PaulS

2 hours ago, romansh said:

This I think is fair enough, but weeds struggling to take hold of cracks in the cement? Consciousness (panpsychism) doe not do it it for me. Panpsychism might be true, but the question remains does consciousness actually do anything or is it an epiphenomenon?

I'm guessing that for Spong, as he considers 'it' the Ground of Being, to me he seems to indicate that he thinks it actually does (or has done) something.  For me - who knows.

2 hours ago, romansh said:

This is exactly anthropomorphizing, ascribing desires to weeds. The best word I could come up with was affinity ... certain combinations of chemicals have an affinity to form life ...  or something like that.

I like that.  But Spong might ask 'what' causes this affinity, 'where' does it come from, 'why' this affinity and not another?  I'm sure there could be very scientific explanations which we are yet to fully grasp, but then again, I leave room for Spong's 'Ground of Being'.

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Yes people have been inspired by all sorts of things. Books come to mind, Mein Kampf, Das Capital, all sorts of religious texts. Why is one of those unfortunate question words. If by why we mean what are the underlying causes, we may make some headway, but we will eventually bump into a place where we can't see, at least for the present time. If we mean what is the purpose? We can start writing our fiction now.

And, I have no issue with writing such fiction if it is what works for the individual.  For me where it goes pear-shaped is when individuals start claiming authority or right-ness.

6 hours ago, romansh said:

How is this different from the universe unfolding? And I think we need to be careful not to anthropomorphize other life forms, including weeds. It's bad enough when we anthropomorphize our brains.

I don't want to put words in Spong's mouth - we've all seen what that can lead to thousands of years down the track! - but the difference I think is that in Spong's mind any unfolding of the universe is a consciousness, in some way or another.  Spong feels 'touched' by this unfolding in some way, as opposed to simply recognizing he is but a bit part in a non-conscious drama.  And it's not so much anthropomorphizing that Spong does, it's more he questions why should a weed desire to grow?  Where did 'this' come from that things want to or simply do try to, 'live'?

6 hours ago, romansh said:

Yes we can take inspirations from a myth or allegedly true stories (to varying degrees). We can get inspiration from cathedrals or stories about saints. For me looking down a microscope or at the night skies through a telescope is far more inspiring. Getting a tiny glimpse of how the biochemistry of how life works, how environments are on the edge of competition and cooperation. How the universe might tick and where mankind and life fit into it, that's where inspiration lies for me.

I think that's beautiful, but we all get inspiration from different sources.  Why we do and how we do is what makes life interesting I think, and this itself has us asking questions about why.

6 hours ago, romansh said:

I hope it's the sea that bobs up and down and not the rig.

Bit of both, but mainly the sea.  We are shaped like a vessel (some 350m long and 8 stories above ocean level with 5 stories below water level) but are moored to the seabed.  So we weathervane around the conditions, including Cat 5 cyclones, but get a little bit of rocking up from time to time.  Helps you sleep!

19 hours ago, romansh said:

I never got a good sense of the ground of being. It is translates for me into existence or the universe. 

I liked the analysis Spong used once about things desiring to live.  What makes a weed try to grow in a crack in a path for instance.  No matter what, it tries as hard as it can to grow and live.  Now, I think that is overlaying a bit of human emotion on the weed, but I thought it was a fair comment by Spong trying to explain there is something that exists that drives things to live.  Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

19 hours ago, romansh said:

The real Jesus is lost to Christ the Myth. Remembering what some scribe recalled what someone said of Jesus? There is so much more of existence around us now, that we don't have to interpret some two thousand year old remembrance. If you see what I mean.

Absolutely.  I think one can take some inspiration from some things, but it certainly has to be a personal view and not one that is in any way provable or historically established, much less promoted as the only way to understand things.

19 hours ago, romansh said:

Gotta run ... some more thoughts later. Back from the far North?

Not quite, still bobbing about on the ocean for another week!

My two bob's worth:

On 9/16/2021 at 12:19 PM, romansh said:

• Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

Fairly obviously I would have some sympathy for Spong's first two sentences.  The third sentence: "must", really? Perhaps a need for some leaving a traditional viewpoint. This is completely in accord with my take on ignosticism or theological noncognitivism

It could in part be a need to hold on, but I think Spong had a heartfelt belief concerning the existence of a 'ground of being' that plays a part in our self consciousness and in which everything that exists, is rooted.  So maybe/maybe not for me.

