PaulS

Yes, I would agree that should be a given and that is what I am used to in Australia. But when you were referring to a 'media out of control' I didn't think we were really talking about the likes of Fox or CNN actually breaking laws. It seems to me their transgression is that their focus is less on reporting of the facts and more on reporting with an opinion, even a bias. They have become influencers more so than simply reporters of the news. But if you are talking about smaller forums and discussion groups then yes I would agree, they may well need to be held to account if they are breaking the laws of their community. But then again, and I digress, aren't laws a funny thing. Things that were once illegal are today legal. And others that are legal today, will be illegal tomorrow. Can we trust the law? Only so much as we trust the direction of the society making them I guess.

Indeed, today's conservatives may have been yesteryear's progressives. I see the human species as continually refining and developing into the future. Sometimes it may seem like a bit of a zig zag, but generally I think we're moving forward.

I like that.

Personally, I think the term 'progressive' unfortunately does create judgement and may even be a little condescending to those who aren't considered 'progressive', but we humans do like labels and it is hard to characterize similar ways of thinking without identifying a label per se. I think the term has probably come about because there are people who do want to identify with Christianity but whom do not want to be lumped in with a traditional Christian point of view. Sometimes I think it might just be easier to say what one 'is not', rather than what one 'is'. In comparison to traditional Christianity, 'Progressives' tend to identify as not being fundamentalists, not believing the Bible is the inerrant or infallible word of God, not agreeing that Creationism should replace the science of evolution in public schools, not believing that God disapproves of homosexuality, not believing that people of other faiths are going to hell unless they convert to Christianity, not denying the right of women to choose what happens to their bodies, and more, whilst simultaneously believing that Jesus and Christianity has much to offer, as a way of life.

In my opinion, media is a product and not the cause. Although I can imagine it being the other way around, I just don't think that is the case. For instance, Fox news didn't promote a Trump bias but rather, I believe, it tapped into an existing market. CNN didn't make Democrats form certain views, it catered to them. But in that 'tapping in' and 'catering' to a certain audience I agree that media can 'feed' certain mindsets and influence cultures. Add to these the many 'dark web' sites, chat groups, forums etc, and it is easier nowadays for anybody of a particular mindset to find support and agreeable views. Religion does it all the time. I don't think democracy is ceasing to function, but I think that there are cracks showing, particularly (mainly?) highlighted in the US. I don't see any other genuinely democratic society as divided and angry as the US seems presently. And yes, views are being fed by media outlets to a large degree but ultimately it is society who is making the decisions about how and what they think, and why. But where do you draw the line? Who would be the arbiter about what a media organization can and cannot publish? Certainly an autocrat would be eager to step up, so are we at risk of being autocratic ourselves by suggesting media outlets must conform with, well, whatever it is one might suggest they need to conform with. I have no problem with community-based laws that say we won't tolerate things such as encouraging violence, or racism, or homophobic hatred, but that's just because generally they are culturally accepted norms for most of us and generally we are agreed they benefit society. As frustrating as I find ignorant views that the Federal election was stolen from Trump (it wasn't), I believe we each should have freedom of opinion. However, as you point out, freedom of opinion is not the same as freedom of speech where one is free to say whatever they like, no matter who it harms or offends. Maybe it is a US thing, but the certainty of evangelical Christianity certainly seems to perversely influence the certainty of Trumpism. It is hard to imagine the same sort of religious fervor for political leaders here in Australia. That's not to say it could never happen - rather that I just find it highly unlikely and compared to the US, unimaginable presently. The thing that would concern me about your suggestion of 'accountability' for publishing platforms is, who sets the bar and what does it look like?

