PaulS

He probably would've been buggered then (Australian slang for 'up the creek') if he had existed before certain persons had developed tradition, scripture and authority. These didn't exist in a vacuum before the human species dropped from the trees but rather were developed over time when people started philosophizing and theologizing. So somebody used their own thoughts at some point (or rather a number of thoughts of others that then started to form cultural agreements). But I'm not sure what you suggest could be said to be the true position of Buddhism - I always understood the meditation bit in Buddhism to be more about the opportunity to come to one's own personal understanding of things and basically experience one's own thoughts as a basis for personal revelation of what's true to them and sensible to self.

Thanks Joseph - I think they are beautiful and wise words, indeed.

I am not 'concerned or disheartened' I am just trying to be accurate when we talk about what we can 'prove' concerning Jesus' existence - his beliefs, his words, his actions and the true stories told about him. Scholars are limited to discussing the gist of what we have because it is all that we have presently - that doesn't necessarily means it is an accurate representation of Jesus. There is nothing wrong with scholars persisting because it certainly reveals some very interesting information concerning what some people thought about Jesus. Again, does it mean those people were right - not necessarily so. To me the counter-intuition comes from saying something is fact whilst simultaneously recognizing that it is possibly not fact. Your words - "This is the only gist we have and it may be or may not be an accurate representation so, at this point in time, I accept it as the real gist". You say you accept it because it is all that we have (and presumably because it speaks to you personally) but that even if it is inaccurate, you will still accept it - that it what I find illogical. I give scholars much credit for their work. I think they are amazing. But if there is a scholar that says this is the only way to understand and know Jesus because it is all that we have - I would call him a very biased scholar (and probably a few other things too). I actually accept the scholar ship that dates Matthew to 85CE-ish. What I don't accept is that ALL of Matthew is necessarily accurate. Scholars don't date every single verse and chapter of Matthew, they date a few particular elements, and I think they are accurate for good reason. But there is a lot that simply cannot and isn't dated - stories and legends and assumptions and interpretations about Jesus that cannot be substantiated past Matthew or a connection with the other Gospels because we don't know. So for me, I can't say Matthew is all fact about Jesus. Some of Matthew could very much be wrong. That is all I am saying. I am not arguing against what scholars do with the existing sources - I am only saying the existing sources cannot be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt because we simply have too large a gap between any existing copies and actual history, so I don't say they are THE truth about Jesus, I say they are all we have and so we can surmise and be totally wrong about our understanding at the same time. I really think you're actually missing the issues I am mentioning, but that's where we are. And it's not that I am unable to rely on anything, but relying on something that you say could be inaccurate is faith, not fact. It is belief, not necessarily accuracy. And that's okay - but it has to be called what it is in my opinion. I too will continue to engage the work of scholars, rely on their scholarship for insight and understanding, and accept that we don't know everything. I can even accept that we can say a good deal about the scriptures, the times, and the man at the center of it all - as according to the people who wrote this particular documents. Could they be wrong - yes. Could there have been more accurate sources about Jesus, perhaps ones that convey a different meaning than what we ended up with in these authors - perhaps so. But simply not having alternatives does not mean we are free to say that what we do have is the accurate way to look at the story, especially when what we do have cannot be historically substantiated past being acknowledged that this is what certain people believed.. Again, you have to have faith to say that, scholar or not.

Knowingly accepting this 'gist' whilst recognizing that it might not be an accurate representation of what actually happened, seems counter intuitive to me, but maybe that's just me. I would say we don't 'know' that Paul learned from the original disciples of Jesus but we can surmise that that is the gist of the only surviving manuscripts we have. You acknowledge that these manuscripts might not be an accurate representation but then say that you are prepared to accept them as accurate because they are the best we have. To me, that's odd. I think the main reasons scholars say such sayings come from Jesus is because they are repeated in other NT works usually. What I say the gap is is that those memories conveyed by those NT writers may not be accurate representations of Jesus and that the reason we simply can't know is that we don't have anything original. That seems fine for you - it just isn't for me. Then it seems your mind is set. Yes, which is usually why I don't try and say that this is the only way of looking at something. I am only saying that I don't find what's available in biblical scholarship as necessarily the accurate truth of what happened in Jesus' day, for what I think is good reason. The scholarship itself is naturally based on many assumptions - some perhaps reasonably well ground too. You tell me - why are scholars convinced that Mathew was written in 85CE? How much supportive evidence for the entire book of Mathew demonstrates that all of those chapters were written in 85CE? We may know that a small portion of Mark was written around the time of the temple, but how much of Mark was written then and how much of Mark is later memory, altered by translation and scribes and other belief? And how do you prove that Mark was THE eminent source of Jesus life and not say some other version that was soon drowned out by Markan opinions or views? No, at that point I meant norm in the context of our personal norms, not societal. Perhaps not the most clarity. They possibly do have their own views of Jesus as the original authors of NT books do. The question is - are any of them accurate? You think the copies of what we have are accurate - I am in doubt they are as accurate as you say and don't have as much confidence as you. I think you'll find the idea of community and ethics well and truly pre-dates Jesus. It even pre-dates a monotheistic God, or any God for that matter. You've mentioned me being angry twice so far, so it seemed reasonable to me that you thought that was affecting my arguments. I was trying to explain to you that I don't think it does. I agree with you about cultural influence on both of us. I didn't notice a question concerning anger previously mentioned but rather a presumption. Glad we have cleared it up then. I think your arguments demonstrate a strong belief that the scholars have got it right. You don't seem prepared to entertain my argument that what the scholars are right about is very limited because of the lack of original sources - i.e. they can only base their scholarships on later copies that cannot be confirmed against originals. You're fine with that - I'm not.