On 9/16/2021 at 12:19 PM, romansh said:

• The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.

I think I agree with the intent here, but the actual point does not make sense to me.

Agreed.  I'm not sure why he wants to stake the claim that a biologically born child can't be divine.  It would seem that it the specvific claim that Christianity is making - humanly born but 'conceived' by God.  I don't believe Mary was a virgin, but his claim does seem nonsensical.

On 9/16/2021 at 12:19 PM, romansh said:

• The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

Again I agree,  but I wonder which of (any) the theistic traditions could have been interpreted literally since the enlightenment?

I guess traditions such as communion (remembering Jesus in the act and not actually having bread turn to flesh and wine turn to blood in one's mouth).  Other traditions such as reaching out to the poor, the imprisoned, the widows etc could still be interpreted literally.

On 9/16/2021 at 12:19 PM, romansh said:

• Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

I am not sure I understand this one.

I can only imagine that Spong meant Jesus lives on 'in' God, whatever that meant to Spong.  Perhaps the disciples 'felt' that Jesus' crucifiction wasn't 'the end' of Jesus in some way.

On 9/16/2021 at 12:19 PM, romansh said:

• The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

I suppose technically I am agnostic about life after death. Personally, based on my experience, I am not expecting any, and based on my understanding of science I will be extremely surprised if there is any.

I wouldn't mind a pleasant suprise, but like you, I suspect not.

On 9/16/2021 at 12:19 PM, romansh said:

• All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

This is Spong's point I most disagree with. He needs to reconcile this with his first point ... defining god before we can have any meaningful conversation about what this image thing is, and any consequences we might draw from this.

I think that is a good point - Spong needs to define that God or at the very least lay out the elements where he sees people bearing God's image, and in what ways.

He was an awesome progressive christian and an amazing and prolific writer that helped so many break the shackles of traditional Christianity.  I sometimes wonder who is going to carry the mantle after the likes of Spong, Borg and others.  I'm sure there will be others, but in the meantime, I hope many will read Spong's works to gain a better understanding of Jesus and Christianity.

Packing a bag tonight in order to get a taxi at 4.30am tomorrow to the airport (1hr drive) to then take a plane north for 3.5hrs, before changing to a helicopter for a 2hr flight to deliver me to an offshore gas production facility approximately 250 miles out in the ocean, getting there about 3.30pm.  Then a couple of hours work, dinner and bed.

9 minutes ago, romansh said:

A quick question ... do you live in a first past the post jurisdiction? If you do then you are likely aware the majority of people did not vote for a particular candidate.  Let's say I promised  to vote for a certain position and when I get elected I realize people are being misled. What do I do?  

No, Australia dropped first past the post in 1917.  We use a mix of Preferential Voting and Proportional Representation, so the party with the most votes wins power but individual 'seats' can be manipulated by preferences.

Obviously the better thing to do if people are being misled, is to lead them correctly.  But I'm thinking that is just more opinion and doesn't get us any closer as to whether one is actually representing the people that elected them.  That said, I guess it hinges around what democracy is actually defined as, and I'm not sure it's described anywhere where one is or isn't following democratic principles if they decide to act contrary to how they said they were going to act when soliciting votes initially.

9 minutes ago, romansh said:

I remember the first time I voted for anything but conservative, I voted for the liberal candidate because I did not believe him/his platform.

Yes, tactics are also a part of the voting process, both for the elector and the candidate.

3 minutes ago, romansh said:

It has to make sense to me.  Otherwise we can do all laws by referendum. (Brexit) Take vaccine passports. If somebody does not want vaccinations, fair enough. But if places ie shops, stadiums, borders, etc want proof of vaccination ... good.

It depends what you mean by representing. When you go to a doctor, do you want her to do/recommend what you what her to do?

I don't disagree with your take on doing what makes sense to you, but I don't see that model as truly fitting what we call 'representative democracy'.  If I voted for you believing you would represent how I wanted government to govern, and then you up and chose not to govern that way, you have betrayed my vote and you are not representative of me.  Now I know that gets tricky with lots of little bits and pieces (you can't please verybody 100% of the time), but essentially if you were elected by the majority on a platform of banning abortion, then to be true to democracy, I would expect you to ban abortion.  