I agree that hindsight is always better, but there were a lot of people calling on Donald Trump to do more in the mask wearing/social distancing space since long ago - and he pretty much ignored or disparaged them (Trump even openly mocked Biden for wearing a mask). Trump certainly didn't start encouraging your population to wear masks or practice social distancing very well at all - part of his 'playing it down' strategy I guess. And quite simply, the other party wasn't in control, so I'm not sure why that is an issue. We're talking here about the effectiveness of the person who WAS in control - Trump, and to me, he didn't do a very good job of it at all when it came to managing the virus in the community (e.g. encouraging mask wearing and social distancing). I think that is why your country is one of the leaders in deaths per capita. It simply didn't have to be that way. IMO, there is no 'the' media when it comes to ownership or control. There is media. All of the individual entities in that space are controlled by individual entities. In many cases the individual entities control several (even dozens) of media outlets, but no single entity or individual can possibly 'own' the media, or 'the' narrative. Yes, individual media bodies may favour a bias (e.g. Fox favour Trump/Republicans whereas CNN favour Biden/Democrats) but clearly neither entity controls 'the' media or 'the' narrative. There may be further division but that is not always a reason to not proceed. Additionally, as was seen in the House where 10 Republicans crossed the floor to support Impeachment, I think Trump's behavior pre & post the invasion of the Capitol, might see him lose a substantial amount of support from those who otherwise voted for him. Not everybody who voted Trump is as passionate as those who invaded the Capitol. Of course, those of the invaders' logic will unlikely ever find a reason not to support Trump, but I think you might see less division over this matter than the last time Trump was impeached. In any event, I think the matter should be dealt with on its merits and as far I can see it is not being pursued strictly along party lines with 10 republicans in the House crossing the floor to vote for impeachment and a number of Republicans in the Senate also publicly announcing they would support the motion (and some said they were sitting on the fence until they saw the motion). You might not agree with it but if Democrats do believe a crime or a transgression was committed by Trump, they have a right, perhaps even a duty, to address it. Some might not like that, but it is a legitimate part of the democratic process in the US.

It’s hard to imagine that the US was putting its best foot forward when it’s leader was deliberately ‘playing down’ the severity of the virus to the people, in conjunction with politicizing the wearing of masks and social distancing. Could he have done better? Absolutely.

Yes, finally after 2 months of fighting and crying that the election was fraudulent and stolen from him, finally after months of saying he will not concede, finally after 50 court cases were rejected or lost, finally after the Electoral College upheld the State's rights, finally after the Senate and Congress upheld the Constitution, finally after the Capitol was invaded and 5 people sadly are now dead, finally Trump says there will be a peaceful transition. The hope I guess John is that 7 million people more outvoted those that voted for Trump and the Electoral College produced the same 'landslide' margin to Biden as when Trump got over the line in 2016. I too think that such harm has been done to and even by the US during this 'Trump experiment', but let's hope the US and indeed the world can recover and improve from this point. Let's hope.

I don't disagree, but the AP is just one such 'conglomerate' when there are literally thousands and thousands of news agencies around the world - any one of which could report the evidence that Trump has to demonstrate that the he actually won the election in a landslide but that the Democrats stole the election. That would not be hard to demonstrate and reflect in a single media article - if the facts actually existed. But we all know they don't. And this is exactly what Trump plays on - a skerrick of truth that there is some voter fraud (as there is in all elections), but nothing, nothing, that even comes close to large scale fraud that saw this election stolen from Trump. Trump's own Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency clearly stated that “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.” It was a secure election and the American people should have faith in that - except that doesn't suit Trump's narrative. So, away we go. I agree with any efforts to ensure elections are as secure as possible, but that's not what Trump was about here. He was an extremist and didn't care about the facts. Unfortunately, what one thinks of the matter does have consequences, as you have seen. When people irresponsibly spin stories of deceit and create division, there are consequences. Sadly.

I find it too hard to imagine that all of the media in the free world is involved in a cover up of a fraudulent election. It’s this nonsense and Trump’s promotion of it that will now cost the Republicans their two Senate seats for Georgia and control of the Senate. It isn’t a ‘realization’ of anything - it’s buying into Trump’s delusions and not accepting Democracy in action. This is what Trump had been about since day one - dividing the country, not uniting it. You reap what you sow.

Yeah, I'm no biologist either, but it would seem to me that our 'self' is simply a product of our brain, so in that regard, self really is just part of the 'all', I think. I know that I have no knowledge of 'self' before I developed a certain level of cognitive function in my brain (at around 2-3 years of age I think I recall) and I highly suspect I will have no understanding of 'self' after my brain function ceases. So to me it would seem that 'self' isn't something that needs to be transcended, but rather is something that is precisely what we are - our brain functioning. I'm not sure acting for our own interests is anything that different from 'on behalf of biological drives to support family/species' - our brain function and cognitive ability simply drives us in that manner. Just my thoughts anyway.

