PaulS

On 3/3/2023 at 2:34 AM, romansh said:

We need God to be caring to one another? 

I would say of course not, just like we don't 'need' atheism to be caring for one another.  We all do what we do for one reason or another, presumably totally out of our control, so who am I too judge why people care for one another.  I really couldn't care less if people think God is their reason for caring - the important bit for me is that we live in a much better world when others do care for one another.

On 3/3/2023 at 2:31 AM, romansh said:

Sorry, could not resist:

• Theology ... a subject without an object.

I wonder how much time the 'science' of theology dedicates to studying Ra, or Thor, or Zeus, or Krishna etc.  To me the biggest discredit to this alleged study of 'God', is that the only 'God' studies is of course Christian God (with maybe a loose connection to the God of Judaism and God of Islam).

On 3/3/2023 at 2:31 AM, romansh said:

• Overall I thought it was a good sermon for people who are entrapped in a doctrinally dogmatic Christian sect. I suspect there aren't many in his flock, but his blog will have some outreach, I suppose.

I like Phil largely because his work does seek to help those who are entrapped in a doctrinally dogmatic Christian sect, with a healthier understanding, albeit maybe not yet 100% health   Baby steps perhaps.   His Church, Fairfield Friends Meeting, looks to be about 100-200 people.

On 3/3/2023 at 2:31 AM, romansh said:

• His comment on "God" not being the province of science, I thought was particularly wrong and misleading. If there is a cause and effect then science, if we put our minds to it, can have its say. Unless we think "God" has no effect and did not do anything, then God may as well not exist

Yes, a pretty common Christian understanding.  I suspect that because science cannot validate God's existence, this fallback is what is relied upon to defend one's personal beliefs and understanding of their experiences.  Also a bit ironic because theology is considered the 'science' of studying God (albeit only the Christian God - see my comment above).

On 3/3/2023 at 2:31 AM, romansh said:

• Experiences of profound and deep clarity, joy, forgiveness, reconciliation, compassion, understanding, etc is God really? I call them experiences. I recommend to Phil he should read Robert Sapolsky's Behave: The Biology of Humans at Their Best and Worst. It's a dense read ... Alternatively ... in a library or bookshop read the last four summary pages.

Thanks for the share.  Available at my local library albeit currently on loan - have placed a hold on it to check it out.  But this is a fairly deeply ingrained Christian approach to 'good' - that somehow we're incapable of it (doing it, experiencing it) unless we have 'God'.  That said, Phil's church is a lot more progressive than that.

On 3/3/2023 at 2:31 AM, romansh said:

• In a Spirit rooted within us? ... Needs more clarification and supporting evidence.

Yes, but with it not being in the 'province of science', I wouldn't hold my breath!   But that said, I can't argue really that there is such a spirit rooted within all of us - it's how we come into the world and it is there from day one.  How we are nurtured, how we experience the universe, plus nature's contribution, is what results we see later in life. 

On 3/3/2023 at 2:31 AM, romansh said:

Ultimately I see this as a step towards standing on our own two feet and going about the world understanding our connection (inseparableness) with it. 

Like I said, any baby step away from doctrinally dogmatic Christianity, is a step forward for the world I think.

From Phil Gulley:

I was talking with a young person this week who wants to be a doctor and I thought what a noble profession medicine is, how when you’re a doctor people respect your advice, because they know you’ve studied many years and passed a test confirming your expertise. I was talking about this with a doctor once and he said, “You should have gotten an education and been a doctor instead of a pastor.”

I said, “I do have an education. I attended college and graduate school, then went an extra two years to study Quakerism and writing. I did a two-year internship, and before my degree was conferred, I had to write a thesis and pass an oral exam with my professors.”

He said, “That’s not the same. Anyone can pass a theology test.”

Now, you know I’m a pacifist, but I swear to Jesus I wanted to slug him.

According to a recent poll, 20% of Americans now identify themselves as Christian Nationalists. Here’s what that means. They believe God has chosen America to be a Christian nation and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way, including banning books, excluding immigrants of non-Christian faiths, limiting voting to Christians and even white males, passing no law unless it is Biblical, and allowing Christians to possess more rights than non-Christians. This is all to say that not everyone can pass a theology test, or for that matter a history test.

