PaulS

Well Burl, A genuine question Burl or a sarcastic response? Just asking. I'm not sure what you define the formal religious sphere as. Do I have a Masters degree in World religions? - No (although I do have one in Occupational Safety & Health, but I don't think that counts in this discussion). People get all sorts of impressions when they don't really know a person well. Particularly in internet forums where we lack the ability to converse in real time, to observe the other's body language, and where we miss tone and inflection in the voice that may make something sound either like a statement, joke or an offensive remark. No doubt you have some impressions of me based on my posts and some interactions. All I would say to that is that any such impression is likely to be wrong in many, many ways. I read, I study, I travel, I talk to people. All the best. Paul

Buddhism is quite wide and varied and naturally has taken on local cultural and political traits in its various geographic regions, much like Christianity throughout the world. So to say that no Buddhist takes these myths literally would be too presumptuous of me. However, throughout the world the broad teachings of Buddhism concern the Buddha's lessons and do not focus on the Buddha himself. Buddhists, in general, do not regard Buddha as God and do not worship him. Subsequently, the importance of the Buddha's mother's dream is of no importance to most Buddhists - fat, saffron cloak, begging bowl, or not. Concerning literacy, it seems to me quite the opposite to what you suggest - that is that often it has been the western world adopting a religion from the east that has misunderstood the texts (Christian and Buddhist) and read myth as literal stories.

I think it's wonderful how Buddhism can recognise it's myths and appreciate them for their teachings, as opposed to taking such things literally, such as the myth of Buddha being born of a virgin. Whether it's six white elephants, walking on water, raising zombies from the dead - all myths are pretty cool (if we know how to recognise the difference between myth and reality).

Hi christs-love, Welcome back to commenting on the forum as it's been over two years since your last post. I hope you're still enjoying those moments of feeling glorious joy and happiness. Cheers Paul

Indeed Fatherman. We all have our own understanding of what 'God' and "Sacred' means to us. In fact the tagline in my signature under the old software (this new software version seems to have dropped that) was a quote from an Italian Poet named Antonio Porchia which read: “Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for!” I'm thinking for me it might be time to drop that as I am not so much actively 'looking for' as I am more so 'floating down the river and observing what i come across' (that and also the new software seems to have made the decision for me anyhow ). Nonetheless, what I meant was using the term God (big G or little g) is loaded with assumptions, personal biases, experiences, etc which can make it hard to share that word. When we can openly discuss this and sometimes even challenge it (if appropriate such as in the Debate & Dialogue threads) then I think the experience is useful for all (and for many to come or who may sit silently in the wings observing).

Fatherman, Getting the balance right is always going to be tricky. It seems to me that Progressive Christianity's 'dark side' is that many are offended that PC isn't 'Christian' enough. What PC or this site 'should be' is always subject to the opinion of the person you ask this question of. Myself, I didn't join this site until about 2011 I think, but if people need to know, I could probably credit this site with being a major influence in helping me not commit suicide at the time, and it wasn't because I had loving people telling me how I needed to understand Jesus and the Bible, but rather because I had people that were prepared to share with me their similar journeys, their understandings of God (usually different than 'Christianity' as I knew it), and the challenges they had gone through being told that they weren't 'okay' with Christianity. Having the responsibility as one of several Moderators, I myself have to try and put those things aside mostly, but I am only human and it isn't always an easy path. I hear Jen's frustration too, but at the end of the day, we are an internet forum and that's about it. We are not in people's homes/bedrooms, we are not in people's churches and other places of worship - we are a website to share/discuss/challenge our thoughts. This forum is useful for many, but I don't think it should be viewed as the be all and end all of PC. PC has the 8 points and people are free to take them as seriously or not as they choose. Sometimes the 8 points may seem to be to the benefit of the atheist, but it is also to the benefit of the most fervent believing Christian too. We all have opinions and we are all just as free to pronounce/discuss/reject them here as anywhere else. After all, even the most vehement comment is just pixels, isn't it? Really, what do we know of the person making the comment or the baggage that they carry? I don't accept at all that 'trolls' have taken over the site, as most participants here are courteous, contributing, and appreciate Progressive Christianity. Yes, atheism has some prominence, but atheism in the sense of 'non-theism' rather than a total rejection of any God. However, those that sit on that side of the fence are welcomed by PC as well (that's not just my opinion but in accordance with the parent website as well). Should we be saying PC is only for this type of Christian and not that type? At the end of the day, we are all free to post/discuss/debate/critique any person's views here. In a safe environment. Without direct insults or offences to one another. Without being told we should go somewhere else. Without being told we are not the 'right' type of Christian to be here. The behaviours that you mention such as bullying, calling others immature, and telling others to 'grow up' are not what we want here and they should be discouraged, but neither do we want a 'police state' type site where one comment gets you banned or shutdown. From what I have seen mostly it has been entirely fair - maybe people run with a couple of comments that are less than appropriate, but then they are pulled in by Admin are warned or banned. There is a degree of tolerance but I don't think it is too lenient. Personally, I don;t think you need to 'fight' anything here. We all have opinions and yours is just as valid as mine. But so is discussing said opinion. I too hope you are a participant for years to come as I think your contributions here are invaluable, as all of ours are. Cheers Paul