But is there a need to transcend self? Can we not just accept that 'self' is part of the 'all' and that's that? I think sacrificing carrots, even by a vicious stoning, would have been a much better option for humanity!

I'm not sure the US is out of the woods yet, with the way Trump is behaving! One can only hope this sideshow will finish soon enough. Then again, there seems to be millions of Americans who seem happy that Trump is behaving this way. Go figure.

No, not daft at all John, and I for one enjoyed your little examination of each religion and what they have to offer. I wonder when 'we' did start believing? I expect it was when our distant relatives first started to develop self-consciousness. As you mentioned elsewhere, there is early evidence of our relatives the Neanderthals practicing ritual and ceremony - it's not a big step for me to imagine earlier hominoids asking questions about what they didn't understand (which would have been a heck of a lot I imagine way back then) and developing spiritual answers instead of scientific understandings. I think the biggest influence by far concerning why people follow certain religions is they're family and cultural upbringing. To me that is why the majority of religious people believe in their faith - it's what they grew up with. In the information age we might be seeing that break down a bit, but largely I think people stick with what they know (or what they think they know, is possibly more accurate). I'm pretty confident that had I grown up in a strong Hindu culture I would be just as certain of those religious beliefs as many Christians are who have grown up with their particular religion.

I wonder what people's thoughts are on Trump's efforts to overturn the election results, to have the Senate reject the Electoral College's outcome, and his encouraging of a protest in DC on 6 Jan?

I wonder if religions, like Christianity, start out with good intent but as they become further and further removed from the initiators, they get changed and warped by well-meaning, but ultimately mistaken, individuals and groups. I certainly think Christianity morphed from what Jesus actually meant to later early Christians making excuses for Jesus not returning when they expected. 'Theology' started getting developed around Jesus by people who didn't know him and were several generations removed from the Jesus experience. I think most religions have something to offer, otherwise they wouldn't exist I guess. Having been burnt by aligning myself with traditional Christianity early in life, I am loathe to ever commit again to any particular religion, but welcome any teachings or philosophies that add value to our lives and helps us live better with one another.

Let's hope we can work on that in 2021, John! I know there are lots of great people who have previously been involved here and that new people come through all the time, so I expect we will see peaks and troughs. Numbers wise 2020 was a bit of a trough, but I can see that changing this year. 4BeanMix, I am not and have any never been a member of Christian Forums, so I can't rally speak from experience with them. Here we have very rarely banned anybody from this site and have only on the rarest occasions suspended anybody for a short period (1 or 2 weeks). This has always been pre-empted with plenty of warnings. It is a balancing act, but we try to be open to people of all degrees of belief - from stringent fundamentalists to militant atheists, and everywhere in between. I'd be pretty confident that here our TCPC offers a lot more tolerances than other Christian message boards. We have guidelines that we ask participants to adhere to, but if ultimately they can't respect those, it will result in limiting their access here. It is a shame that certain sub-forums can act as a safe haven for those of a similar mindset, to reinforce harmful views. Let's hope that participation in forums such as this one can help solve those problems!

Hi all, just an update. I am now funding this forum by myself at a cost of $540 USD/year ($45/mnth). I really don't want to see the forum go by the wayside and am investigating ways to make it more financially viable past 2021. In the meantime, if you find any value in maintaining this forum, please consider contributing a month's worth of fees or in fact anything you consider reasonable to help share the load. Please know that your use of the forum archives or participation here do not, and never will, require you to make any donation. It is only if you feel the urge to help out that I ask you to consider donating by Paypal to 1paulsmedley@gmail.com A lot of members and non-members (guests) alike benefit and gain inspiration in their progressive journey from searching/reading from our forum database of over 52,000 posts. Readers average between 7-10 guests present during any 15-minute interval. You can help keep this resource on-line to the benefit of those who by your contribution are able to benefit from its content. Thanks everyone. Cheers Paul