Given our society’s theological illiteracy, it’s important to know the basic dimensions of our Christian faith. So I’m naming this new series Christianity 101 and let’s begin with God, and admit from the start that we’re at a disadvantage, because as John the Gospel Writer reminds us, “No one has ever seen God.” This means the proper frame of mind when discussing God is humility, because no one has ever seen God. You’ve heard the story of the little girl drawing a picture. Her mother asks, “Honey, what are you doing?” The little girl said, “I’m drawing a picture of God.” Mom said, “But no one knows what God looks like.” The little girl said, “They will when I’m done with my picture.”

If I had drawn a picture of God when I was a kid, it would have been an old man, based on the two things I had been taught about God, that God was male, and that God lived forever. God would have looked just like my neighbor, Mr. Vaughn, a man, who by all appearances had been around forever. It helped that Mr. Vaughn was nice and gave me candy. But then Mr. Vaughn died and when he didn’t come back to life three days later, I realized he wasn’t God, despite meeting most of the criteria. As it turns out, Mr. Vaughn, while not God, was made in the image of God, as were all of us, which blows my mind to think about and I’m not sure how that works. What does that mean, to be made in the image of God? We’ll be talking about that, too. I do know being made in the image of God has caused some people to think they are God, usually television preachers, certain billionaires, and several members of Congress.

We ask ourselves what God is like because this is the big question in life. Maybe not the first question. The first question might be, “Is there a god?” Of course, we have no scientific proof there is, which is fine, because it isn’t a question for science. What we have are moments and experiences of transcendence, times when we feel deeply loved and known by a spirit beyond ourselves, an encounter unlike any other encounter. These encounters transcend cultures and religions, and are so significant, so real to us, we cannot easily dismiss them. Our shorthand word for that experience is God, which raises the second question, “If there is a god, what is God like?”

Our answer to that question influences our behavior. If we believe God is an all-knowing, all-powerful ruler who must be obeyed, then you and I will be slaves, stripped of freedom, treated with contempt, groveling to a tyrant in the sky who demands our conformity or else. In my experience, a good many people who believe in God believe in that kind of god. I have never experienced that god. Indeed, if that is who God is, I want it known that I am an atheist, having no interest in bowing to a celestial Hitler. It has also been my experience that those who do believe in that kind of god, having made their peace with tyranny, are more likely to tyrannize others, believing it their sacred duty. This is the god of Christian Nationalism, a god whose mercy, what little of it there is, is confined to a tribe or nation or religion. This is the god of fundamentalists everywhere. It is the god of closed minds, hardened hearts, and militant ignorance. It is the god of those who turn hate into law.

Wherever and whenever people are reviled and rejected, there this god is found. When this god finally dies, when it can not find lodging in any human heart, the world will be a far lovelier place.

I have not seen God, but I have enjoyed moments of deep and profound joy. I have enjoyed moments of clarity when my path and duty became clear. I have enjoyed moments of forgiveness and acceptance when self-hatred threatened to overwhelm me. I have enjoyed moments of reconciliation when my anger and hatred gave way to compassion and understanding. I have enjoyed moments of insight, when wisdom beyond my customary capacity helped me know things I would not otherwise have known. I have enjoyed moments of love when I have been entirely consumed, overwhelmed, with affection for others.

Throughout my life, I have heard others say the same, so believe the experiences I’ve described are not unique to me, but are common to all humanity, transcending religion, culture, and race. I believe these experiences are rooted in a Spirit within us all, which I call God. This spirit calls us to love when it is easier to hate, calls us to share when it is tempting to accumulate, calls us to embrace when we would rather shake the fist, calls us to listen when we are tempted to rant, calls us to create when we are inclined to destroy.

To be made in the image of this God is to aspire always to be our best selves, the finest humans we can be, and to, when the day is done, lie down in peace, our hearts full and conscience untroubled, knowing we are both loved and called to love. That, to me, is God, in whom we live and move and have our being.