Jen, I think you missed the point that this article was published and promoted by Progressive Christianity.org - the main website that this forum is a subset of. That organisation, and I would suggest Progressive Christianity as a whole, has no issue with other Progressive Christians understanding God and the teachings of Jesus in a way very different to what you may suggest is the 'correct' way to understand. As Joseph has pointed out before, we have seen the 8 Points themselves progress and change, and I am pretty certain they will continue to develop and evolve as the Progressive Christian movement does. I think their changing (some would say diminution of Jesus, God, and the Bible) are a reflection of the journey PC finds itself travelling. Where it will end, if it should, is yet to be seen. If you think myself or others are not being honest, well I doubt we can convince you otherwise it would seem. I don't think anybody here currently has ever suggested desiring to be free of all that Jesus taught - to the contrary, even many atheists still take away things from Jesus teachings. They just don't see him as you and many other Christians do. There is a big difference in that between intending to cause offence and people simply being offended because they don't like what is said. Peace and goodwill Paul

Hmm, not sure where you would get the evidence to support the notion that nobody escapes anxiety about death. If people deal with death such that they have no anxiety about it (e.g. they intellectualise it away) then there is no anxiety about death. You can't have it both ways (i.e. say that they have dealt with it but then say that they haven't). I know several people who are extremely comfortable with death and aren't the slightest bit anxious about eternal sleep. In fact, one will be heading off to that bed in the not too distant future, and they are not the slightest bit anxious. The last person I knew well who died I visited the day before his death in hospital and he wasn't the slightest bit anxious either. As we all know, death is a part of life. The ones that seem anxious to me seem to come from the group of people who believe in something after this physical body craps out. As for your interpretation of an accurate biblical view, you may well be right, but to say there is no afterlife in Christianity does seem to go against if not the majority, then at the very least a very, very large number of Christians who interpret the bible differently (rightly or wrongly). One could say that there is definitely an afterlife according to Christianity - I mean even your version is really an after life - it is 'after' this 'life'. It is different to this life. It is not the same as this life. One does die. Therefore, there is an afterlife according to your interpretation of the bible.

I don't speak for all of Christianity, but I do know that much of Christianity DOES hold the view that there is an afterlife. Many Christians believe they will live in an eternal spiritual heaven after this earthly life. I know many who don't regard heaven as a holding place, but as the end destination. Now it's not my intention to argue for either version but rather just to point out that there is no single version of afterlife that ALL of Christianity agree to, however a life in heaven or a renewal that Burl proposes are both contingent on a consciousness living into eternity. That's the discussion point the thread is trying to raise - why is eternal consciousness considered important to some people?

In a recent post, my 'credentials' as a Progressive Christian (yes, I use that label for myself) were called into question based on, amongst other things possibly, my leanings as an Atheist. In fact, I was told that in regard to the 8 Points that I had "justified myself in a way that works for me". As timing would have it, an article in today's Weekly Progressive Christianity.org Recap really spoke to me and summed up where I have been personally going on this journey (still to yet arrive possibly). I would go so far as to say that the author represents word for word much of my feelings and thoughts. I think it is an article that may also speak to a variety of others in this forum - past, present and future, who find the 'old model' of God not necessarily working for them, yet still associate themselves with PC. Sometimes we are accused of not 'getting' God, of not being inclined to think 'hard enough' about spirituality, and quite often accused of shutting ourselves off to 'spiritual learnings'. This article might help those so accused at understanding they are by no means alone in their seeking, their thinking, their 'philosophising' and indeed, their spritual quest. I have included the link below for your convenience. I hope you enjoy the article. https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/resurrection-as-change-part-iii/ Peace & goodwill. Paul Footnote: I probably should have pointed out when I originally posted above a few hours ago, that of the hundreds and hundreds of posts I have contributed to this forum over the years, most often I have received nothing but encouragement and fair and reasonable discussion from other PC's participating here. Throughout that time I have openly discussed my atheism and lack of traditional belief, and recent events are the first I have seen here of anybody asserting that I am not a PC. What I am trying to say is that overall, I have found PC and those participating here to be generally encouraging on my journey. Thankyou.

