PaulS

I identify as a Progressive christian (little c) but my christianity is a very fluid thing and changes from time to time. Christianity can be quite a broad term taking in a wide range of differing beliefs, so it’s probably something that takes paragraphs to describe rather than a couple of terms, for me anyway. I doubt I would be every Christian’s cup of tea.

And of course, that is your entitlement. Personally, I have no issue with condemning crazy Islamic beliefs such as throat slitting and suicide bombing, whilst simultaneously noting these are believed by ‘some’, not all Muslims. Like others may feel the need to speak out for Jesus, sometimes I feel the need to speak out for humankind. As an aside, the Forum only asks for general acceptance of the 8 points if participating specifically in the Prgogressive Christianity thread, not the overall forum. But I agree that most likely a fanatical Muslim wouldn’t make their way here. Just because one chooses to take offence shouldn’t mean people can’t discuss things that they find offensive themselves. Yes, absolutely expression of particular beliefs can harm the community. Surely you aren’t saying that all religious belief is harmless to the community? Good god, do you think a parent telling a child that they will suffer in an eternal hell if they don’t believe the same as their parents about Jesus, is not harmful! What about other expressions of particular beliefs such as abortion, homosexuality, divorce etc - you don't think expressing these beliefs can/has caused harm to our communities? Let's not race to defend 'Christianity' as though the worlds depends on it - let's talk about the issues if one wants to, or at least let those who want to discuss the issue discuss it amongst themselves. That’s what I was doing. I started this thread on heaven and hell to point out the misunderstanding and wrong teachings that much of Christianity has taught through the ages. I stated that it has caused harm. I was responding directly to a post by Rom when Burl felt it necessary to be offended and to add his two pennies worth. Burl has taken offence rather than accept I have another view to him. I’m good with that. He appears not. I think you need to re-read the thread and see how the conversation came about. I wasn’t attacking or vandalising anybody’s beliefs in particular that I was aware of - I was simply discussing some Christian teachings that I find repugnant. In fact, it’s my hope that all Christians will one day find the teaching of an eternal place of damnation and torture for non-believers as repugnant. Particularly as such teaching isn’t even supported by Christianity’s own scriptures. Fred Plummer, the Founder of the Progressive Christianity homepage connected to here puts it this way: https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/to-hell-with-hell/

I would substitute 'we' for perhaps the word 'some'. Personally I'd prefer if you didn't speak on my behalf, Burl. I do like fact finding and would enjoy other threads with Rom where we can dig down into some more 'concrete' matters. For me personally, I think sense of wonder, inquisitiveness, and attune our perceptions to revelation and enlightenment, go hand in hand with facts. The alternative seems to be saying "we don't want facts to get in the way of a good story".

Anyone who can read this knows I am not being bigoted Burl - you do too. I think most here would understand that what I questioned does not apply to many Muslims, just as beliefs of an eternal, tormenting hell doesn't come from the mouths of all Christians. Sorry you feel offended and challenged that somebody else finds elements of Christian religious belief (not all Christians) offensive. You seem to be saying that it's okay for them to say what they believe even if it offends me, but if I should dare express what I find offensive about their beliefs then I am in the wrong. I think we should all be mature enough here to have an open conversation and be able to deal with other people's differences without losing too much sleep over offense. Peace and goodwill.