6 hours ago, ElizabethAN said:

I see grace as goodwill and we can carry gods grace into the world as did the father in the prodigal son.

May I serve you with grace and also May I have the grace to let you serve me too.

I think there's plenty of room in the world for more grace as a proactive acceptance, love and caring for our fellow human beings, person to person.

1 hour ago, Chicke Fitzgerald said:

Chicke Fitzgerald

Hi Chicke,

As per our 'Introduce Yourself' section on the Forum, All new guest members that wish to participate are expected to introduce themselves first and share a bit about themselves and perhaps why they are here. Just like moving to a new community or entering someone else's house, it's customary and just plain good etiquette and helps contribute to 'breaking the ice'. Thanks for your cooperation.

If you are happy to oblige we can reinstate your advertising links.

Cheers

Paul

20 hours ago, David9128 said:

Hello, friends. I would like to apologize in advance if there are errors in the following text (I use a translator, I am not from an English-speaking country).

My question is:

What happens to a person after death? What is the perspective of a progressive Christian on this? I simply cannot understand: if even during life, with various physical injuries, a violation of a person’s conscious activity is possible, then what will happen when the brain is completely destroyed? Even if some aspect of consciousness remains, it will not be my full personality. What is the solution to the issue? Correct me if I'm wrong.

For what it's worth - I don't think there needs to be a 'solution', David.  When we die our consciousness stops operating and we don't know we are dead.  That is eternity.  Kind of like when we go to sleep every night - If we don't dream then none of us really know we were even asleep.  That's what I expect death to be.  We will be effectively Resting In Peace, and be totally unaware we are doing so.

21 hours ago, tariki said:

Thanks Paul. I find everything that relates to "desire" very problematic. It seems to get right down to brass tacks as far as our relationship to the world is concerned. 

That guy Merton (!) speaks of the return to innocence (the reversal of the Fall) as being the end of all willing/desire, a state where the good and the true follow spontaneously from our own "being". This in contrast to our self-conscious efforts to do the "good". There is implied a switch over of our consciousness. Sanctification?Enlightenment?

In Buddhism, the Dharma, "desire" (Pali "Tanha", referring to "thirst, desire, longing, greed" and more) is seen as the cause of "suffering" (dukkha) and it is often asked if the desire to end suffering is therefore in some sense self-defeating. It all gets rather messy, bringing in Grace and Not-Self (Pali "anatta") as the Interfaith Forums heat over!

As one bhikkhu (monk) has said, "at the moment of emancipation effort falls away, having reached the end of its scope."

 

I think "letting go" entirely has much to support it, especially for a couch potato like myself.

 

😊

It seems to me that none of the above comes naturally (i.e. without effort), so presumably one 'desires' to get to this point?

9 hours ago, tariki said:

How do others here see "desire"?

I'm reading a book at the moment (having fallen away from my attempt to restrict myself to just two books at a time.....😊) that is about the subject "desire" as it is found in early Buddhism, in the Theravada Canon. One startling fact was that the word "desire" as found in various translations of the Theravada texts has actually 17 different Pali source words! Astonishing!

But anyway. Desire. Good or bad? How does it differ from "willing" - if at all. 

Well, I see the word used to express that somebody really wants something.  I think we use the word to emphasize a greater 'willingness' to want the thing (e.g. he desires a very expensive car one day), rather than just to explain the more mundane things one is prepared to do (e.g. I am willing to go and check the letterbox but it's not really what I would call a 'desire').

7 minutes ago, romansh said:

At some point, people might realize, or more like wake up, and choose not to be offended regardless of the others' intent. I understand it is not a free choice. 

A world where people aren't offended or riled by words!  But what would religion do then!

13 minutes ago, romansh said:

I don't think this would happen unless we were infected by a troll, and that would be dealt with in the normal course of events. I also don't think we need expletives to descend into senseless insults ... we can be far more eloquent than that.

I think many of us can be, but I think there are others that will get 'turned off' from reading or participating here if swearing is standard in posts.