Here's wishing all members and visitors to the Progressive Christianity Forum here, a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New year! It would be an understatement to say that 2020 has been a tumultuous year, no matter which country you live in, and we look forward to things improving on the Covid-19 front in 2021. Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Satisfying Saturnalia - whatever your reason for the season, best wishes and may you experience health and well-being throughout 2021. Cheers Paul

Hi there Faith, Welcome to the forum. I hope you like participating here and I hope you might even get some answers to what you are seeking. When I read your question I looked into paganism and its connections to Christianity and found that there is a thing called Christopaganism, where adherents combine the elements of both Christianity and Paganism. So it would seem that indeed there are those who believe it is possible to be both Christian and Pagan. I can't say I have ever had any feelings for becoming a witch, Christian or otherwise, and I don't label myself as a Christian-Pagan, but I think I can understand how both Paganism and Christianity can speak to somebody. In my opinion, whatever works for you and contributes to peace and harmony in our community, is alright with me. If what you believe in does no harm to community, and better yet, if it contributes positively, then all power to you I say. Of course there will be a lot of Christians who disagree. One) a lot probably won't like somebody who is a different type of Christian to what they understand Christianity to be, hijacking 'their' name so to speak. And two) I am sure plenty will cite verses from the bible (primarily OT) that condemn witches and sorcery, most likely not knowing precisely what the authors meant when they called out such acts or behaviors, but nonetheless deciding what they 'know' God's will to be. So I'm afraid I don't really have much of an answer for you other than to say Progressive Christianity seeks to create community that is inclusive of ALL people, so to me that sounds like Christianity is big enough to accept paganism as well. Cheers Paul

Understanding evolution has a lot of implications for theology and Christianity I believe. Perhaps that's why many try to deny the science. Each to their own, I guess.

You're all good, John. No dramas.

So true, John. I think it also 'hardens hearts' to a certain degree. Christians who believe their loved ones, family, and friends who are not 'saved' so either deserve or simply will suffer eternal misery, whilst they experience eternal joy and bliss in Heaven, must have to harden their hearts to some extent to shield themselves from feelings for those they are separated from. I just cannot fathom how my mother could ever be happy in Heaven knowing that myself and her grandchildren are suffering eternal torture and pain. I can only imagine that these people need to start hardening their hearts in some way to protect themselves from what would otherwise have to be cognitive dissonance in this life.

I thought Neanderthals were also humans, albeit a different species or even subspecies, but I get what you mean. Perhaps once we developed self-consciousness, these questions began to appear.

For me personally, I find it hard to imagine a God separate to humanity 'out there' somewhere, but still loving us as if we were his physical children. For me personally, such a God would have way too many questions to answer, e.g if you do really love us, why do you let little children suffer paedophile rape and torture? Are you powerless to intervene or do you think that sort of cruelty is beneficial? Why do little children get cancer and die painfully? Why don't you 'play your hand' so to speak and make it beyond all doubt that you are an existent creator? Etc etc. These were questions I probably asked over and over when I found myself leaving traditional Christianity. Today, for me, they are easily answered by understanding that such a God simply doesn't exist. To me, the cosmos, the universe, is a completely neutral party in our creation and ongoing existence. I do question what was before the big bang, so there is a gap there that maybe a God-thought can fill, but I am yet to find that point. As far as David is concerned, I wonder if he would have said the same things if he was living in India around this time and was a practicing Hindu. Or perhaps if he had lived in Buddhist Asia around then he may have viewed existence differently. My point being, I think David was a product of the time and culture that he lived in. His views would be expectedly shaped by the religious belief of his community. So really, it is no surprise that he is purported to believe the things he does. He also didn't know anything about evolution, so he couldn't be expected to critical analyze what we know today and judge it or consider it against his religious beliefs. Finally, this belief that we are created in God's image, that somehow we resemble God, either physically or spiritually (or some combination of both) seems a very egotistic idea myself. We humans perhaps tend to think of ourselves as the center of the universe, as the superior species on our planet, but ultimately I think that we are just another animal, albeit one with a more developed consciousness perhaps. As Bishop Spong said - "If horses had Gods they would look like horses". So for me it is not surprising that our culture has developed a God or Gods that remarkably have a lot in common with ourselves. Hope that helps you in some way. I know it's not how every Christian views God, but that's where I sit. Happy to discuss further if you like.