Yvonne

My ex, a Muslim, told me Muslims have long claimed that Jesus was not crucified. Someone that God made look like Jesus was crucified. Jesus never died, but was taken to heaven alive. He was a prophet, and yes, prophesied Mohammed. Mohammed was the last prophet. The ironic thing, to me, at least, is that Mohammed himself told his followers to respect Jew and Christians as "people of the Book". Just an aside.

I think that prayers of petition are quite common in the OT - especially the book of Psalms. Also, in the gospels, we're told "Ask and you shall receive...", "Anything you ask the Father in my name He will give...". Now, I personally have some real issues with both prayers of petition and prayers of intercession, primarily because of just what started this theme. Why pray for this and not for that? Why not prayer for vast wealth if that vast wealth will be used to help others? Is that selfishness? Why not pray for someone to be restored to life - Jesus did it with Lazarus. No, I don't think prayers of petition and intercession really accomplish much, except, as my friend said to me, to help me realize my literal and complete dependence on God. Not God as an interventionist - but God as the Ultimate Reality, the Source, or what have you. Living in the Midwest, I often hear people thank God for protecting their homes and property from tornadoes. My question would be - why yours and not your neighbors? Someone I know said that tsumanis and hurricanes and earthquakes are God's will. When I asked her how that could be when so many innocent people die in them, she said we couldn't know God's reasons. To that I say "hogwash!". When we pray for things, whether we get them or not, or accept something as "God's will", I have to ask the question, "But what does that say about God?" If two people are in a hospital room dying of cancer, one is cured and one is not because one was prayed for, what would that say about God? If my home is destroyed by a natural disaster and yours is not, though we both prayed for protection, what does that mean? If you allow me an analogy - a mom has two kids asking for the same dessert and she arbitrarily gives one dessert and not the other, we would say she was being unfair. If mom chooses not to tend to a scraped knee, we would call her unfeeling (or worse). Yeah, I have some real issues with an interventionist God. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm in the process of reading "The Mystic Heart" and just finished Teasdale's "A Monk in the World". Teasdale was an advocate of inter-spirituality, even coined the term "interspirituality". He embraced the concept of convergence - to him, mysticism brings all of the world's great religions together. He was an interspiritual monk, being both a lay Trappist monk and a Buddhist monk. Several online communities are embracing Teasdale's ideas of interspiritual communities - bringing people together to share this interspirituality. This didn't so much open my eyes as give me a goal - a goal to create an interspiritual community. I'm not sure how to go about it yet, but I feel quite strongly about it.

Raven, I didn't know the song, but thanks for sharing that moment of grace.

I don't think its assigning a gender to God - its recognizing attributes like being protective (masculine) being nurturing (feminine) or what have you to a personal God. While not everyone thinks in terms of a "personal" God, for me, it helps deepend my awareness when I can imagine strong arms supporting me or a soft shoulder to cry on. Using imagination is a way for to enrich my experience during meditation.

Excellent point, Deb. I think its important the balance between masculine/feminine is maintained - whether its in a relationship or withinin ourselves. I don't remember if it was Karen Armstrong or another writer who made the point - but a purely masculine "anything" can become rigid and controlling, whereas a purely feminine "anything" can become wishy-washy and submissive. It is when we can find the balance that we become truly integrated, whether that balance is in our psyche, our spirituality, our politics, or practically anything else. Who ever the author was, I think he or she was right on.

In answer to the question "Would you attend this church" - yes, for 2 reasons: curiosity, that is, to see if it is what I understand it to be and because of the term "mysticism". I'm reading a lot of books just now - for my MDiv - on mysticism, and I think I am a mystic (if not a very good one.)

Dutch - that's wonderful!

I think its a healthy philosophy. For me (and only speaking for myself) I want a deeper spirituality. But I can see how, given what we've chatted about, what you've written is right for you.

An elephant? Really?? Years of dieting to come up even bigger - and somewhat endangered? no thanks. If I have my druthers I'm coming back as a beloved house cat!

Thoses are terrific resources, thank you so much! I actually had been on Rex Hunt's site but I had forgotten about it. All 3 sites are bookmarked now!

Does anyone have any information on TCPC's liturgy project? I see on the web site that it was supposed to have completed by fall 2011. I was hoping to get some help on planning a progressive liturgy.

I think there are scientist today who could have written that reply. I am fascinated by cosmology, physics, and quantum mechanics. The more I learn about the natural world the deeper my spirituality becomes. In Einstein's reply, he writes: ...just as my "religious feeling" is surely quite different from the religious far right.

I joined this forum because I was looking for people who had the courage to doubt, to question, to explore knowledge outside mainstream Christianity. And I found that "in spades"! I love that I can throw out an idea, sometimes half-formed, and the discussions can take me in directions I hadn't thought of. I love that the people on this forum are diverse as to age, geographic location, educational status, and belief. It has helped me grow. I even like the gentle arguments (and sometimes not so gentle) that sometimes lead to understanding and sometimes don't. I'm usually quite uncomfortalbe participating in or witnessing contentious discussions. But, on this forum, I find them to be, perhaps not helpful, but cathartic in their own way. I like how moderators allow a bit of discord. It keeps us all honest. I would never ever (ever!) condone disruptive, insulting, or vulgar behavior - especially on an online forum. Kudos to the administrators for allowing dissension and for keeping us on the right side of the line between debate and attack.