Gee, and all I did yesterday was go fishing and later paint a little dinghy that I'm giving to a kindergarten! Sorry I get under your skin so much, Jen. It is not intentional. I enjoy being on this forum. I do enjoy vigorous debate, I do carry baggage from fundamental Christianity that sometimes encourages me to debate people who might still promote such views, and I definitely like engaging people here who are more than happy to tell others that they have all the answers. I have views but I most often admit that they might not be right, but they are how I see things (at that time anyway). I do appreciate you pointing out the 20 or so times I have posted in the PC and the two times I have been argumentative with Burl. Being a progressive Christian myself and a moderator I am not surprised I am an active poster in the PC thread of this forum. I check this forum most days and I read all posts as part of my responsibilities as moderator (along with deleting spam, porn, and other useless and harmful posts that mostly don't get as far as the members). I intend to pay much more attention to reminding myself that that section of the forum is a place for people to express their progressive Christian views without intending to debate them. That should be reserved for newly created threads in the Debate section. Peace and goodwill. Paul Edited for spelling, grammatical corrections, things that I thought of later, and rewording of things I first typed.

For reference only in response to my earlier comment. http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/3677-orlando-massacre-pray-against-terrorism/

Well then, we should be thankful for retaining the non-thinking ones at least. Congrats on being here for almost a year, Burl!

Burl, I was referring to the broader forum. I was saying that although the 8 points define us as Christian, it would be a shame if the forum decided to adhere stringently to the 8 points and said non-Christian were not allowed to participate. I didn't realise some were thinking more specifically about the PC chapter within the whole PC forum. Rest assured, I understand that that section of the forum is for supportive discussion about progressive Christianity and is reserved for those who consider themselves in general agreement with the 8 points. I have no issue with that.

Rom, for what it's worth, I value your presence here. You make many worthwhile contributions and I think very relevant points to challenge our thinking and beliefs. I'd go further than Ms Armstrong and say that 'life' is about doing and we are lucky to have people like you in our communities who contribute to helping less fortunate people. My own services have been restricted by work to volunteering on a suicide help line but as I am moving to a roster soon I am looking at other ways to contribute to our community in my spare time. Thormas, yes it is a fine line and one which is worsened by all that is wrong with email, posts and anonymity - rather than the benefits of seeing another's face and body language, in addition to their emotions and gestures. Yes, we should all take care not to deliberately abuse or insult others. Taking offence cannot necessarily be helped unless we remain silent, but by having meaningful, adult conversations hopefully we can minimise the offence. It is worth reminding ourselves that NONE of us have all the answers, no matter how sure we actually think we may be. Although I didn't write the rules, I do think it would be most unfortunate if we said you cannot participate here unless you identify as a Christian (whatever that may mean exactly). The rest of PC welcomes agnostics, atheists and non-Christians so I think it would be odd if this site went against that. But as mentioned above, we should remind ourselves that we are not all on the same path and that others hold certain beliefs, rightly or wrongly, and we need to be tolerant of other's views (unless they are harmful).

Yeah, that bit could be discussed here but I don't think that was what Jen was calling for (at least that was my understanding). I thought she was wanting to talk about this ISIL/Christianity from another thread that she closed out on previously. I've tried looking for it but I can't locate it yet - essentially the thread was about parts of people's brain lighting up when mapped against their emotions and beliefs. I'll post the link in this thread (just for reference) if I find it.

Burl, Self-justification is an emotionally loaded term. My explanation for my actions are naturally a 'self-justification' just as yours would be if you were explaining why you chose to do what you did, but they shouldn't take on the meaning you imply by using that term. I was simply providing an explanation of my actions. Other than post against your thread instead of creating a new thread in debates, I did not contravene any rule of this forum. It seems to me that Jen was offended because I challenged the notion of certain views of Jesus in the PC forum, a forum reserved for PC's (of which I count myself as one). You will note that I did apologise for posting in that thread because I was shifting the subject to a debate instead of staying with the original copied article. But why should an apology be required for raising a challenging view simply because it might be what some Christians don't like? At no time did I ridicule or abuse or break any other forum rule. If we can't debate our understandings of Jesus without being offended by other people's view, then how can we debate anything? It's not my desire to go around offending people but I do like to push the boundaries in order to generate discussion and debate and get down to what people really mean rather than just what they say at surface level. However, the why's and wherefore's aren't that important to me so let it be clear that I unreservedly apologise to any and all whom may have been offended by my comments in response to your post, Burl. It wasn't my intention to offend but rather to promulgate discussion about a point that I see very different to traditional Christians. Maybe my apology is more than a month overdue, but this is the first I have understood anybody to have received offence from that post. Sorry.