Okay. Let's leave it there then. Okay, it's decided for you. I don't think I can describe 'partake' any better than I have already tried. This issue is not super high on my priority list but I genuinely do appreciate the recommendation. I may get to it. Cool. Your understanding doesn't really work for me, but maybe I'm wrong. Personally, I'm not all that amazed or fascinated by any relatively common understanding of God in theistic religions. These systems developed after ancient superstitions/beliefs in other types of God systems. I think the commonality may be that man has been positing the question of his existence since he dropped from the trees, and eventually we got to a point where we started developing God theories. Islam was built on Judaism and Christianity, Christianity was built on Judaism, Judaism came out of polytheism, polytheism followed animism. It's not like simultaneously people from opposite parts of the world all came up with a similar monotheistic proposition. I wouldn't say Taoism really has a God per se, nor Buddhism, but Sikhism definitely is monotheistic. I will probably need to create a new name for my religion. I'm between a rock and a hard place really - if I say we partake in God's existence you tell me we can't do that for a bunch of reasons that I see as founded on anthropomorphic logic. If I try to explain it using an anthropomorphic example I am then accused of attributing human characteristics to God. It seems to me that the only way we can describe things is anthropomorphic because that is the ONLY understanding we currently have. But I am trying to throw it out there that perhaps if there is such a 'thing' as God, God quite well may be beyond our anthropomorphic understanding of how things work and may indeed be all of existence, including us experiencing God.

What I am saying is that that 'gist' is based on the writings to hand, not necessarily an accurate representation of whatever the 'real gist' may have been, if different. I don't disagree that what is deduced from the later writings we have of Paul may have agreed with others, but what I am saying is that we don't know that Paul and/or those others were accurate in the first place. You may have faith that they were, but the evidence cannot substantiate it in any way. Perhaps that part of the generation that knew Jesus were off the mark in their conveying of Jesus' meaning. Perhaps later writers amended positions to ensure they aligned. I repeat - we don't have the originals and the versions that we do have are physically dated some centuries later (~120CE being the earliest actual piece that we possess). That is a claim, it is not evidence. We can make assumptions that some elements of these later writings indicate a time period when the originals may have been written, and so therefore deduce that it captures the 'on the ground' experience, but we are talking about minor elements and not verse by verse representations as accurate reflections of either the original authors' writings or in fact the only way to look at things for that time, largely because any countering versions were disregarded and destroyed by those who thought they possessed the right understanding. Just because we think we can deduce when Mark was written because some elements of the Book of Mark indicate references to the temple destruction etc, there are large swathes of the Book that cannot be confirmed or denied. We don't have an original to compare them to. To then assume that all of Mark should be dated the same is simply speculation. I means norms like the earth is flat, or the sun rotates around the earth - probably two bigger ticket items that were accepted by the whole world as fundamental truths. Believers could even produce scientific evidence as to why that was the case. Similarly, biblical scholarship starting in the 1500's and 1600's started to identify that long held 'norms' such as Moses being the author of the first 5 books of the bible were in error. Norms are generally well accepted positions - they are considered the 'normal way' to think of an issue. Many norms have been reviewed and challenged and we have moved into new norms that also may become outdated one day (medical practices and understandings are a classic for this). I guess these people don't think that they have to be locked into a certain understanding of Jesus to be called a Christian, and then further, they don't believe in a theistic God. Obviously that doesn't go down so well with many Christians who feel an ownership over the title, and for good reason - To them it's considered a norm. I don't really think it is what one would call a 'norm' simply because it is not widely regarded as the majority view. So whilst it may be a norm for you and me, it probably doesn't fit the definition of 'norm' which is "something that is usual, typical, or standard" when you take into account broader Christianity. I'm not sure what your hangup is with my previously mentioned anger and having a discussion about the merits of scholarship and NT documentation. You should know that I am capable of separating the two. Maybe you hear me saying that biblical scholarship is worthless or totally inaccurate? If so, know that that is far from what I experience. But I do question when somebody suggests that the biblical scholars have it all wrapped up when they don't understand exactly what it is the biblical scholars are supposedly wrapping up. What I am saying about actual existing documents verses 'sources' is that we don't have any originals. For example the oldest known piece of writing relating to Paul is Papyrus 46 and its most probable date of writing is between 175 and 225. It's a scrap less than the size of an A4 page. A similar story goes for Mark and every other book of the NT. Later, more complete versions of these documents, have been considered by scholars and they find that certain passages and bits and pieces within help indicate a time period where some of these writings were most likely originally proposed. These particular references used are minimal though. But you should know that there are huge, HUGE gaps where we have no idea if what we have today or what we have from 120CE on even, is actually an accurate portrayal of what was 'happening on the ground' in every sense of the word, or if they are even an accurate portrayal of what the original author thought or penned. Scholars simply cannot demonstrate this. Scholars like Bart readily admit that the documents we have today could be built on mis-remembered memories, later fiddled with by scribes and others. There were other ways of looking at Jesus that were eventually overtaken by what was considered the 'norm', but even what they were exactly is hard for scholars to know because again, we don't have the originals. Mark could have started out as a minority view of Jesus but was for whatever reason soon to be more highly regarded by some, and so the story got built from there (with Mathew & Luke building on Mark for instance, which is how they are dated by scholars generally). To categorically state that Mark represents an accurate and correct portrayal of the real Jesus has to be based on faith, not evidence. I need to give it some thought but maybe I'll start a separate thread where we can go through this is more detail.

