PaulS

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

This in our news today. No suprises who is going to get the guts kicked out of them in the lead up to the US's next polarising election. I wonder if gay marriage will be THE election battleground? What is it about some Christians that make them feel that 'family' is so threatened by gay marriage. Do they honestly think that all of a sudden people are going to choose to be gay because it's legalised? Are people who would otherwise be mums and dads, all of a sudden going to become mums and mums/dads and dads and wipe childbirth off the face of the earth? REPUBLICAN White House challenger Mitt Romney, wooing social conservatives, has adamantly rejected same-sex marriage and trumpeted his belief in Christian values and the family. Three days after Barack Obama became the first US president to back gay and lesbian marriage, Mr Romney told university graduates that the "pre-eminence of the family" remains at the heart of the principles that underpin the nation. "As fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate," the presumptive Republican nominee told the class of 2012 at Liberty University, the biggest Christian campus in the United States. "So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman," he said, raising a loud cheer from a crowd of more than 25,000 -- the biggest so far in this campaign season. Mr Romney, who did not directly refer to gays or lesbians, had previously voiced opposition to gay marriage, although he has also stated same-sex couples should have some rights such as child adoption. But today's speech was his unbowed rebuttal in a week dominated by Obama's landmark endorsement of gay marriage, and the Republican hopeful sought to set himself apart from the President in the run up to November's election. "Central to America's rise to global leadership is our Judeo-Christian tradition, with its vision of the goodness and possibilities of every life," he said in a speech punctuated with references to God. "Take those away, or take them for granted, and so many things can go wrong in a life. Keep them strong, and so many things will go right."

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

Welcome John, I'm happy for you. Cheers Paul

I think it would be naive to only compare terrorist crime that occurs on US soil when considering threat from jihadist muslims. Bombings are occurring on a daily basis, with dozens of people being killed at a time, in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'm pretty confident that given the opportunity, these type of people would gladly target the US and/or its citizens. Yes there was one bombing of an abortion clinic during the 2000s decade. However I don't see the statistics being presented as a sensible case for profiling all white Christian males in America. I do see the threat from jihadist muslims as being worthy of a higher level of awareness. I do not agree with harrassment of muslims simply because they are muslims, and I would still say that Harris doesn't seem to be suggesting this either.

It's still the right decision, of course. WASHINGTON (AP) — Sorry, Mr. President. After nearly single-handedly pushing gay marriage to the forefront of the presidential campaign and inadvertently pressuring President Barack Obama to declare his support for same-sex unions, there was only one thing left for Vice President Joe Biden to do: apologize. Biden's mea culpa came Wednesday in the Oval Office, shortly before the president sat for a hastily arranged interview in which he told the American people that he now supported gay marriage. The vice president expressed remorse and regret for declaring his support for same-sex unions ahead of Obama, said a person familiar with the exchange, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversation. Obama accepted the apology, saying he knew Biden had only been speaking from the heart. Biden's apology followed days of frustration in the West Wing after the vice president went off script, something he had done plenty of times. Without White House approval, Biden declared on a Sunday talk show that he was "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex married couples having the same rights as heterosexual married couples. Usually Obama can swat away Biden's free-wheeling ways. But not this time. The vice president had publicly broken rank with the president on a politically sensitive issue. And his remarks focused a fresh spotlight on what Obama had vaguely referred to as "evolving" views on gay marriage. What few people outside of Obama's inner circle of six or seven close aides knew at the time was that the president had, in fact, finished that evolution months earlier and was waiting for a suitable opportunity to inform the public of his views. Biden's comments accelerated those plans.

Neon, Obviously there is some misunderstanding concerning how you and I are reading the article. When I read Harris saying "When I speak of profiling “Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim,” I am not narrowly focused on people with dark skin", I read that he doesn't think all brown skinned people are religous terrorists. That's just my take on what he says. I think he is singling out Muslims because in the current environment it does seem to be Muslims doing the blowing up almost on a daily basis (albeit a tiny minority of jihadists), as opposed to white male Christian pro-lifers (although these have wreaked havoc before). It's just statistics and the best bang for your buck, when you take into account limited resources. I think most people if they were honest, would say they were more concerned of being blown up by a muslim than a white Christian (if they are concerned at all). That doesn't make it right and I wish it wasn't that way, but in the current environment, there is some sense in that. It will naturally be a fine line between going too far and discrimination vs protection and balance of sensibilities. Cheers Paul

That was good to see. I read it here in our news this morning too. So I would add that it will have an effect beyond US borders.