When I go to a doctor, I pay for a service.  I expert a level of expertise.  When I vote for a politician, I vote for what they say they stand for and so before I vote, I determine whether they generally reflect my views or not.  If they don't I don't vote for them.  

21 minutes ago, romansh said:

 Would I implement policies to the benefit of the community but to the detriment of neighbouring communities?

If 99% of your community wanted a certain law, but 1% didn't so you choose not to implement that law, are you really representing your community?  Isn't that what democracy is meant to be?

33 minutes ago, Regressive-Traditionalist said:

You're ascribing your own projection of nihilism on to the nihilist. There is nothing necessarily negative in Nihilism, only the abandoning of meaning and accepting the is. Not ascribing good or evil to it. 

I don't think it's me ascribing those properties, just the commonly agreed definition.  I recognize that human language has limitations but generally we try to agree on the meanings of words so that we can all come from the same place when discussing things.  The definition I provided was a psychology definition.

But I am happy to ascribe neither good nor evil to people's views as there is no final word.  Maybe 'adiaphorous' is a more appropriate term.

42 minutes ago, Regressive-Traditionalist said:

Well if there is no final word then there is only nihilism. Also Churchill was wrong on Democracy. It is the worst form of government when compared to most of the others. 

I am curious too - how do you see democracy as the 'worst form' of government when compared to most others.  There must be at least one form of government you consider 'better' than democracy if you think democracy is the 'worst'.  Can you share a better form of government, in your opinion?  

24 minutes ago, romansh said:

I  would argue yes ... That person might not be happy. But yes.

I'm not sure that is very practical or even possible in a society.  I think somebody is always going to feel 'wronged' the the government of the day.  So we do the best we can, and rule in accordnace with the majority, hopefully mindful that just because the majority wants it doesn't mean it is the best thing overall.

24 minutes ago, romansh said:

Abortion is an excellent example. A government ideally does not ride roughshod over peoples wants. So here we might compromise. Men can be banned from terminating any pregnancies they might have and women might choose for themselves. But if the government does ride roughshod over women's rights then that government and the people that support the law should be prepared for the backlash.

But isn't 'roughshod' just an emotive way of saying we disagree?  In a democracy, shouldn't a government have the right to enact the majority of it's societies desires.  Surely that's what 'representative if the people' means?  But really, I guess that's just one of the limitations of an imperfect form of government (not that any other forms of government are any more perfect).

24 minutes ago, romansh said:

Yes and no. I can see why you don't. You have not yet really (it seems to me) fully explored the consequences of there being no free will. I completely expect you to carry on the good fight.  That is your dharma. It seems to me as you are still seeing yourself somehow separate from the unfolding. I must admit at times I do too. But that is OK. 

It's like when we cut down a maple that was slowly bringing down a neighbour's retaining wall. I did not think the tree was somehow evil or bad, it was something that needed to be done. In the same way, I see the Texan government needs to be reigned in regarding it abortion legislation.

So, who said anything about sitting back?

Yeah, I must admit, I do still struggle with the no free will concept.  Not because I don't agree that we have no free will (we are all entirely a product of our genetics and our experiences) but rather it's application and meaning to life.  But, I'll leave that to another thread.

30 minutes ago, Regressive-Traditionalist said:

Well if there is no final word then there is only nihilism. 

Seems a bit dramatic.  I see nihilism defined as "the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy".

Now, I don't think because every single person cannot agree on every single point that they are nihilists.  Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree, precisely because there is no final word on the matter.  Both are right, and both are wrong, it's just perspective.  That doesn't mean one or the other won't fight to have their perspective recognized, but that's what I see as part and parcel of our evolution.  Will we ever overcome disagreements, our alternate views - who knows.

7 minutes ago, Regressive-Traditionalist said:

Nothing makes the democratic view right. Democratic just means majority decides. 

Yes, indeed.  I guess that's another question - what is 'right'?  As we see from our experiences, what different people think is 'right' is often different.  Who is the final arbitrator?  To me, it seems there is no 'final word' and we just muddle through it best we can.  Of course some may say 'God', but that's really just another version of 'right'.

I'm reminded of Winston Churchill's quote: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."

6 hours ago, romansh said:

The problem with government  is it has to represent all the people, not just the chosen (majority). 