Basically I am saying that I think your proposition that there is a constant theme of God in covenant with His people is so broad from one end of the bible to the other that it is almost not a theme per se. OT God and any such covenant is turned on its head with Jesus and the New Covenant. The theme changes so much that in only the broadest sense do I think one can regard it as any sort of constant theme. I said we were apes, you said we weren't. Like you, I was just noting that language, although imperfect, is the means by which we communicate and present our understanding. Like you, I was doing what some others have done on this site: using the actual definition of words in an attempt to be concise and communicate as clearly as possible. I thought I could explain it with my example of cells and atoms being a part of the human experience, even though we pay them no attention and perhaps they pay us no attention too. I was using that as an extended example of how possibly the "we are God" scenario could possibly exist without 'us' seemingly being aware of such, just like perhaps our cells don't perceive themselves to be a 'part' of us. I'm afraid I don;t think I can do better than this at this time - but please remember - I didn't introduce this as a theology or philosophy that I wholeheartedly believe to be accurate - I am pondering it and have said that it seems to make more sense to me than other models of God I have come across. If I ever get it refined into a well-tuned position maybe then I'll present you with all the evidence. But you raise an excellent example of how you struggle with language to communicate the religious belief that God is in man and that man has his being in God (i.e. panentheism). I too am struggling with the word 'partake' but think it can be applied (if you were thinking like me) I agree - God is a mystery. What I am saying is that I don't think I am qualified to say that God is complete. Maybe God isn't complete, maybe some bits are and some bits aren't. I am not qualified to say. I understand that to your logic it seems that we cannot take part in something we already are, but I am thinking that on a atomic level, what are you really? The atoms that 'make' you today will make a tree and a rock and water when you die. So after death are you less you because those atoms now sit elsewhere? Maybe that is what God is - the entire composition of atoms but those atoms form different things at different times. So right now a bunch of atoms are partaking in the God experience as atoms which comprise of a human being and next century some of those atoms may partake in the experience of being God through being a rock or through being a fish, or water, or just a lonely periodic element (disclaimer - I failed chemistry in high school so I'm sure I am misusing some terminology but hopefully you get my gist). Actually a true atheist by definition is just saying that they don't believe in a theistic God, but let's not worry about another side-debate. If your understanding is that the word God has a common understanding, then I would beg to differ other than only in the broadest sense - something supernatural that has created us and has some connection to, or interest in, us. That common understanding in the bible viewed God as a King, often a King with no tolerance for mistakes by his subjects and no mercy for those who didn't align with Him. That view of God significantly changed over the following few thousand years. But animism seems to have pre-existed this view of God, so perhaps that is a closer understanding of what I am thinking about than your common understanding of God, it just didn't get up as THE common understanding for whatever reason possibly. I think generally what I am proposing is similar to panentheism, which is not all that uncommon an understanding. But again I reiterate, this is the beginnings of a line of thought for me and I am yet to consider every nuance, but so far nothing you have raised seems to diminish from what I am thinking (for me anyhow). I don't know how God could not know himself - maybe just like how I don't know myself necessarily until I experience something. How are you going to react if you think somebody is reaching for a gun to shoot you? Perhaps you think you know, as I have thought I have known how I would react in certain situations, only to be surprised that that wasn't what I was expecting at all. It would seem I didn't know myself.

