PaulS

Phil, I'm no expert at all, but to me any relation to Jesus' death seems more of a result of later biblical authors searching for meaning and picking certain elements out of the OT to explain the death of Jesus, as best they could understand it. For me personally, it is clear to me that the author is talking about himself in a metaphorical sense, in the lyrics of this song. That's just my view. Cheers Paul

Hi Bean, Welcome to this little community and I hope you enjoy and participate in the discussions. Cheers Paul PS: I am sure of one thing - I don't think I can ever be sure.

I'll drink to that! Cheers Paul

There's a not so flattering review of the above book to be found here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/ross.html

I choose to practice living, with elements of PC brought to my mind often. Not in a WWJD sense, but from a place where I think Jesus was on to something when he said love God and love your neighbour - that's all you need to do to live a life worth living. My 'loving God' is simply living my life to the full - as Spong says "live fully, love wastefully", and my 'love thy neighbour' is a balance between being a good Dad and husband, putting my neighbours bins out, trying to save the world from poverty, injustice, famine & malnutrition, and sexual exploitation (that's just my morning ) and trying to be a 'good' person - empathy for others, kindness, help where I can, etc. I think just being mindful of who we are in life, what we do, and how we do it, is enough. Mind you, that's all a lot easier said than done. Maybe it's more inspiration than practice!

Deb, Welcome. Have you checked out the Gospel of Judas, belived to have been written in the 100s CE? That book portrays Judas as a hero of sorts in that he was following Jesus' instructions in betraying him. Seems that long ago people had similiar thoughts to yours. I have no idea of the validity of the text, my only point is that it has been around for a while so it demonstrates (IMO) that others questioned like you. Apparently the text was around as early as 180CE as Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, wrote a document in which he railed against this gospel. As for the 30 pieces of silver story, did you know that In Zechariah 11:12-13, 30 pieces of silver is the price Zechariah receives for his labour. Also, In Exodus 21:32, 30 pieces of silver was the price of a slave. So I wonder if Mathew's version is based on fact, or perhaps tailored to 'align' with other texts to better sell his story? Cheers Paul

David, I'm not sure if there is either, but I guess we'll never know. Cheers Paul

David, be rest assured that you have not in any way persuaded me that this is not the place for me. I do not read that into your post, but what i do read into your post is that you desire to hold on to a type or definition of Christianity that works for you, or that you think Christianity deserves. I can understand if you are concerned that your idea of Progressive Christianity is being pushed in a direction you don't approve of. Frankly I don't know what you can do about that other than express your opinion and views, allow others to offer their opinions and views, and at the end of the day see if you're comfortable where it is heading or not. To me you do seem to have strict guidelines, like the ones for you that define a community. Whilst I never said that this community can be held together on only the 8 Points (your words, not mine) I would disagree with you strongly that this is not a Christian community of sorts. Different communites offer different things to different people. Whilst I appreciate that there may be kind christian communities out there, there are similarly other types of kind & loving communities, such as this one. Maybe we don't get together very often for coffee and a chat, but it's still a community with many of the values I would expect from a community - respect for differences, care & consideration for others, preparedness to assist with a loving ear, etc. My sister lives in Mexico (and I in Australia) and I see her about once every two or three years - she's no less my sister. You say "What I would hope for within a forum such as this would be signs pointing towards the nature of Christian community that I am talking about", which to me indicates quite clearly that you do apply struct guideliness to what you view as Christianity. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to say that you feel this forum doesn't point to those signs. My whole point here is that the forum does point toward Jesus without a doubt. It just doesn't seem to be enough for your liking, or at least that is how it seems to me. Cheers Paul

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. David, I fail to see how you don't recognise this community as having a Christian context (or it would seem even actually being a community for that matter), or is it simply not Christian enough in your eyes? The first two of the 8 Points clearly identify the community as having a Christian context. This is explicitly stated. I would expect that if it was called Pregoressive Islam there might be a reference or two to Mohammed in the 8 Points - there is not, clearly. To me it sounds like you have a view that to be a community there has to be some sort of strict guidleines which qualifies one as part of that community, otherwise you're 'out'. I don't think this community has that rigid structure, so it is easy for some to dismiss us as not being a community. But we are a community of people with a divers range of views who agree in principle with the 8 Points. That's why this coomunity is alive and functions as it does. If I wanted a more Christian community I would seek out one of those and go post there. Of course, I don't. Cheers Paul

I have been away from my wife and kids for the past 12 days, working on a remote mine site in the north of our state. I am a few hours away from jumping on a plane and returning home, for a full 7 days off work, to spend just with them (and maybe treat myself to some quality red wine as the wet mess up here only serves light beer!)

