. I don't think it coincidence that as mankind evolves into a kinder, gentler animal, his / her deities do also.

NORM

I think you are correct in your contention that the concept of Original Sin is an invention of Christianity. It certainly didn't come from Judaism. I am unaware of another faith expression that believes in such a thing.

No, I do not think it unfair to question one's faith. It is rather healthy, in my estimation.

It is a pleasure making your acquaintance, Mike.

NORM

I think that sarcasm and mean-spirited, pointless ridicule is very uncouth, no matter the subject. The fact that a handful of Atheist pundits choose such a method is dispiriting, but in no way undermines the strength of their position.

I prefer the clever, witty and subtle method of the type employed by Douglas Adams, rest his non-existent soul, for one.

NORM

Zenegain,

I find much of Novak's work these days rather pedantic and it seems as though he's desperately trying to join the "hip" conservative crowd. His views on progressive thought are informed with a 1970s perspective. Progressives aren't pot-smoking, free-lovin' hippies anymore!

The notion that ethics and morality only exist because of some transcendent, omnipotent deity is an old argument roundly refuted every day in this very secular United States of America. In fact, the more we drift away from dogmatic, patriarchal, triumphalist religions, the more moral and ethical we become!

I urge you to not waste your time on this tripe, but rather check out Stephen Cave's Immortality, The Quest to Live Forever and How it Drives Civilization.

NORM

Thanks Norm,

 

Not sure I have interest at this time although it has often intrigued me and I have had a curiosity about their teachings. Interestingly I live in a part of the country and rural small town that there are none listed within 50 miles of my home. Wow, what does that say I wonder?

 

Enjoy your weekend!

The description; "rural small town" says it all. We are a very small minority in the US, and tend to gravitate to more urban areas. The Orthodox are required to live within walking distance of Shul, since they don't drive during Shabbat. That has a lot to do with location.

NORM