Thormas, I am relaxed, but am just making the point that essentially you and I keep making the same points about this and neither is convincing the other, so maybe we can just move on. The 'more or less' reference I made is a turn of phrase and should not be interpreted by you to mean that I in any way agree with you that there is a constant theme throughout the bible rather than a broad theme which I suggest. The 'more' to it that I am suggesting are the intricacies, the twists and turns, the evolution of ideas about God, etc, that contribute to what I see as a broad and diverse theme rather than the harmonious one you believe in. I have said this this is 'theme' is so broad that it encapsulates animism, a raging King and tyrant, through to a papa God and friend who much of modern Christianity interprets as somebody who could be your golf buddy. Associated wit this is a wide variety of beliefs and rules concerning what the various authors thinks God is, God wants and how God wants one to behave. I don't see these understandings or representations of God as a constant theme because for me, this diversity makes 'consistency' unrecognizable in my opinion. You don't agree - I get that. Indeed we are apes and biologists classify homo sapiens in the sub group of primates known as 'the great apes' (unless you don't accept that scholarship). Language ebbs and flows and naturally has its limitations. If you think the only way to interpret the phrase 'partaking in the life of God' means that God must be separate to the one partaking, then I'm good with that. I think it IS appropriate to use the word partake in the sense that I partake in my own life - My life is not separate to me, it is me, so I partake in it. By extension I am proposing that we could be God partaking in God's very existence also. I get that you disagree with me using the word that way. If you find me using that word meaningless, particularly against all the other words I used to explain and accompany it, then I guess we are at another dead end and we should probably move on. Some understand God that way, perhaps even the majority of this particular religion, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. That is what I mean by being open to other understandings that are not yet properly understood, perhaps. Limiting God to a commonly referred view from a limited religion and texts to me is boxing God in. Like how the representation of God has changed in the bible, maybe we are at a point now where once again that view of God will change and new doctrines will start to be established as the common view of God. I don't know - but it has happened in the past it would seem so I don't hold your view that just because this is how God has been understood before that it is necessarily how God will be understood in the future. I can appreciate that you don't 'get' what I am trying to explain about us possibly being God and God being more than just 'us' at the same time. I tried to use the analogy of the cells within your body being an integral and intimate part of your self, yet you don't know them very well and they presumably don't know you very well (in a limited, human consciousness understanding of how we 'know' things) yet this all exists as the whole of you. I stretch that analogy to God where every atom in the universe is a part of God, includes those groups of atoms that comprise of a human being who thinks they are separate to creation and not an intimate part of it. I apologise if my explanations don't make enough sense - its the best I can come up with in writing and without direct discourse over several glasses of red wine! Any gist you speak of in the NT has to be acknowledged as only developed from the later writings of anonymous authors. We simply don't know what we don't know and all I am saying is that I don't think all the scholarship in the world around the NT is enough to empirically demonstrate what Jesus actually meant, said, did, was etc other than in a very limited sense. Whilst we know there were differing views about Jesus we don't know which one/s are accurate - we only have the view that won the day, rightly or wrongly. On what basis can scholars demonstrate to you that the Gospels accurately represent what was happening on the ground? They cannot. At best they can surmise that as some of the hundreds of years old book copies have elements that allow scholars to think they were written in the early decades after Jesus, they cannot show you how this was the only and most accurate understanding of Jesus. That is the shortcoming of NT scholarship. It's not their fault - it's just that any evidence to help further no longer exists. We know that there were a diverse range of Christian beliefs before the texts we have today became the 'orthodox' ones, but we don't know all the details and we don't know if Jesus may have been more aligned with these other views because we don't have eye witness accounts written during Jesus time to substantiate this. Accept the NT as an accurate gist of who Jesus was but I cannot as it is full of holes in my opinion. And maybe now I am using a new language that others will come to understand over the course of time, either from me or other progressives who don't see the 'norm' as you or many others may. And that's in no way to say I think I am a great thinker (in fact I recognize that I am not a very good one in many ways). I simply extend what you say to the NT and suggest that there could be the ability to break away from accepted NT 'truths' coming with new ways of thinking about God. And the model I was originally proposing/questioning has more answers to me personally, than the model you are wedded to. Which is exactly why I am not saying that God is this or that, or cannot be this or that, as you have based on the texts you regard. I simply don't have faith in the reliability of our canon and forefathers' understandings as you seem to. I don't think I'm a pessimist at all, I think I am a questioning skeptic and I think you are comfortable with a model that suits your cultural upbringing and experience. We are no different in that sense - we have just come to different conclusions about the 'evidence'. And the best source material they can rely on is mostly anonymous, later written, copies or variations of copies thereof, some even acknowledged forgeries, written no less than 120 years after the fact, at the earliest.

You've made it clear you believe there is a consistent theme throughout the bible. I think I have made it clear that I think the theme is very broad and not a constant like you suggest, outside of the basic parameters that the Jews believed in God but that God changed throughout the bible. Can we just agree to disagree? Words are just how we advanced apes communicate. There are many shortcomings to language. I think if we are God then we can partake in the life of God. You don't. Let's move on. I'm not prepared to box God in like that because I simply don't know. You seem certain, so I think this is another point we will have to agree to disagree on. Which scholars can show you the original writings of the Gospel writers? More to the point, can any scholar show you an actual Gospel document that is physically dated less than about 150CE? So on what basis can all these scholars be certain they know the accurate writings and words of the people from that time. Simply put, they can't and any scholar worth their salt will admit that. That is the major shortcoming with NT biblical scholarship and Bart quite comfortably points that out about his work. Where the scholarly speculation arises is that they make their best guesses and research around what we do have, which of course could mean they are totally wrong in many notions that are generally agreed upon. Again, Bart will often prefix his work with such clarifications. It should never be a case of preference, but rather a case for evidence. And no scholar can produce the evidence, at this point in time, or original Gospel documentation. Without that, it is all speculation. We don't know empirically what was believed during Jesus' day or even shortly thereafter. That is the one thing scholars can be certain about. I never claimed my views were virgin interpretations. Undoubtedly we are influenced by what we read and think. But the great thinkers who have broken free of 'accepted truth' have often done so to lead us in entirely unexpected directions. Many a time has the overwhelmingly popular and accepted truth been proved wrong. They can only compare Jesus with the views of Jesus that were presented in the 2nd century. It is simply not an empirical science because the empirical evidence simply doesn't exist. I fully agree with can have better arguments with more reliable information, but in relation to our topic concerning what Jesus said and did and what others believed of him in his day, the evidence is exceptionally thin and scholars are forced to rely on much guesswork and assumption. Scholars like Bart have no difficulty in stating such, others may.