By 'first part' thormas, are you referring to Jen discussing ISIL & Christianity? That is how I took it and as such this comment concerns a previous thread Jen and I had some vigorous debate on. Hence why I think it is more appropriate to discuss there, where all the history of the debate is located, rather than hijack this thread which is a different subject matter. If it isn't what you are referring to then perhaps I have mistaken what point you think can be continued here. Why I thought the last sentence was better as a new subject is that is has nothing to do with confirmation bias and perhaps very little to do with Jesus as an extra dimensional being and again, I think it would be better and more useful to capture as a separate thread (although there are already several recent threads where many, including myself, have discussed their views of Jesus).

Jen, It is clear from your comments above that what I had in mind in that thread is not being clearly communicated to you (and maybe others). If you want to continue to debate that thread then I suggest we do so in that thread rather than recreating it here. As for your last sentence, again, as it is a new topic, if you want to start another thread I can answer your questions there also. Cheers Paul

1. I have not broken this site's rules on many occasions. 2. My remarks weren't contemptuous - that is your interpretation of my remarks. 3. I am not playing the humility card - I would make the same comments again, however I hope to next time remind myself to kick off a new thread in the right section. 4. If you restrict my 'core-belief systems' to whether or not I believe in a theistic God (as that is the only belief of mine you mention in your comments) then perhaps my core belief systems have not changed. However, I would not limit my core belief systems to simply being anti-theistic. 5. I was not attacking Jesus' teachings. I was questioning what I regard as mans' teachings that Jesus understands our lives because he had a short one himself in Israel 2000 yrs ago. 6. If I can't question and disagree with you about understandings of Jesus without you getting insulted or offended, then indeed we may not have common ground for dialogue. But that would be your choice, not mine, as I participate here because I enjoy dialogue with all participants. Peace and goodwill, Jen. Paul

No problem.

Jen, Generally we say that those who agree with the 8 Points can post in the Progressive Christianity section. Myself, I believe I agree with the 8 points except that for me 'God' isn't a theistic or supernatural being, but rather I regard God as community, human spirit, and our love as human beings which often brings us together. Now clearly that is a different 'God' than what some others believe, so I do try to not always counter 'their' God with 'my' God. But you are right in that I am certainly anti-theist, but I don't see that as incongruent with Progressive Christianity. And I use the term 'anti' in the context not that I am against, but that I don't believe in a theistic God. I'll admit that sometimes I post without thinking enough about the section in which I am posting in. Quite rightly, in this instance, Joseph identified the thread as more akin to 'debate' and properly moved that part of the thread to the debate section. I have no issue with the debate part of my comments, but I do acknowledge that I should have started a separate thread rather than adding my comments where i did. However, you misunderstand my comments as ridicule. Just reading somebody's word without the advantage of face to face expression as well as tone and inflection can do that, I know. However my questions and doubts concerning Jesus 'experience' with life are pretty fair. Jesus really didn't seem to live a life recognisable to many others in the world today. I think it is legitimate to express these thoughts against claims to the contrary that somehow Jesus 'understands' everybody else's life. I can't imagine that being realistic. As for it being abuse - that is just not the case. And whilst there might not be any change in my anti-theist belief system on this site, that is not what Joseph was saying. He was clearly speaking more broadly about my beliefs having moved around over time. You are the one now restricting it to anti-theism. Similarly, you misquote me on wishing to believe what some people do. I'm pretty sure I have always used that in only a 'past' context. That is, I have said often (as I did in my post you discuss) that I often wish 'I could have believed' as some people do. That was in the past when I was in pain. Thankfully that is no longer the case. I certainly wouldn't want to believe just to ease any pain. I would only like to believe if I found the reasons convincing enough to do so. By the way, I'm certainly not seeking any sympathy. Empathy might be a good thing for some to consider, but I'm definitely not looking for sympathy. As for my reasons being here, although they are personal I can tell you that I do not participate here just to tell others they are stupid. And I certainly have no contempt for those who are trying to follow the teachings of the man who lived as Jesus. Indeed, I follow many of those teachings myself, but I consider some teachings attributed to Jesus as not to be his teachings but later interpretation and commentary by others.. And that's not 'hiding behind' anything. That's just the facts that with my beliefs about Jesus' teachings, whilst some may be similar to yours, we may disagree on a number of others. As for your comment about ISIL & Christianity - you didn't understand what I was trying to say in that debate so it would be useless repeating myself here other than to say that during that debate I was trying to point out the similarities of fervent, genuine faith. You ask "Why is it okay for the anti-theists to profoundly insult the core faith of the Christians and then call us out and imply it's unfair for them to feel insulted in their own beliefs? Isn't this hypocrisy?". Apart from theism or anti-theism not being a factor in the 8 points, how is asking questions or making valid points (to me anyway) questioning some of these beliefs to be regarded as insulting? As I have said above, I should have taken those comments into a debate thread rather than post where i did and to that end I am pleased that Joseph shifted the comments and thread. If an apology is required for that then please know that I am truly sorry I didn't pay enough attention to this site's protocol. It was an error on my part. I do agree with you that if I was trying to SAVE you poor ol' demented Christians from the stupidity of your relationship with God, then I'd be no different from the fundamentalist preachers I've struggled against and overcome. So of course, I am not trying to change you. As I have said a number of times before, if what you believe doesn't hurt others, then knock yourself out. But I do like debating points for and against sometimes. Of course you have every right to speak up and call a spade a spade but I can tell you that in this case you've picked the wrong type of tool and have mistaken my comments for your interpretation of my comments. Peace and goodwill Paul.