Just on agriculture, Yvonne, I understand that some of the concerns you raise about who can access genetic engineering for humans, also stands for agriculture. I know it's been discussed in Australia where people are concerned that the companies who create the 'new and improved' seed may restrict its use, charge a high price for its purchase, and contractually restrict the farmer from harvesting seed for use in next year's crops, thus forcing the farmer to always buy new seed from the company rather than the traditional way of retaining some of the crop for the following year's planting.

For me there are concerns that it could be abused, but I don't think we should be hysterical about it (of course, not suggesting you are being, George). I don't expect scientists to start crossing people with birds etc to come up with scifi hybrids. But I do see the benefits when it comes to screening out disease and disability. Whilst one could say it is against nature, I would question whether nature hasn't allowed us to develop this ability for a reason. It can be very sensationalist for the media to talk about baby design - eye colour, hair colour, sex etc (and conjure about pictures of what somebody like Hitler might do with this technology) but is it a bad thing if it eliminates leukemia, MS, downs syndrome? I think not. Is choosing a baby-to-be's sex necessarily bad by eliminating s_perm that would create the undesired choice in sex or favouring the s_perm that will create the desired sex - is s_perm a person? I don't think so. Like many things, I think it's not the individual act but rather what is behind it that perhaps matters. What are the reasons for desiring such. With animals and plants I don't have too many reservations, other than some concern that it's early days yet, and maybe we don't completely know the results of say genetically modifying the wheat we eat in our bread.

Stas82, As you would probably know, Googling Progressive Christianity Australia, and/or your state, will probably return several options. I don't attend church myself, but if I did, I like the thought of attending one that already affiliates with and/or identifies itself as, PC. From what I have researched the Uniting Church does seem quite PC, although I'm not sure all are. I live in Oz myself, over here on the west coast. Cheers Paul

I'm scratching my head now, wondering why it's such a big deal!

Hollis & Paul, I like the points laid out by you both. Paul, I have no doubt that the media, with the culture of 'fear & sensationalism sells', as well as our politicians who only seem to seek election based on how bad they portray the other side to be, has much to answer for in scaring us all into believing the world is so much more dangerous than it once was. Cheers Paul

It's just a matter of time, Pete. We will see significant change in our generation. I am sure.

Yeah, but I only want the good bits, George True, there are communities within our communities. To be honest, the church of my youth filled that for me until I could no longer believe what I had to, to keep being a part of that community.

I wonder if it might have been easier to be happy if they felt more connected to their community, to the land, and more fulfilled? (I accept this could be more about me than the state of the world ). What I am talking about isn't really about me giving up what I have to try, because what I am talking about is a complete concept, with everyone involved, not just moving to a house in the woods and living like a hermit from 1728. It's not about living in a dirt floort hut but rather about that type of life as a whole - community, family, connectedness.

Welcome, Robgil. I like Borg and Spong also. Cheers Paul

Paul, you have actually captured much of what I really meant to say in my OP. What I had in my mind when posting was I was thinking about a romantic 'village' life where the small community all new each other well, going to work wasn't about leaving your family behind for the day or even longer but about having you kids near you, evenings meant associating with village neighbours and community halls, etc, sharing music and laughter around a fire drinking home brew beer made from the grain your village grew, and so on. Everyone new everyone else and was there to support and assist. From what I understand, bludgers and lazy buggers still existed in those communites, but they were not well regarded. Perhaps they were tolerated, I don't know. Sure in those environs and in those days there were less conveniences such as power, running water, sewerage, etc, and often that meant decreased health, but were they happier as a community? Perhaps not. Like I said, it is possibly just my romantic notion and not reality. Does that make any sense?