Every single person?  What if the majority elect a government that promises to ban abortion?  Clearly not everybody is going to be happy with that decision but if the majority by far want that to be a law in their society, isn't that democracy in action? (By the way, I support abortion and a woman's right to choose).  

6 hours ago, romansh said:

I suggest, if you get chance, read Yuval Noah Harari's (I think) Homo Sapiens.  In it he describes the Peugeot motor car company as a fiction. Similarly concepts like ownership and perhaps human rights are fictions too.  And here we can add democracy and other forms of government. Of course they exist as concepts and these concepts are/were enacted.

Great book and yes, Peugeot is a good example of how communal 'thinking' is what makes something exist.  If we don't 'play by the rules' then that 'thing' will no longer exist.

6 hours ago, romansh said:

Now a so called racist, cannot help but be as they are ... they too are part of the universe unfolding. As are each of us, nature, the planets orbiting the Sun, suns orbiting the centre of the galaxy and the galaxy doing it thing with all the other galaxies. 

And others fighting against racists, or anti-abortionists, is also part of the universe unfolding?  It seems to me that recognizing it is the universe unfolding doesn't really help with the matter, unless we are prepared to sit back and let whatever happen, happen, because that is the universe unfolding (but then is the sitting back part of the universe's unfolding also?).

I saw the below meme today and thought that maybe it was a fair cop.  But then I wondered about the bit of 'infiltrating government' and whilst I don't like religion and government mixing, if Democracy is truly representative of the people, and the majority of those people hold certain religious views (whether others find them agreeable or not), is that not democracy in action?  But then I had another thought - if a Democratic society voted to strongly uphold racism, or maybe even extinguish another race, or some other cause that many might not agree with, is it justified simply because it falls under the banner of 'Democracy'.  What makes democratic views 'right'?

On 9/11/2021 at 4:06 AM, romansh said:

As to the Bible ... it's a lot of words for try and be nice to one and another.

To be fair, there are also a lot of words around how to kill others, what not to do, and what to do with adulterous wives!

Oh, and how God's not going to be nice to you if you don't obey what they say God wants.

Funnily enough, I suffered anxiety and was close to suicidal because I couldn't believe the things that this version of Christianity said that I must!  For me, so many Christian beliefs about sin, Jesus, and God just make no sense when looking at biblical scholarship and history compared to these sorts of versions of Christianity.   Progressive Christianity helped me to better understand that Christianity isn't about an 'in group' and an 'out group',  of chosen vs condemned.  Mankind in general is not wicked, and somebody saying they 'accept' Jesus makes them no more righteous than the next person.  We are all humans doing our best to get by and sometimes it can be really tough.

But I fully agree that anybody suffering anxiety or feeling suicidal should talk about it.  In Australia we offer LifeLine - 13 11 14.

4 hours ago, KYGAL said:

I was in the section where we introduce ourselves but it was closed to further comment for some reason.

Hi Kygal, 

If I'm doing this right, I've successfully shifted your introductory post from the "What Am I Doing Today" thread into its own post under the Introduction section.  You can post in here, you just have to start a new topic (which I've now done for you).

Welcome to the Forum!

You sound like you're going through quite an upheaval with some of your beliefs.  I think it's sad that politics and religion seem hell bent on making sure everybody sees the world the same way 'they' do.  The world would be a much better place if we all just took a giant chill pill and let others live their lives as they wish.  Alas, that doesn't always make for a cohesive society, which is a challenge in itself.  For me, I'm happy enough with the principle that if your beliefs are doing no harm to others, then you're more than welcome to have them.

I hope you get something out of the forum and enjoy participating here.

Cheers

Paul

13 hours ago, KYGAL said:

So I keep looking to see if anything has changed but so far, nothing closer to me has appeared. 

Hi Kygal, this may help - the Progressive Christianity.org site linked to this forum has a directory of PC Churches and organisations you can search for by State.  You seem to be in Florida and there are 33 or more listed for that state.  Good luck in your search.

https://progressivechristianity.org/global-network/

Cheers

Paul

On 9/5/2021 at 10:02 AM, Beanieboy said:

Just obey the bible, because that is the will of God. 