Thanks all for taking the time to respond. It is fun to discuss I think, but not something I get hung up on. As expected, we share a variety of beliefs/thoughts here on the matter.

I did have a brief glimpse of eternity in the now when I took a 2hr helicopter ride earlier this week and within about 15 minutes of takeoff I was busting for a wee! Needless to say that without a toilet on board, the next 1hr 45mins were an excruciating eternity - I felt time literally standing still! Burl - how do you envisage your consciousness continuing after death? What does that actually mean? Can you describe what sort of sensation/experience you think that might be? Tariki - I do sometimes find myself just enjoying the moment with friends and family, just sitting around enjoying each other's company, just being. When I associate gratitude with that I can't help falling back to earth and thinking "who/what should I feel grateful too". So I enjoy what I'm doing, but I don't connect being grateful for it because to be grateful, don't we need somebody or something to thank for our experience? Rom - it possibly is a mistaken metaphor, but from a Christian point of view I think it is a belief that has developed out of more ancient beliefs in a 'Sheol'. I think Jews and early Christians believed in a Sheol, a shady sort of place under the earth's crust somewhere where ALL souls went to see out eternity (not like a heaven versus a hell but a sort of one shop that fits all). I think that stretched to maybe some 'remarkable' souls (e.g. Moses, Elijah, Jesus) having the privilege of living with the King, God, but the general peasantry had no such expectation. But as Christianity developed, I think then a belief developed that a reward for following Christianity was living with God eternally. Much like how Hell only developed in sync with developing Christianity. Thormas - all questions are answerable, we just don't know the answer, yet! But certainly, living life now is the most important thing. Whatever may follow, or not, will happen no matter what we think or say. Enjoy the ride in the meantime. For me, part of enjoying the ride is asking questions and mulling over answers. Thanks for taking the time to respond (you and everyone else).

Many Christians will say they 'hope' for eternal life. Of course, that usually means they are convinced they will enter eternal life after they die from this physical one (and/or some believe it will be a 2nd physical life due to resurrection of the body and a new earth), but my discussion here is asking just 'why' hope for eternal life is so important to those people. Myself, I don't think there will be any life after this one. When my eyes close for the last time I think it will be like going to sleep and I won't awake. Personally, that doesn't bother me as I know it can't bother me once I am dead - because I won't know I am dead. Yes, I will no longer experience the company of loved ones and friends, but I won't know it. Yes some will mourn and miss me (maybe a couple I hope ) but eventually they too will die and no longer suffer any such feelings. The fact is I'm sure they will get over it long before they pass! I guess this is heading toward Buddhism territory which I understand talks about letting go of the ego, which is possibly the thing that drives one toward such 'hope', that our ego, our 'self' will never die. Anyone here hold onto that 'hope' and prepared to discuss why eternal life is so important to them? Are you afraid of no longer existing or do really desire 'eternity'? Anybody here a previously heaven-believing Christian who now thinks more like me? Why is eternal life NOT important to you? Maybe it's because I'm nearing 49, maybe it's simply because I read the latest PC newsletter which had an article on hell not being Jewish/Christian, but for whatever reason I am presently reflecting on just why some people think living forever is such a big deal, whilst others like me, don't really care for it.