Not to 'consider'....Taking into account somebody's ethnicity and/or nationality as a consideration is not racism. Racism as defined in Wikipedia as: Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others [1][2] or as practices that discriminate against members of particular racial groups In case you don't understand where I'm coming from, I say Harris' comment isn't incredibly racist because 1) he's not saying one race is better than another, and 2) he is not suggesting any pratice that discriminates against members of any particular racial group. Profiling isn't discrimination. The reality is that some Muslims are choosing to blow themselves up almost on a daily basis in an effort to kill those who aren't muslim (or aren't the 'right' muslims). This is pretty much not happening in America. As opposed to being racist, I just see it as downright silly to say that connections to Islam are not a factor to take into consideration in these circumstances. I think that is what Harris is trying to say.

That's essentially how my Mum and I'm pretty sure how others in her Church, would see it. The bread and the wine to them, is simply symbolic, but associated with a deep, personal meaning. So to them its not 'special' bread or wine as such, just plain old supermarket variety grapejuice and crackers, eaten/drunk as a respectful gesture in memory of Jesus. Yep, she just holds onto it herself and when the plate is passed around, discreetly takes her own bread/cracker from her purse whilst passing the plate on. I don't recall it ever being an item of interest other than normal curiosty at first.

I know my Mum (who is a celiac) takes her own bread (cracker) to church. When the elements are passed around, she will take a glass of wine (non-al) but eat her own bread. It might not be like a Catholic church (wouldn't know - never been to one) because the wine and bread isn't 'blessed' per se, so that doesn't even enter into the equation.

Who decides what type of behaviour is supsicious and what isn't? In this case, Harris is saying muslims are suspicous 'because' they belong to that religion (I don't agree with his opinion). I mean there would be some that would find it very suspicious if you actively followed a vehemently jihadist leader. The individual themself might not do anything 'suspicous', but if this leader openly advocated blowing people up at mosque services, services that the individual attended every week, would you at all be concerned? My point being that no matter what tactic you employ, human decision making comes into the equation, and we each hold our own views, often reasoned to the individual but not neccessarily to anyone else. But back to the point in the OP, racisim is about race. Harris suggesting all muslims and people who look like muslims should be screened, is not be defintion racist. Furthermore, you seem to be putting words in Harris' mouth when you question if "we'll treat everyone from Iraq like they're terrorist suspects or something". Harris doesn't say that. To the contrary, Harris actually says "I am not narrowly focused on people with dark skin. In fact, I included myself in the description of the type of person I think should be profiled (twice)."

Maybe I can help here, as I am probably one of the few that participate here that doesn't believe in God or a God. I am open to an existence of God, I just don't know what to make of God, if anything. I can authoratively say that Spong has made both Jesus and the Bible much more palatable to me, even though I am not particularly interested in loving God (how can I be when I don't even know if God exists?). God could not exist for all I care, but I now find value in much of the bible. A major reason for that I attribute to Spong. If at the end of the day the bible is nothing but words by men and God simply doesn't exist in any way shape or form, then it changes nothing for me in relation to much wisdom and words worthy of comtemplation, coming from the bible. That is what I have taken away from Spong. And I love others not from any belief in a God, but because it is the right thing to do in my opinion. Why? - because it feels good, it makes me happy, it makes the world a better place - God or no God. As for the gospel message about the Kingdom of God, again, even if there was no such thing as God, I still like what Jesus says concerning such a kingdom. Removing God from the paradigm, makes faith in the righteousness or benefits of such a kingdom, irrelevant in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the kingdom is a good idea even if God doesn't exist. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus could be wrong about God, like others he might have believed in God, but he might be wrong too. That doesn't reduce his message concerning the kingdom as far as I'm concerned.

It might be important in this discussion to look at the notes that accompany the 8 Points on the TCPC the front page. "From the beginning of TCPC, the intention of the '8 points' has been to present an inviting expression of a particular approach to the practice of Christianity. Our hope is that this series of ideas will be appealing especially to those who do not find a comfortable fit with traditional understandings of Christian faith, and result in thoughtful conversation on basic themes throughout the Progressive Christian network and beyond. We will continue to present the original version along with other more recent versions for comparison in our various printed and electronic venues. As always, we want to avoid a dogmatic and literalistic understanding, including in our own written articulations of the faith. You will no doubt find your own ways of articulating the nuances of Christianity expressed in the 8 Points. We encourage you to find creative ways to live out those expressions in your daily relationships and routines." Bob Ryder, Former TCPC Executive Council member And these comments taken from TCPC's 'Mission - To Reach Out': The people the Center's programs will target include those who think of themselves as agnostic or skeptical or dubious -- questioning people who cannot accept church doctrines when it is presented as absolute, beyond discussion, or exempt from multiple interpretations and cannot accept miracles as historical events. Many are like the person U.S. Representative Amory Houghton described as one "who recoils at churchy gibberish, uses the Bible as a bookend, gags at the sanctimonious, squirms during the Creed--in other words thinks the church is a waste of time." My point being, I think the general thrust of one of the reasons TCPC exists is to help/invite/encourage people who otherwise have 'hang-ups' with the 'traditional' understanding of things, things such as the word God.