As I said, for me it is more or less 'we have a God'. Sure there is some more to it but again I say that what that actually entails has changed throughout Judaic Christian history. So the theme is very broad in my opinion. I don't think that is necessarily accurate - we could all be partaking in the existence of God just as you think you are partaking in the existence of yourself as separate to God. No, it wasn't an assumption but a friendly suggestion that maybe you should consider holding a virgin interpretation rather than relying on what limited information is available about the real Jesus offered by indeed many different authors, all who are largely speculating on that which we simply do not know. As I also said, sometimes such new ideas which break the mould have been revolutionary in our history. Maybe you or I might have one of those one day! I don't disagree but I do think that even the finest biblical scholars in the world are still speculating on that which we simply cannot prove and do not know for certain. Too much has been lost to history and destroyed. We see some of it here and some of it there, but the winning 'side' all but expunged the losing view. No scholar can deny that we have a huge documentary gap between what is alleged in the Gospels and what 'original' copies we have some hundreds of years after Jesus. And neither do the best scholars deny there were varying views of Jesus in the early days but precisely which one is the most accurate position is likely to be never known. One version one the day, more or less, and that is why we have a canon like we do. There is a huge difference between Bart Erhamann saying he is confident Jesus did actually exist and precisely who and what that Jesus did and said - even Bart acknowledges that. You indeed have more confidence than I do anyway. Yep, some would have definitely held that view. Oh well. Much of this falls into religous debate for me and people can argue and counter argue all day. For much of it we simply don't know.

You certainly could do a lot worse! Sounds like a plan.

In the broadest of terms I agree there is a 'theme', but for me it is more or less 'we have a God'. What that actually entails has changed throughout Judaic Christian history. Of course I'm saying "how to partake in the life of God." - how could you not if you are God. Fair enough. I'm glad you agree then with my 'colourful image' of God as a raging King - as understood to be the experience at that time of this people's evolution of God. Again, it is one so broad I struggle to give it credit as a 'theme'. The 'relationship' and/or what that God looks like was ever changing (and is, it just isn't get captured in scripture yet - maybe see what a bible looks like in 4057 CE). From what I can tell, all of the experts in the world on the matter do not align. Opinion about 'fact' is wide and varied when it comes to religion, religious history and biblical interpretation. Do you happen to know an umpire that can say what is and what is not in the ballpark, and by who's rules?

I'm not sure that is the point that Erhman is making. To the contrary, I read Erhman saying that we just don't know all of the specifics about either James' or Paul's writings because we don't have the originals (he says that about a lot of the NT). So whilst assumptions and best guesses are made, I don't think Bart necessarily says James & Paul are completely in agreement. I have emailed Bart on this matter but not sure he will have time to respond - fingers crossed though. Yes but the theme is broad, diverse and not consistent. Other than 'raging King' I'm not sure how else you might consider the God of 2 Samuel 6 other than a petty tyrant? But that's understandable for the times - that's how the culture of the day understood how they were to participate in the life of God - subject to his rule and they better not disobey, or else! Like a have said repeatedly, I think it is a very broad and diverse 'constant' that you assume. To say that it indicates a known version of God & how to partake in the life of God is a stretch, I think. I don't think we really agree on the same thing when you keep saying we agree on a theme, but I have made my points. Jasper's theory about an 'Axial Age' have long been disputed and questioned, even by Jasper himself. Again, I think those with a certain bias may wish for such an 'age' but it is hotly contested that the evidence does not exist to support his notion. To me it is not surprising that neighbors like these might have shared insights and built upon those of their neighbor. They were hardly entirely isolated from one another. Maybe compare them to the beliefs of indigenous aboriginals in Australia for instance who were totally isolated and had no such conceptions as the above religions. Maybe sometimes you should consider your virgin interpretation of bible verses (just a friendly suggestion) - some of the greatest thinkers in the world and some of the ground-breaking ideas of our time went totally against the norms of everybody else's "accepted truth". I don't see the themes the same as you (in what we have discussed) but I guess that is the bible and Christianity throughout the ages isn't it - very much open to interpretation. Of course there may be some that holds up, but 'much' is probably questionable I would suggest. But we don't agree, so there we are. I am happy for you that I have helped you enjoy.

Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe being God means we can choose to feel separated if we want to - its all part of the experience of being God perhaps.. Maybe God ISN'T fully complete. I'm not sure how you can know that God is fully complete. You might think God is, and you are entitled to your beliefs, but surely you recognize that this is not a point that either of us can conclusively prove, so how can anyone conclusively state that God is this or that to such a degree? Maybe better put - the theme of 'how' to participate & partake in the life of God is not constant throughout. Sometimes it's about fearing God who will kill you if you trip over when carrying His Ark of the Covenant, whilst at other times to live how God wants you to is to take slaves and rape women and commit genocide. Later it evolves into this Abba God where to participate in the life of God is more father/son than King/servant. It's 'how' to participate in the life of God that I am saying is not a constant theme at all. God as a golf buddy is not a bible verse obviously (Jesus had a crap handicap so it never made it into the canon) but it is how I have heard other Christians speak of Jesus. "What a 'friend' we have in Jesus" as the hymn goes. I doubt you have not been exposed to people who consider Jesus to be more like a brother and friend than a raging King. As for James and Paul, Erhaman does conclude that the book of James is a counter-forgery - i.e. the forgery of James is in responses to what the anonymous author of James understood of Pauline teachings (other forgeries), and Bart says that those teachings are not necessarily Paul's but have been put forward by other proponents of Paul. Just how confusing was early Christianity and yet these books still made it into the Holy Canon! So we agree that the Bible is inconsistent with its various descriptions of God. And I think you would agree that ways in which the bible expresses just 'how' to partake of the life of God is also inconsistent. To me what you seem to be saying is that the bible consistently says there is a God and that we should partake of the life of God. Fair enough, I can concede that this is what Judeo/Christians believed. So? You don't think it had anything to do with culture? It's stark how this view didn't form anywhere else in the world around that time isn't it? Yes, I am dubious about much - both what made it into the Canon and what didn't, including the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. I am dubious that anonymous, psuedographical and forged works can be untrustworthy as an accurate representation of what Jesus actually said and did. I am dubious that over the centuries whatever Jesus really meant in the beginning was distorted or interpreted into teachings which other people may well have had good intentions about, but which could be wrong. I certainly do not blindly trust that all that was written some 2000 years ago should be regarded as the only way to consider God. But as for commonality, I just don't see it like you do. I don't see either the Bible or the NT as a consistent book and I personally think one has to read such into it to come up with that conclusion. I think the 'wide acceptance' to any 'constant theme' is a religious by-product of the bible and is also largely culture-induced, and I think it is being eroded away by better biblical scholarship and understanding of history. Biblical scholarship has put the blowtorch to much that was 'accepted' about Christianity up until a couple of hundred years ago. Progressive Christianity itself arises from many Christians having an evolving view on Christianity. So I expect, Christianity will have a further take on participating of the life of God, next century.