This may seem to be off-topic, but I do have a point...When I read Borg's "Heart of Christianity" one particular analogy he used really stuck with me. He said that various religions or spiritual paths are like walking up a mountain. At the bottom, the paths seem to be very far apart, but the closer people got to the "top of the mountain" the closer those paths become until, at the time, they were all one. I think knowledge - strike that, WISDOM in its many forms is exactly like that. Science and religion in all their many forms all start out at the base of the mountain seemingly incompatible, but the more its followers move up the path towards the top, the closer the paths get. I think a lot of people get comfortable at a certian point along the path and just decide they've gone far enough - so they can never reach the point where they can "see" the other path with any clarity. So, IMO, the more open to knowledge and wisdom and growth a scientist or religionist is, the more likely it is their paths will meet. Just my thoughts.

That was a great article Myron. I especially loved the very last paragraph: "Atheist critiques of religion, like those from Oxford Biologist Richard Dawkins and Cambridge Physicist Stephen Hawking, are only valid in that they disprove a certain antiquated image of God -- the grandfather in the sky who created the universe like a potter or a watchmaker might and who governs it like a cosmic chess master. If we allow our religions to evolve, we might find that science and religion can complement each other: each may open a different window into reality, just as art and science do." I remember that, many years ago while attending a a bible study at a rather traditional (if not downright fundamentalist) church, I heard the pastor say "Creation and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive". There was a moment of stunned silence in the discussion. And all I felt was relief, I was not a heretic after all!

Quite a few years ago I read a book "The Creator and the Cosmos" but I forget the author's name. What I do recall is that he was a scientists though I can't speak to his field or his reputation. I loved two things about it: 1) that the author was convinced that there is/was a Creator, and 2)that the book was written so anybody with a 8th grade education could understand it. I'm not too sure if I would be quite so enamored of it if I read it now for these same 2 reasons. However, after this discussion, I'm going to see if I can unearth a copy and reread it. It might be interesting to see if it still resonates with me.

A side remark: I LOVE this thread. Giving me more food for thought. Thanks for starting it.

IMO, Judas may have been "forcing Jesus' hand", and perhaps never intended that Jesus would die. Talking of the relationship between Jesus & Judas in purely human terms, I think Judas was a very zealous follower of Jesus. And I think they must have been good friends. Jesus probably knew what Judas was about just like any of us who know our friends well know what our friends are up to.

My "practice" primarily involves reading, learning, being open to new/different ideas, and reflecting on how I want to to grow and change myself. This forum has given me many opportunities for learning and growth. Sometimes it involves challenges to some entrenched ideas I had that simply do not fit in this emerging paradigm. Often I will come across a concept that either doesn't "ring true" or "strikes a chord" with me. When this happens, i spend some time investigating it to see if/where it fits into my own spiritual journey. Sometimes I accept it, sometimes I don't. Either way, for me, its about the process of change & growth.

Definitely!

Honestly, I'm not the least bit surprised by this. I have always questioned how one could look in a petri dish or wrangle with the laws of physic and be oblivious to the wonder. Even if, as some physisits claim, the universe didn't start with a big bang, the question of when and how whatever came first started still would, imo, instill wonder and awe.

I read the original post again and something struck me as humorous - - makes religion sound like quantum mechanics, as soon as the event is observed the outcome is affected. But maybe that's only funny to me because I've been watching too many shows about physics on the Science channel. Raven, you took the thoughts right out of my head.

If those "don't's" are what make someone a Christian, I'm in big trouble. Of course, I'm in big trouble with my more traditional family & friends anyway. When niece starts giving me the "don't's", I like to give her the "do's". You know - show compassion & empathy, love your neighbor as yourself, social justice, etc, Growing up Catholic, I raised on the "Corporal Acts of Mercy". I like a slightly altered version of the official church version, but they are: to visit the sick, give drink to the thirsty, feed the hungry, clothe the poor (naked), give shelter to the homeless, visit prisoners (ransome captives,) (and the church adds bury the dead.) It seems to me these are far more important than whether someone has a glass of wine or wears a bit too much makeup. IMO Christianity should be about how one loves, not about what one doesn't do. I can't help but think about the many times in the gospels that the "chief priests and elders" gave Jesus and his disciples a hard time, Many times Jesus replied with a parable about someone acting compassionately. I do not recall ever reading anything in the gospels that Jesus tells someone not to drink wine.

All are excellent points. I've never been one to fear advances in science and technology. However, i have to admit to being a little fearful of genetic engineering. Yes, it would be nice if we could find the genes that lead to MS, spina bifada, etc and eradicate these diseases. But will every one be able to afford the screenings? I can only speak about the U.S., but I find it unlikely. I am not fearful of the genetic screening and selection themselves. Like Joseph said, there would be some trial and error and I'm sure a lot of ethical questions would need to be addressed. No, what I'm fearful of is just what George mentioned - that only the affluent will be able to afford genetic selection and the chasm between "us-them" will widen. I fear greater differences between those who can afford it and those who cannot. As far as genetically engineered plants and animal, if producing a certain type of vegetable or animal will help feed people of poorer countires, its all good. We've been using selective breeding on our pets and heard beasts and using hybrid technology in producing plants for a long time. As long as we didn't get carried away and started creating weird hybrids that had no value I don't see a problem. But then, who says if something has value?