Actually, atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief. An atheist simply says they do no believe in a theistic God, and some may extend that to say they do not believe in any sort of God. Their non-belief is proof they are right. Jesus 'can' be a different topic as there are some things that we can 'reasonably' claim about his existence, as is generally accepted by scholarship. But I think all considerations of Jesus do come down to belief, albeit well considered ones based on quality assumptions from scholarship, history, anthropology, etc. A strong and seemingly supported opinion is still an opinion without the hard and fast evidence, and this is where we probably digress on Jesus to some degree. I think everything about Jesus comes down to faith - faith in religious belief is just one part of it. Faith in the scholarship is another part. That's not to say that such faith is wrong, but just to point out that it is in fact, faith. Again, I see most often these 'cases' as resting on faith, strong faith or otherwise. I don't agree with 'more solid ground' when it comes to making determinations for or against. That is just faith. It eoither is or it isn't and can be demonstrated, otherwise it is what you first mention - what it means to the individual. I don't see anything wrong wit that - but to me, it is what it is. I think there are things we don't know about evolution and which are theories and best guesses, but also much of our science is based on the understanding of evolution and supported by evolutionary theory. I think where we can scientifically support evolution then of course it shouldn't be up for debate, but where it cannot be conclusively demonstrated then I have no issue sitting within the uncertain. I agree. But what about people who say they have had a 'vision' of Hell (as traditionally understood) as many have. There vision may be very real to them - so do we just say they are wrong or do we agree they 'saw' Hell?

If I was a Muslim, who strongly believed that God wanted me to slit the throats of infidels or fly planes into heavily populated buildings, would you consider attacking or vandalising my spiritual path? But I digress. What I mean to say is that it's a bit if a straw man argument to take offence because one states concerns that they see about particular religious beliefs. The nature of discussion, and quite obviously a thread that I started here that clearly doesn't align with some views of Christianity, is always going to be a difficult topic for some.

I think we are all products or our environment and if you had grown up in a Christian household, convinced that you were born into sin, needed saving by the grace of Jesus, and believed that Jesus was the vehicle required, then you would probably be a different product. From my point of view personally, I feel that what Christianity has done to so many in teaching the prospect of hell and telling people they are a product of their disconnection from God, that they are evil sinners, and that they need saving, has caused much pain and heartache in the world. And this goes on today, in a huge way! So whilst I agree with you that Hell is a nonsense concept, I know there are many people out there who are in pain, who wrestle with this concept and the impact it has on their lives. I think it is probably the worst evil Christianity can be known for. I would like to see that message done away because it simply isn't true, and in the last couple of hundred years scholars have been showing why even the early Christians didn't believe in it. So why does Christianity at large persist with this untruth and why any of us tolerate it? None of us would accept a child being sexually abused, but our 'Christian' society tolerates them being psychologically abused. So for me personally, when contemporary authorities such as Erhmann publish something that helps heal that wound, I like people to know. That would interest me - can you kick it off with a specific discussion point? What are you thinking? I find your knowledge and scientific approach quite intimidating sometimes though, I must admit, so can we keep it a little lower brow?

I like what he has to say and from this particular article I recognise his statement "It doesn’t matter if we are talking about God, evolution, the atom, or you yourself, we only ever experience a representation in our minds that points to that truth out there. Our concept of it is not it." This is where I can't help but disagree with Christians who tell me this is how I need to understand Jesus, God or the bible - even well-meaning and well-educated ones. Yes, they feel that way about it and are even convinced of it's factuality because it 'speaks' to them, but I consider such 'speaking' simply 'their' thoughts, 'their' understanding, 'their' comfort or truth. I get that it speaks to 'them', and many others may feel likewise, but when one doesn't feel that way they shouldn't be made to feel less, which I think Christianity often does, either deliberately or inadvertently. I think PC tries to address this imbalance to some degree, but it still all remains simply the representation in our minds that works for us.