We could all be parts of the whole. All of existing creation could be working together as God to continue creating. Rather than sticking to a micro level concerning whether we require a penis and a vagina to create, I am suggesting stepping back a bit and looking at the macro view of God creating by simply existing. There is no destruction, only change. It's a closed loop - nothing 'leaves' the system. We obviously consider cancer bad because it 'kills' us, but does it? Where do your atoms go when you die? And from the cancers point of view, why is it bad? It is just existing like you are when you kill something else in order to exist. It's only a contradiction if you think there are limits to what God can and can't do. I never said God needs new experiences, I simply suggested that God is experiencing existence in a multitude of ways. Whether God needs to do this or whether it is a result of being God, I don't know. To the contrary about it being the very definition of anthropomorphism, I am trying to point out that what I am thinking about explicitly does NOT follow anthropomorphic lines in that God doesn't feel and think like only a human, the same as God doesn't feel and think as only a goat, or a lizard, or a rock, or a plant. God may be all those things experiencing existence as they experience it in their current form. Clearly your reasoning skills and mine differ on these points. Again, I am trying to express that God may not know God like you and I consider 'knowing'. God could be experiencing everything that existence itself has to offer in all its different ways and forms. Maybe God knows what that's like, maybe God doesn't. Maybe it's all a new experience to God. Who says God has to be perfect? I don't think contradictions abound. I am suggesting your existence does not end, it just changes form. Maybe this is like the Buddhists question concerning ego - we are so trapped in our own self importance that we don't understand that we are not all that important in the big picture of things. Your atoms can't go anywhere, what is you today will exist in different ways in 100 years time - so there is no separation from God, only what you perceive because you think 'you' is somehow separate from God. You are and will always be, God. But you would agree that there is no universal understanding of what God is, agreed upon by all? Why does God have to know every feeling and emotion? When you became a father and created your beloved child, did you already know every intimate and caring feeling you would have for your creation? Did you know what those feelings would actually feel like? So I am suggesting in a similar way that God might be also experiencing such and may not know what all of it feels like. I don't see why that is so preposterous to imagine. So you say - I disagree.

What I meant by "...but if all things are actually God, then we are in effect creating by ourselves, its just that the reality of 'ourselves' is all things", is that if God is in and of all things, then 'we' do create new things because we are within and are a part of God, so any new creation whatsoever (whether it is humans breeding together or Whiptails executing parthenogenesis, that is all 'creating'. It cannot be otherwise. Possibly to God there is no good, bad or otherwise, so to create cancer is no different to creating healthy cells, its all part of the experience of what we call life. I'm sure the cancer cells don't regarded their existence as evil - they are just existing like other 'good' cells. At an atomic level everything still remains God - from dust we come and to dust we will return. I disagree. I think what I am proposing, an indifferent God who is experiencing existence in a multitude of ways (not just the anthropomorphic version) and that that version of God comprises of everything in existence, makes much more sense. Who says the rule has to be that if God does not know God then God is not God? This sounds like a very reasonable way of human thinking, but it could just be that, human thinking and not what actually God is or is not. Our existence may not be that important to God because we already are God. What could be important is the experience itself and not the shell, or entity, that we think is separate to God (in that we think we are not God). In us, the rocks, the trees, the air - God could be experiencing existence. There is no good or bad, just existence. Maybe so. One universal truth that does come to mind is that there is no universal understanding of what God is and that would seem representative of the fact that such a diverse range of beliefs such as animism, superstition and other religious beliefs have for millennia been coming up with different propositions for what God is. Possibly God could be caught unaware and surprised and not know every bit of itself. Maybe only God can understand that? We quite possibly can't be separated in the sense that God is a closed loop - all things are, come from and stay within God whether to our minds things are dead or not. They may change form (eg human remains turn into dust or worm food) but those atoms still remain within the God system somewhere, so nothing of God every really ceases to exist. One can choose to feel separated if they want, or they can choose to imagine themselves as part of the whole and not separated in any way. Maybe that's part of the experience of being God. No good, no bad - just experiencing existence, warts and all. I was trying to draw a comparison to help you understand what I was saying. Just like we consider ourselves and the universe to be evolving, we could actually be part of the bigger picture which is God itself evolving and expanding. Not separate, but an intimate part of the whole, just not understood by us in the context of our ego. Much of the theme of the NT is about a theistic God who sits in Heaven, separate to mankind, and who judges people. Do you think that is an accurate representation of God? Were NT authors wrong about that but right about 'other stuff'? The bible theme that has been modeled for you by previous decision makers has some resemblance to being given the opportunity to live and share (partake of) 'the life of God,' but I wouldn't say it is constant throughout the Scripture. It ducks and weaves between a King God who must be feared and obeyed and who commits acts of savagery and genocide, through varying degrees to today's thoughts of God as Jesus as a buddy who one could play golf with. It argues about whether good works or faith is adequate enough to live a life that God wants. I mean God couldn't even decide if we were meant to eat pork until after Jesus died according to the scriptures. The only constant to the 'theme' is that it was constantly changing as culture changed. To me it also seems pretty clear that Jesus thought the end of the world as they (the Jews of his day) knew it was coming and that God was about to bring in a new kingdom. Jesus wanted people to get on board before that happened and also to tell them his thoughts about how life would be once that new God Kingdom was implemented. He clearly wasn't welcoming the Romans into this opportunity to live and share (partake of) 'the life of God,'. It was definitely a Jewish-focused message carried on by his closest disciples and family immediately following his death. In time, that changed. I think a 'constant theme' has to be 'read' into it the scriptures by oneself to come to the conclusion that what you are saying is a constant theme. I am referring to the intent of Jesus as it being his desire to express what he believed God was and what God wanted. I am dubious that the accounts we have accurately capture all of that and I am highly suspicious that many differing accounts were destroyed or disregarded in the decades and centuries following Jesus because well-intentioned people thought they understood Jesus 'the right' way (particularly hard for those who had never met Jesus, lived with him and who wrote decades if not centuries after Jesus had died). Paul and Pauline Christianity comes to mind as a major influence from a person who had never even met Jesus, so I see much room for error in truly understanding what Jesus had to say on all things God.