I know Spong uses 'ground of all being' alot, which I understand comes from Tillich. Whilst I have not heard any of the people you mention David, specifically state that the word 'God' doesn't work for them, my thoughts are that none of them would particularly object to a variety of words pointing to what they consider to be God, based on their writings and how I perceive their belief/undersatnding to be. I actually don't expect, from what I have read by them, that either Borg or Spong would have a problem with using Sacred/Oneness/etc. Not being an ancient Israelite myself, I don't feel the slightest compelled, obligated, or responsible to use the word Yahweh, Y.H.W.H., or God. I can't imagine God, whatever she/he/that may be, getting hung up on whether we speak out loud or not.

I don't think it does. It's available to anybody of the Jewish faith just as it is available to anyone of any other faith/belief/religion. I guess the question would be 'which' Jewish members opinion do you value over others, as clearly not all Jewish people hold the exact same opinion when it comes to describing and knowing that which cannot be described (and the same would go for just about every religion I should imagine). Perhaps there will never be a resolution to all people's preference in this matter, simply because such a diverse range of opinions, as is found here, make it almost impossible to be all things to all people. I am fairly relaxed about it, but I must admit I might not be if things were going a way that I didn't want. What would I do? Probably the same as we're doing here - debating and discussing the pros and cons, the ins and outs. If it came to a point where I simply couldn't reconcile with what was being said here and/or wasn't getting something out of it, I wouldn't be here. But also that might be taking things too seriously. After all, it is just a website where people who have some things in common come together to discuss and help one another in their journey in life.

I'm also a realist though David - 13 years of policing taught me that there are a number of nasties out there! I'm not sure of your point though - does the TCPC site need to be tailored more for Jewish members? If we reinstate the previous 8 points that will be acceptable to all Jewish believers?

David, I could suggest to Norm that Sacredness could replace Yahweh, but it would only be a suggestion and up to Norm if he sees value in it. If Norm wants to use Yahweh I guess that is his business, but in my opinion people can move past a word that has previously held significance, into a future with new words, if those new words means something more to that person. I understand you are arguing that Christianity needs A word for that which could not be spoken, I don't think it does. My views are probably similiar to Joseph's in that I think the word 'God' is actually holding people back because of its connotations with fundamental Christianity (I note I have taken liberty with Joseph's post but I think that's how I understand him). Just in my opinion, I think that these other words reflect the 'more' about God than traditional language. But that is just my opinion. As for the 'inclusiveness' bit, I don't think it is a 'need' but rather a desire of PC to be more inclusive. But not because there is an agenda to be inclusive, but because it can't help but be inclusive. I don't see it as an either/or scenario, but rather PC & the new 8 points seems to acknowledge more about God which to me isn't captured in the use of the term 'God'. Does that make any sense? As for who I would want to include, I would want to include everybody and anybody, who doesn't want to cause harm. If they are genuine, they are welcome. I think it would be dissapointing if many Jews felt excluded because of this issue. Then again, there's probably quite a few literalist, fundamental, Christians who feel uncomfortable here too.

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!)

I think the 'symbol' deserves change. Times change, understandings of God change, words and meanings change. I personally fail to see how replacing God with something like the Sacredness, the Oneness, and the Unity of all life (all with capital letters) does anything to diminish the symbol, rather it opens the symbol to the more that most people here consider the symbol to mean. But I also acknowledge that to some, this change is a big deal, and I do respect that. Personally, I feel a lot more comfortable with people moving away from a singular noun to describe what cannot be described. I think staying with the one word/symboil runs the risk of stereotyping or providing the illusion that it means what every one else means when saying the word 'God'. Clearly though, God means so many different things to so many different people. And I think that's where this site is going with regards to inclusiveness rather than exlusiveness. Then again, I could be completely wrong

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.

Thanks Dutch.

Welcome Stas, We could do with building up our Aussie numbers here Cheers Paul