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at. Less about this forum per se and more about why in general, participants here are perhaps focused mainly on only looking at our existence through this lense of a 2000 year old story etc, rather than discussing and considering other conversations, reasons, speculations, etc. If that's what you mean then I still think it is because by and large, the 2000 year old story and beliefs are what many here are used to and familiar with, and in some cases don't doubt or are certain of in their own minds, so they possibly don't raise the other because it's just not on their radar or of no special interest so to speak. What comes to mind is participants who already feel their understanding of God/Jesus/ the Bible ‘speaks’ to them in a certain way, are probably less prone to raise other speculations about existence. Perhaps there are other reasons why such isn’t of particular interest to others. For me, it’s probably more a case of never really thinking about discussing it or knowing where to start. I’m interested otherwise. Agreed. I can only imagine/guess that that is mainly because those here already have a bent toward the 2000 year old story. I guess people don't typically come to a Progressive Christian website (generally speaking) without a general interest in Christianity and more often than not, I guess many look to hold onto the familiar Christian narrative to some degree (consciously or subconsciously maybe), either because of belief or maybe simply comfort/familiarity. Perhaps others don’t feel the need to discuss it because the feel they largely already have the answer about existence and rather just prefer to fine tune around the concepts they feel they already ‘know’ to some degree. Like I said, I’d be happy to consider and discuss such different lines of thought. Just not sure really where to start. Got some ideas?

Looks like you got the hang of quoting/multiquoting! 😀

Rather I was trying to say that I think perhaps the more popular focus of discussion on here tends to be God/Bible/Jesus related because of a familiarity/commonality that most people here have in that area. I don't think we're 'reduced' to anything. Anybody can start a discussion thread on existence or any other matter at any time (providing its within our guidelines). I myself think it might be very interesting to discuss - are you interested in kicking it off? For me personally, whilst thinking about existence is of interest to me, because of my life experiences I also find a lot of interest in discussing misunderstandings and misteachings about the bible that Christianity in general either ignores or seems oblivious to. I have other interests apart from speculating about the meaning and authenticity of some 2000 year old story - namely sailing, breeding finches, gardening, camping and fishing, making things, drinking & socializing, parenting & family, and more - I just don't discuss them much here. This forum is but one small aspect of my life.

Thanks.

Like I said - Each to their own. If it works for you and makes you a better person for our community - great.

It definitely can be. I don't think there is a golden rule that one shouldn't hurt an individual to protect a community for instance, but if I thnik I understand what you're asking then yes, I think hurting an individual can weaken and harm a community also. I wonder if our higher self is just us thinking a certain way which we regard as 'better' than other ways we know we could think. Is that just the chemicals in our brain working or is there 'something else' - who can say (well I know plenty can, but what I mean is that this is probably something that has been thought about since we started walking upright). Yes, there are those - I've experienced my fair share. I had more in mind though people who can't help themselves and of which we can't simply do enough for, because to do more for them would mean our suffering would become worse than theirs. So to me, there is a limit, or else we would simply be trading places with them. So I am in no way criticizing what people do or don't, can or can't do. Just making the point that we naturally apply a limit on our 'charity' (money, effort, time, etc) because unless we did, we would cease to exist ourselves. Essentially to give 'everything' would mean we basically end up swapping ourselves for their situation. I see you've had a few answers - I just usually hit the 'Quote' button at the bottom of a post. It drops it into a new post field that one can edit by hitting enter twice, after a paragraph. That seems to then create a 'gap' that I can type into that recognizes my writings as different to the quote.

I've been certain about much in life, only to change my mind at a later date. So like Aristotle, the one thing I know, is that what I 'know' can change and all of a sudden I 'know' something different to what I previously 'knew'. This is probably why I don't think there is any particular 'universal truths' but only human decisions based on our experiences and cultural/societal settings. Concerning aboriginal Australians, they did have distinctly different 'tribes' called 'clan groups' or 'nations', but from what I understand they didn't consider themselves that much 'different' from one another and considered themselves as all part of the same people who came from The Dreaming. It seems to me that this was more a thought process of theirs that perhaps wasn't 'corrupted' by other humans who at some point did decide that slavery was a good thing for their tribe. It simply didn't enter aboriginal Australian's heads so to speak. I'd have to say regarding 'truth' is that it seems to be in the eye of the beholder. That's what I mean concerning previous societies accepting slavery. For them it seemed 100% okay and I'm sure they were able to justify it culturally and religiously. For them, the truth seems to be that slavery was okay. We hold a different truth today. Perhaps there will yet be another truth concerning it tomorrow? I don't know. Concerning respect and tolerance, again, I think it is in the eye of the beholder. Religious 'nuts' who want to behead infidels are well regarded in some societies. People who blow themselves up can be considered martyrs worthy of eternal paradise too in some cultures. In my society, we don't really want either of those types of people. Who's right and who's wrong? Both are in my view, depending on which society they are living in. It all comes down to our experiences, culture and society, I think.