13 minutes ago, romansh said:

And this is by convention, and here we reinforce that convention. To me, it seems ridiculous that I could not quote certain passages from Mark Twain verbatim because of some cultural taboo. Cnut is still verboten but pussy got promoted to the ranks of respectable? You say a line needs to be drawn and you draw that line. Fair enough. But the world, never mind this forum, did not collapse with Derek's expletives. I would argue in the context and intent they were used all is in order.

Certainly the world won't collapse in any way, shape or form, but I think certain expletives do risk turning away those that may otherwise get something out of this forum.  Maybe it's a case of baby steps for the world.

13 minutes ago, romansh said:

So ultimately, we are policing intent rather than word use, are we not? 

I am not saying don't censor word use, but be aware of what is really being censored.

And back to Hitchens' argument being offended is not one.

For me, what is being censored is somebody's intent to communicate on a civil level.  Using the word 'cnut' can be different to calling somebody a 'cnut'.  I think that's a reasonable societal understanding of how to participate in civil discourse.  To me it's less about one being offended and more about why one would choose to offend.

But it's by no means perfect, and this silly cnut is under no illusions they have all the answers!

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Ahh self-censored.

The current list for this Forum which will automatically instigate asterisks instead of letters include:

4 hours ago, romansh said:

Tricky ... what's your objective Paul?

Probably just to limit senseless insults which do nothing to contribute and only cause ill-will.

4 hours ago, romansh said:

Mark Twain in Tom Sawyer used a derogatory word. Does it mean we should not use derogatory words under any circumstances? What you are trying to do here (I think) is manipulate intent. There was recently a case where a teacher was censured for telling off a student for using the n-word. But I suspect we give the n-word power by cowering before it. Is this our intent?

I think the intent for this site would simply to be to maintain some amount of civility and not to descend into name calling.  It would seem to me that certain words are regarded by society as more 'severe' in their insult.  of course they are only words, but still, that tends to be how society operates.

4 hours ago, romansh said:

Do you think dictionaries should censor words? Or should we enter an Orwellian realm where we can have no thought crime?

I think there is a difference between the recognised existence of a word and the intent in using it.  So I think a dictionary listing say the word 'cunt' is different to me calling you a cunt. What does it matter?  Probably not much in the grand scheme of things, but I do imagine that if there was unlimited use of 'obscenities' the forum would descend into a relatively useless place to hold a reasonable discussion.

1 hour ago, romansh said:

There is seeking to antagonize, being indifferent to antagonizing, and inadvertently antagonizing. I suppose similarly we can have a similar set to being antagonized. Speaking personally, I don't intentionally antagonize (often), but I do find myself reflecting the tone I perceive in someone's interaction. The latter is not intentional, but I can become aware of it.

But I suppose horses for courses, but generally, I don't think being antagonistic works, but then does an emotionless logical argument work? Depends.

So do you think some censorship here, may be appropriate when it comes to managing the Forum, hence the list of 'offensive' words?

6 hours ago, romansh said:

Here's an interesting article on offence. Though it seems it's gone beyond offence to harm

And the harmful picture is:

Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg (720×542) (whyevolutionistrue.com)

So going back to your share concerning Hitchens....I agree with him that being offended is not an argument.

But what do you think about actions where people seek to offend as a deliberate provocation?  Do you think it is sometimes in the community's best interests that people don't set out to antagonise, or do you think it should be open slather and be damned those who are 'offended'?

3 hours ago, wanderinglover said:

Hello all. Please, call me Jonielle.

Welcome to the Forum, Jonielle.

You certainly have a bit going on in your life and I feel for you.  I hope our little community here can provide you some support in whatever way you need it.

Again welcome, and I hope your being here works well for you.

Cheers

Paul

On 1/4/2023 at 9:36 AM, romansh said:

Hmmn? ... OK? At an Aussie rules match, I presume it is similar to a real football match (I'm rattlin' the chain here) do opposition fans sing derogatory songs about one another? Or is it banter?

No mate, in real football we don't sing songs (except maybe the National Anthem on special occasions, but that's more like mumbling and miming something like the words), but rather we cheer and jeer for our team!   