The problem with this is that there are animals that do 'create' on their own - it's called parthenogenesis. So if the argument for not being God is that we, humans, can't reproduce on our own, then maybe we should consider as God the New Mexico Whiptail, the state reptile of New Mexico, as the females of that species can reproduce on their own and males have become obsolete. We might not 'solely' be responsible for creation of cells, but if all things are actually God, then we are in effect creating by ourselves, its just that the reality of 'ourselves' is all things. Maybe. Do you know yourself 100%? Are you never surprised at yourself about something you did or said, or found something on or in your body that you didn't know you had? Do you know every single cell in your body intimately and by name? I think that if you don't know yourself in full then it is hardly absurd to say that the bits that comprise of God don't know they are God in full either. We are looking through a lens of our own self-importance here - maybe we're just not that important to God as we think, being a part of God and all. There is a whole you - yet you don't even know a fraction of the pieces that make a whole you. Maybe God is in a similar situation. I guess God could have parts like the world has parts, but at the end of the day it is one, whole self-contained world. It's not essential that I have this atom or that atom in my composition, but without atoms we wouldn't exist. So we are a part of the whole but feel 'separated' from the other parts because they're different perhaps. If for God, all things are possible, then God not knowing everything could be possible too. Maybe God is evolving like us and the universe. I don't consider the ground as solid as you do. I don't disagree that this passage is in John but did Jesus really say it? Is it at all possible that the author of John (who scholars recognize as making a sizable jump from the synoptics concerning the divinity of Jesus and other matters) may have simply been providing his own thoughts rather than precisely those of Jesus? I don't doubt Jesus' intent, just the accuracy in what he actually knew and what we think he knew. As for 'the scriptures' - I'm sure by know you know my position on much about the accuracy and reliability of these, but in short, they are basically one argument (and many parts thereof) that won the day. There were many, many diverse Christianities in the early days following Jesus and hundreds of years later some blokes got together and decided for all of us what scriptures should be regarded as holy and which shouldn't. Frankly, I don't trust them to have necessarily got it right. I think it would be interesting to see what sort of bible the various Christian groups in the decades following Jesus might have considered a cannon - you know, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Gnostic Christians, the Montanists, Christians who thought Jesus required them to remain Jews and Christians who shunned Judaism altogether for Christianity, docetism, arianism, adoptionism, etc etc etc. But of course, we have lost to all time those many writings and differing opinions about Jesus and what his life may have meant.

But indeed you do generate existence, you just don't think about it. Every day you are creating millions of cells within your body. All of those cells rely on you for their existence, just as they rely on their interconnections with all other cells that comprise of your body to maintain that existence. Most of these cells will die sometime in the next few years and you will create new cells to take their place. You are not personally attached to these cells, but without these cells you wouldn't exist either. I can't attest what these cells may 'think', but like us it is possible that their degree of consciousness can not yet comprehend what it means for them to be you, just like you can't comprehend what it means for you to be God. Maybe. I'm not sure God is 'surprised or delighted' or indeed that we are. We might simply be 'experiencing' what surprise and delight is. God may 'know' what it is already, but still experiences it as it is not possible not to. Maybe. I think there can be if you consider my example above concerning the human body and its billions of comprising cells, each with a 'life' of their own. We cannot live without our cells and they cannot live without our existence. Yet, all cells die, new ones are generated, and of course our bodies eventually wear out too. None of that detracts from 'everything' - it just shifts along doing its thing. Yes - we experience what it is to 'be'. Maybe our existence as a part of God is like our subconscious. Now I know you don't consciously think "I have to make my heart beat or I will die) but yet it happens. Your heart is very much a part of you, and yet you don't really know how you make your heart beat. Maybe that's a bit like our existence as a part of God. Like your body and its composition of cells - they are 'one' yet they are separate, are they not? Your kidney is a part of you, a part of the 'one' of you, yet you can survive without that kidney and indeed, even donate that kidney to another so that they may continue life. And maybe we 'do' know everything, we just don't realise it in this current form? It seems to me that we 'know' more than any other generation that has come to pass, so maybe this 'knowing all things' is something evolutionary that will come in time and answer all things? As for being in everything, the same elements that comprise of 'us' comprise all other things also. We all come from the same stardust, so maybe we are in all things more than we understand? That might be your Christian answer, but another Christian answer could be that we don't fully understand why we exist as God and that like all religions, we are grasping at trying to understand without yet fully understanding. But there's no problem with that because God is simply existing as us and everything else. Maybe.