Personally I don't think there is any 'just' when it comes to 'obeying' the bible.  We see through countless denominations and versions of Christianity, that the bible is anything but close to being clear when it comes to understanding and interpretation.  What I think these people actually mean is that others should understand God's will the way 'they' understand God's will.

On 9/5/2021 at 10:02 AM, Beanieboy said:

They mentioned "the answers are within you - just go within" and how the heart is deceitful, so one should never go within. My brother-in-law, a missionary, said the same thing to me, in a discussion about "New Age" thought. I explained that when I pray and speak to God, I go within. He echoed that his heart is all evil and darkness. The only good within him is Jesus. I said that Jesus lives in my heart, "this little light of mine, and so, it isn't evil or dark. I was made in God's image, so my soul is divine, it's perfect. Yes, I may make mistakes (sin), but my focus is on actively loving my neighbor. 

For me I think that Christianity (the religion) has relied on painting a dark picture of humanity, when in fact I don't think Jesus' message was anywhere near this.  To em it seems that Jesus was always trying to see the good in people, not the bad.  He was trying to convince them that God was there with them at that very moment.  A god example was how he railed against Church leaders who told others they were the only ones who could be the intermediary with God.

On 9/5/2021 at 10:02 AM, Beanieboy said:

In a discussion between a conservative and a progressive, the conservative again said he is all evil, his heart is evil, and the only good in him is because of Christ. 
This troubles me for two reasons:

The first is that if the only good in you is Christ, those who do not have Christ are then seen as evil, I remember a street preacher on the streets of Toronto saying "look at all these demons out tonight." Demons? 

This is what I was taught - that God sees us as sinners, and Jesus puts rose colored glasses on the Father, which cancels out our sin. 

So, one time in prayer, God showed me that while I loved him, he had been holding his arms out in love, but because I was raised that we are all sinners, had so much shame and self loathing, that I had never accepted his love, because I believed I wasn't worthy. 
And he was saying l, I love you. I died for you. Please believe me! Please accept my love. That's all you have to do. 

And it moved me to love my neighbor without asking anything in return as a way to thank God. 

I just look at it this way - would Jesus prefer everyone going around condemning everyone else as evil, as a 'demon', or would he prefer people who demonstrated love and kindness to everyone.  I suspect the latter.

On 9/5/2021 at 10:02 AM, Beanieboy said:

Buddhism has a saying: Of someone says he is seeking the truth, listen. If he says he has found it, run away. 

Very wise.

On 9/5/2021 at 10:02 AM, Beanieboy said:

Conservative Christianity, then, needs to prevent you from questioning the Church's view, which is God's view. in their opinion, because like Segregation, Slavery, or women not treated as equals to men, and using Scripture to declare it God's Will, the person may come to the conclusion that the church is wrong. Preventing one from trusting their heart, their intuition, their feelings, makes them negate God writing the law on our hearts. It makes them follow their leader and their translation blindly, believing they are following God's will, but not following the Holy Spirit. 

It reminds me of preachers saying one has to have 'faith' when one starts to doubt and question what they have been told is the truth.  In those cases faith is used as an excuse, as a defense to probing and seeking a better understanding.  It's much easier to fit into a club if you just go along with what the rest of the club is comfortable with.  Thankfully, Progressive Christianity has many brave people who have challenged this status quo and so we see Christianity moving in new directions.  Conservatives will struggle with the change, but it is inevitable.  The world has moved on.

12 hours ago, romansh said:

But I think your "I live it" points to a reality. Most of the time I just do stuff. Sometimes I just think about things, come to conclusions, and then go on doing stuff. ie just live it. A new Nike slogan?

Well if you see Nike using it, just remember it was invented here first!  Could be a good little fundraiser for our site!

16 hours ago, romansh said:

While all this is very interesting, if you like that sort of thing; for me the question is, "How do we deal with reality today?"

Sort of the topic here.

I'm not sure I can answer that other than to say "I live it".  I mean, reality is such a broad topic.  Are you asking how do we deal with the reality about what we now know concerning biblical scholarship, or other parts of our reality?

Welcome to the Forum, Bible123. 

I hope you enjoy participating here and find the site of value.

Cheers

Paul

9 hours ago, romansh said:

Clearly the poster has not thought this through. ie a celibate priest by definition would be considered asexual by his definition ... assuming a he.

Yes, the definitions they are applying are certainly a biased interpretation and not what is properly understood by the terms.