Maybe. Each to their own. If it works for you and makes you a better person for our community - great.

Actually - there probably wasn’t such a man (well, not Jesus anyway). As an aside, this story seems to be one of those myths about Jesus that then became tradition for thousands of years, before later scholars identified it as likely a false attribution to Jesus. Scholars generally agree this isn’t an original story about Jesus but a later addition. Most modern bibles don’t even relate the story any more. Take it as good news by all means (personally I think not stoning people is a good idea too) but it is likely a fable.

100% okay with me. There are a lot of things I am not certain about! It sounds like you still think it is something outside of or away from one’s self, as though it’s not an attribute one already has as a part of their being. It sounds like you consider it seperate from what and who we are and as though it needs to be ‘found’ or contacted. So in that regard it still seems to me to be ‘out there’ as in not a part of who we already are. Interestingly, indigenous Australians, probably historically the oldest and most isolated human culture, reports no slavery before European’s arrived on the scene. I wonder if in their isolation from the rest of humankind some 50-90,000 years prior meant the thought of enslaving another human just never crossed their minds? And yes, it wasn’t until 1833 that the English abolished slavery in their empire, 1848 for the French (they had abolished it long before but it had come back) and eventually the US in 1865. i too believe slavery should be eternally held as wrong. I’m just making the point that historically the majority of humankind throughout history seems to have thought it was right. So my only point was that ‘truth’ as we determine it often reflects the societal and cultural situations we find ourselves in. I agree, but again my point is just that such understandings are reflective of our cultural values. Today we couldn’t imagine a man marrying a 13yr old girl, but historically nobody batted an eyelid. So ‘truth’ was understood differently at different times, I would argue. Respect and tolerance are two buzz words we use. I don’t disagree with them, particularly if it is respect and tolerance of what I believe is right! . But if part of your identity was that you believed God wanted all infidels to be beheaded, then I wouldn’t be as keen to see you exercise your right to ‘be who you are’. This is where I see understanding self as reflective of our cultural and societal influences. No problem. Peace and goodwill.

I use the term as a representation of our existence and who/what we are involved with. For me, community can range from a hermit living in the forest through to the community of the Universe. Most usually I am thinking of community as family or close friends, local area, state, nation, and planet earth. All different levels of community, but all community nonetheless. So things that can harm others and our environment, whilst recognising there needs to be a balance, are what I say are harmful to our community. And I don’t think the list is set in concrete but rather is fluid depending on where we are at in our development and evolution as that community. I hope that answers you and that you aren’t asking for a specific list per se. Personally, I'm not convinced that there is a Higher Power to put first. Perhaps our 'best self' is as close as I can come to at this point (which simultaneously I believe is a personal judgement call). When I say that sometimes "we all need to put ourselves first in our lives" I think of things like your example - taking some time out for ourselves for rest and recuperation even though there are perhaps other people that could do with our unrelenting assistance. That seems like a practical (and sensible) example of putting one's self ahead of others. A dramatic example might be feeding ourselves food rather than feeding it to another - as a result they die but we live. There are children starving to death in other countries - do you think we are doing everything humanly possibly as individuals to correct this, or are we perhaps approaching it more from a balanced perspective and being prepared to assist in addressing it whilst not jeopardizing our own well-being entirely. What I mean is that often we may put ourselves first simply from the practical perspective that if we were to try and be everything to everybody then perhaps there'd be nothing left of 'us'. Does that make any sense?