There is plenty of banter and smart alec remarks.  Truly derogatory or racist remarks are frowned upon though and I've seen spectators tell others to dial it down. Racism will get you kicked out and banned.

3 hours ago, romansh said:

Thoughts?

I think there is a difference between being offended, and meaning to offend. Hitchens is quite right in saying 'being offended' is no argument.  But I also think we all generally agree to abide by certain cultural norms in a manner that helps us all get along a little bit better.  Perhaps you might not be offended (or let offence bother you) if I were to call you a f'ing c&$t, but clearly I would be demonstrating preparedness to insult antagonize you.

Just my annual post letting users here know that if they might be prepared to help support the cost of running this Forum site, then any donation would be appreciated and can be made to my Paypal account at 1paulsmedley@gmail.com.  The upfront cost of running this platform is still $540 USD / year (or nearly $800 Aussie dollars).  I earn no revenue from this site or any affiliation with Progressive Christianity.

Thankyou to all of those who have previously assisted keeping this site alive!

Happy New Year to all and I wish everyone the best for 2023!

Cheers

Paul

7 hours ago, harmonicat said:

I've been reading the replies of many on this forum.  This guy 'David' has already shown to be the type that causes people to leave.

I think there are a lot of Christians who 'know' they are right and will not even allow themselves to entertain a challenging counter-point.  I imagine I was like that too at some stages of when I was a Christian.  I have no issue with people being convinced they hold the one and only truth, but like you allude to about driving people away, sometimes a decision has to be made about whether to let somebody participate here or not.  I did caution David but they seem to have chosen to disregard my caution.  Again, each to their own. I may get it wrong, but oh well, at the end of the day we are not playing for sheep stations here.

And I might add, there is some consideration and leeway given to long term members and contributors here who have, over the years, demonstrated a preparedness to accept that other people have alternate points of view, even if on the odd occasion they stray a little.

4 hours ago, romansh said:

I just tried writing the word ^^^^^ cat (puzzy cat) and your prudish political correctness word filter won't let me. 

  

Rectified.  I see I hold the power to pick and choose what words might be construed as offensive!   I have trimmed the list down to just a few that would generally only be used to cause offence.  You can now use pussy cat to your hearts content, Rom

Welcome Jim,

I hope you enjoy the forum here.  Lots of members have grown up with or tried on Christianity only to find it doesn't work for them, for lots of different reasons.  Of course there are many too who find meaning and purpose in following Christianity.  Each to their own I say.  Like you, I find it hard to imagine that any supreme being would be prepared to let His children suffer eternal torment, just for getting it wrong in the short blip of a life they have here.  That narrative eventually didn't work for me, and when I went down the path of investigating biblical scholarship, I found a lot of Christianity to really be just man made, in my opinion (and the scholarly view it would seem). Yet I do still sometimes ponder IF there is anything else to all this, or not, and so I still participate in the discussion you might say.

Cheers

Paul

On 12/30/2022 at 5:55 AM, romansh said:

Just for laughs .... I will add it to my list of things to blog about

Theos Science & Religion Compass (sciencereligioncompass.org)

 

Just for laughs, here's where I sit apparently.  I think a few questions could be interpreted differently depending on who's reading them, but maybe that's the point.

David's last post (now hidden) demonstrates that there wasn't anything learnt during their recent suspension concerning how they approached discussion with members.

Inflammatory/baiting posts are not permitted and member has now been banned permanently.

4 hours ago, romansh said:

Merry Christmas to the regulars and passers-by.

Definitely getting more than our usual amount of snow so far.

 

Merry Christmas Juris!  Hope you have an enjoyable day.

Bobbing around out here in the Indian Ocean it's about 29 degrees, thunderstorms, relative humidity 81%, with a chance a cyclone will reach us in the next few days!

3 hours ago, romansh said:

If your twist were true...

Well I guess there's 'curious' and then there's 'needing' an answer.  I sit at the mildly-to-mid curious end of the scale, but I appreciate your reading list tips. I will have a look for sure.