That explains the lack of Johnny Cash in the filmclip!

You're right there George, I am often in awe as to how I managed to drag myself through life in the earlier days, without an iPhone . For instance, I would have never have been able to play Scrabble or check my TCPC New Content page whilst on the move! I'm not so sure though that we live our lives safer from violence than when we once did. Sure, the last few thousand years or more may have been particularly violent, but I'm not convinced it has always been that way. Australia's aboriginals for instance lived a life for +40,000yrs that was relatively violence free. There were tribal conflicts but by the nature of their 'rules' usually there were very few casualities before the dispute was settled. Increased availability of food and medicine only seems to be creating fatter people. Many of us still do suffer from agonising pain and less than dignified endings that our ancients might not have experienced - cancer, dementia, loss of control of bowels etc with age, heart attack, motor vehicles (the single largest killer in the world). Yes, fewer of our children die, but so? Possibly more of them grow up to be affected by drugs, broken homes, alcoholism, etc than before too. If we hadn't developed our world as much and accepted a hunter/gatherer life and all the risks that go with it, I wonder if we'd be more at peace as a world? I'm sorry if I am going on about Aboriginals, but they lived for 40,000yrs exactly the same. There doesn't seem to have been a desire for more. I wonder why?

I wonder what peoples' thoughts are concerning whether our society has developed for the better. I know there are the practical aspects that we generally consider for the better, such as better health care, longer life spans, running water, electric blankets, microwave popcorn, and so on. But at the crux of it, are we better off than ancient tribespeople? Sure they might have died before they were 30, but what's so bad about that? Life may have been 'tougher', but I don't imagine they saw it as so - life was just what is was, probably in the same way that future generations will look back on us and wonder how we ever lived without flying cars and tele-transporters. Don't get me wrong, I'm not promoting a 'go-back-to-the-land' philosophy. There is of course the enviromental considerations that go with a vastly more populated planet. Millions of people simply couldn't wask their clothes in mountain streams, deficate in the bush, kill local wildlife to survive, or else the planet would be totally ruined (if not now, in the future at some point with continued population growth). But why is living longer and physically healthier considered 'improvement'. Surely even to the religous fundamentalist, this is only delaying the onset of heaven. And although we may live longer, are we happier or more satisfied that our earlier-dying ancestors? Even if we are, so what? Just a thought that has come acorss my mind recently as I have been reading a bit about Australia's first indigenous people and also the Amazon's Piraha people who frankly, to me, all seemed quite happy with their lives without the type of government and society we now find ourselves living in.

I thought I'd look into just what atonemnt theories are out there. I didn't realsie there is and have been so many. Here's a quick list from the link http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm Major theories of the atonement are listed below in chronological order: The Ransom Theory (God deceitfully pays off Satan with a bribe) Introduced by Origen in the third century CE. The Satisfaction Theory (Jesus appeases God by being a ritual human sacrifice) Introduced by Anselem, in the late 11th century CE. The Moral Theory: (Jesus' death is an example for the rest of humanity to emulate) Introduced by Abelard in the 12th century CE. The Acceptance Theory (Atonement comes from the arbitrary choice of God) Introduced by Scotus circa 1300 CE. The Penal (a.k.a. Penal-Substitution) Theory (God's mercy replaces his wrath after the infinite sacrifice of Jesus) Introduced by Reformation theologians circa 1520 CE. Christus Victor Theory: Jesus voluntarily allowed himself to be executed. This defeated the power of evil and released humanity from its sin. Being written Narrative Christus Victor Theory: Being written Non-violent atonement theories: Recent theories primarily by African-American and feminist theologians Being written Beliefs of some very liberal Christians and post-Christians

I ran the Pinker talk past my fundy friend who often tells me that the world is getting more and more violent, suffering more and more crime, etc. Funnily enough, he now seems to have adopted the theory that in the end days the world will actually be more peaceful before Jesus comes again. Seems you're damned if you do or damned if you don't! Anybody heard of this theory that the world will be perhaps at peace when Jesus comes to wreak havoc?