I agree wholeheartedly, that in general, one can be all those things. Whether that is the case or not was what I was trying to discuss with Burl, but I accept Burl's decision not to discuss further.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you say "one needs to fine-tune and hone one's sense of truth". Personally I don't think there is some supernatural truth 'out there' somewhere that we are able to tap into, but rather we live and breath on this earth at this point in time and we find truths that fit for us that may otherwise not in a different time or different culture. As a very basic example, once upon a time genuine people who thought they were in touch with their God believed stoning people to death or keeping others in slavery was the right thing to do, the truth. Generally speaking, we don't consider that a truth in today's day and age. So for me, truth is something a little less hard and fast and a little more subtle and changing depending on where we are at in our existence. We think it is easy to discern truths such as not committing murder, not raping, not hurting others (unless justified) etc. But to me, these seem pretty clear because they go to supporting or not harming, our 'community'. I think where it gets a lot trickier is when people start discerning certain truths say about sexuality or morals (or dare I say religious beliefs) - that's when discerning the truth can indeed be impacted by societal and cultural acceptance, and also by personal experiences. So one's personal discernment may not necessarily be truth, in my opinion. I'm happy with whatever works for the individual, but draw the line where for me I consider such 'truths' to be harmful to my community. After all, that's where I exist.

Personally, I don't interpret 'inclusion' as meaning we have to accept other people's harmful actions and behaviors. We can include them in our community, if they are willing to be included, but their inclusion also includes responsibilities on their part. We can accept a person without the need to necessarily tolerate their actions or behavior, particularly where such is harmful to the community. 'Inclusion' to me doesn't mean we don't take action against another's harmful actions or poor behaviour. As for selfless love - I agree with you. The Point itself doesn't bother me too much as I regard it more as something to aim for, but I don't read it as something that MUST be adhered too/achieved. 'Selfless love' is one of those aspirations, but sometimes I think we all we need to put ourselves first in our lives.

To me it seems ALL morés were original and possible non-conformist at some time. They didn't automatically exist by themselves but came to be comprehended a certain way by certain people in certain situations, but even so, this doesn't necessarily make them truth - they may just seem like truth to the people that think of them as such. This also demonstrates that original morés were/are possible without an external reference - unless one thinks morés could not have been possibly developed before the written word or without another external reference. One may well use an external reference to judge them, but who decides that such a reference is accurate? I would even suggest that a lot of the morés that Christians understand from the bible, existed well before there was an external reference to judge such morés against. So if the original discovers of such morés can manage without external references, why can't others? We can use methods to evaluate new ideas - but I'm saying that when it comes to 'God' matters, and in this case your 'authentic reading of the bible', usually these methods are already strikingly aligned with what the believer is more or less considering. That's no coincidence - that's what tradition does, in my opinion, particularly around religious matters. And as an aside, particularly around religion, I think it is a very human emotion that we 'need' a method to evaluate a new idea. We humans have this 'need' to be right, this 'need' to have reassurance that what we think is what most people do or should be thinking. That's good when it comes to deciding whether we should dnace with sabre tooth tigers or not, but is a lot less helpful when we are dealing with less certain and much more personal mental considerations, such as 'God'.

But you chose to study in Christianity rather than say a Masters of Divinity in Islam because why? I suspect it’s because one tradition spoke to you more strongly than the other and further suspect that the tradition that spoke most strongly to you was the tradition of the culture in which you happened to be raised. Statistically, that is by far what happens the majority of the time when it comes to religious belief.

Yes, unfortunately Erhman's work is exceptionally original to the bulk of Christianity. I agree the information is available in universities and seminaries, but it simply ain't what gets preached about in the majority of Christian Churches. Something like 72% of Americans believe in a literal heaven and 58% in a literal hell. Clearly they are listening to sources other than seminaries and universities if they think this is what Jesus was preaching.