I think what you're describing Joseph is the closest I come to in understanding a God outside of the existence of our mind/ego. Maybe this is panenthesim, but I could imagine God existing as everything we know - physically, mentally, spiritually and every other shade in between. God doesn't judge like a thinking human being, God is simply an existence in, through and of, everything. For me, such a God would be totally indifferent to pain, suffering, love, joy, etc. God is everything and participates in everything and leaves behind everything. We have a war, God experiences that and moves on. We have joy and happiness - God experiences that and continues on. Right now we think of ourselves as individuals, but when our consciousness finishes we might be 'absorbed' into that God and everything continues on as if nothing happened. The same goes for every animal, vegetable, mineral and anything else that exists. God is, is of, and is within the universe and beyond. For me, such an approach to God answers all Thormas' questions about meaning and purpose. There is no meaning and purpose other than being God existing in and through everything. God is not emotional, judgmental, preferential, or anything else - God just is, and we are that God and within that God. This, to me, would seem to answer why God let's bad things happen, why there is pain and suffering for some right next door to happiness and joy of another. It is all simply part of God being everything. On a macro level, nothing is good or bad, it just is. We still have our micro-level of existence to which we apply all sorts of rules and beliefs concerning how to live our life, and so we should because on that level we exist and others also will continue to do so, but ultimately there is no right and wrong to this life beyond our temporal existence. I'm thinking this line of thought answers many people's questions about there being 'something else' to this life - some sort of sense that they are a part of a 'more' that they can't really quite capture (and so we end up creating beliefs and dogma). Indeed there is a more - an existence beyond our lives that we have trouble comprehending because there doesn't seem any reward or punishment or 'point' to this life. But the whole point is that there is no point, other than being part of the existence of God. I can imagine God in that perspective and it makes the most sense to me out of any version of God I have come to understand thus far. Undoubtedly many would feel ripped off with this sort of view of God because there doesn't seem to be anything in it for them. But the point is that they are already completely in it - indeed they are inseparable from it. We all are. We are all God. Disclaimer - This seems to work for me but I reserve the right to change my mind - then again, I don't think it really matters either way!

And I would agree - that is why this forum falls under the banner of Progressive Christianity and not mainline Protestantism, but I don't quite see how you've connected mainline Protestant church to PC and this forum, and then jumped from there to say most people on this PC forum would be more comfortable in a UU congregation. I think most people here (I'm sticking to most although I see you're now saying 'many') align themselves to the 8 Points of Progressive Christianity. Maybe that's not 'Christian' enough for some - is that what you are trying to get at by suggesting they'd be more comfortable in a UU congregation rather than a Progressive Christianity forum? Or do you just have issues in general with people calling themselves Progressive Christians? This is what I deducing from your comments above, but maybe I'm off the mark? Check out the link below for some familiarization with the 8 Points of PC: https://progressivechristianity.org/the-8-points/

So why would Progressive Christians here feel more comfortable in a UU congregation if such a congregation regarded them as bible thumpers?

I don't disagree, but I still go to the heart of your comment about "Most people here would probably be much happier in a Unitarian Universalist church". You haven't substantiated that for me in any way so far, but that's okay, you are entitled to your opinion. I was just trying to get an idea of how you came to that conclusion. Whilst I am getting an idea, I don't think it supports what you said. Anyways.

Again, this term 'brokenness' suggests that we start out poorly and either get better or worse. Even watching the nightly news, I don't think that is the case. Naturally the sensational nature of the news means that the millions of people going about living 'good' lives just doesn't attract attention and we only see the worst (and often stuff that is made to seem a lot worse than it actually is too). I don't disagree that there are ways of leading one's life that better meets both an individuals values and a community's needs, but to not meet up to these does not mean one is 'broken' but rather that one could be doing something else that may actually be more beneficial to themselves and others. For me, we are already whole, warts and all. I think this notion that somehow we can be perfect (i.e. 'whole') comes form a desire to be better. Nothing wrong with being a 'better' person, which can be addressed in a myriad of ways, but the downside of saying you need to reach this elusive goal of 'wholeness' alternatively means there is something wrong with you now, and Ii simply don't see that for the bulk of humanity. I like the discussion these people had about 'brokeness': https://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2016/04/05/is-humanity-fundamentally-broken/

It well may be, but I also think using that term is totally at home here also, within PC. For me it's not that most people here would feel more at home in a UU congregation, but rather that a UU congregation offers many similarities to Progressive Christianity (which doesn't neatly fit into a strictly designated box of doctrines).

Agreed, but still not sure how you come to the conclusion that most people here would actually be happier in a UU congregation. I think they both have things to offer. Each to their own I guess.