PaulS

Being a 70 yr old book I'd think current biblical scholarship may have quite an impact on the bible-based 'evidence' that Morrison uses as arguments. I found the book to be quite biased toward a fundamental view of Christianity and not genuinely questioning. I'm always suspicious of anyone that can 'prove' what happened 2000 years ago, particularly using texts (of which there are no originals) which weren't even written until decades after the event, by authors whom nobody knows. I suspect this book will be appreciated by those who are looking for confirmation of an already held belief, and not who genuinely seek a balanced presentation of Jesus' final days.

Your point being....?

I think it could just be the natural order of things and change, Roy. Whether people have a religious background or not, if the Anglican Church doesn't offer enough of whatever it is those people want, then it will most likely go the way of many other institutions that simply haven't adjusted to the clients' needs. After all, it is the people who make up the church, so if those people aren't enough to keep the church going, it will naturally wither.

Do you label yourself PC over and above every other label you may give yourself? I imagine not. I don't think PC is any one particular 'way' or interpretation of doctrine, but more a questioning way of life and a road to experiencing religion and the bible in a way that fundamental Christianity would consider 'wrong'. As for accepting what anyone else says about what it means to be a Christian, i think only your own heart & head can answer that for you. If the varying opinions of the likes of Borg, Spong, Crossan & Ehrman speak to you, then so be it. If they don't, then so be it too. Anything can be idolatry i guess f one was to idolise it over and above everything else, but I don't think your at risk of idolatry if you read those authors and think they make points that ring true for you. Cheers Paul

For what it's worth, I think a lot of different things about people who do believe in the Creed, but this thread was started by Andy who was questioning what relevance he should give a 1700 year old document that he cant believe elements of. its not about the 'people' but about the doctrine. It seems that my reference to flat earth theory is the sensitive point though. I wonder if I had chosen another to demonstrate that beliefs can change over the centuries, if you might not feel as provoked perhaps? I am not criticising anyone - I am making a plain observation that it is more than okay for somebody like Andy to question the validity of a +1700 year old doctrine. As for your generalisation that PCers are quick to criticise others, i don't think you should or could lump what we loosely call PCers all into one group. Rather than and us and them, I see PC more as a train of thought or even a permission to question and challenge beliefs that may be outdated but are defended by many possibly due to their upbringing, their culture, or even their indoctrination. PC may not be 'clear' enough for some people but I think that is the beauty of the PC line of thought - i.e. it is okay to question, doubt, and wonder. Cheers Paul

Matteo, It is not a criticism, but an observation. Past peoples had past beliefs that have since been discarded. It happens. More than likely there will be a number of our truths today that are viewed differently in 2000 years time. It's just reality. I don't see any harm in acknowledging that. What I mean by appropriate is that some people in the context of their day may believe in the Creed word for word. Other people in the context of THEIR day, with different life experiences and learnings, may not think it is appropriate to believe the Creed so fervently. I got the impression that Andy may be leaning towards the latter category. Again, I'm only acknowledging a reality. I don't believe I need to speculate about my speculations. It sort of goes with the territory when one expresses their opinion - an opinion is just one's point of view, and this is mine. Cheers Paul

Matteo, I don't know if you want me to quote exact sources and names, but I think it is pretty safe to say that some people in the past have considered the world to be flat, wouldn't you agree? If there is only one it serves my point - that opinions and knowledge do change over time and what used to be taken for fact can and often does change as people become more enlightened or new knowledge and/or understanding comes to light. I disagree that I am belittling true believers of the creed by stating correctly that it is possible the creed is outdated. True, some may take offence, but I am not telling them they are wrong, I am saying that things change and what was good for people 1700 years ago may not be appropriate in this day and age. I think that's just fact, not insult. I am not saying my belief is the right one, but speculating that it could be. Cheers Paul

What significance can you give to a Creed that contains things you don't believe in, Andy? I can appreciate the 'tradition' aspect to the Creed and what that offers to some people, but just like you many people don't take the Creed as 'Gospel' and accept that it is a man-made document capturing a certain point of view at a certain point in time. I accept it as an example of how some people thought about God & Jesus at the time the Creed was written (over 300 years after Jesus lived), but give it no more merit than that. People also used to believe the earth was flat, but most people don't hold onto that view anymore. That's not to belittle those who choose to believe the Creed word-for-word, but to simply make the point that there is nothing to say that we must believe word-for-word something that was written in the cultural and religious context of its day, more than 1700 years ago. It is possible that it is out-dated. Cheers Paul

All Saints Day has no meaning to me, and as my sister lives in Mexico I am aware of the Day of the Dead, but that's about the extent of it. Pretty much business as usual for me on those days.

Welcome Robert, I hope you enjoy reading and participating here. Cheers Paul

Rom, I think you're essay makes a lot of sense. I think true free will most likely is an illusion. I don't think you can 'make' yourself believe something, you simply either believe it or you don't, so it would seem free will doesn't 'work'. Cheers Paul

Fire away, Rom!

The first thing to understand is that 'born again Christian' encompasses a wide variety of diverse beliefs, that is why there are thousands and thousands of different churches but whom all wear the label of born again. As Matt points out, some take seriously the verses attributed to Paul which prohibit women teaching in church. For others clearly such verses don't sit straight with a modern society and so they overlook them. Personally, I'd steer away from any church which says they KNOW how God thinks!

Thanks Norm. The only texts that I am familiar with from traditional Christianity that seek to confirm Christ's messianic authenticity do seem to be those that are clearly intended for a purpose other than Jesus. The ones that you point out were clearly not fulfilled by Jesus , yet - as some fundies seem to rely upon, so they seem to be once inlay put aside.

Welcome Tim.

Thanks Matt.

Spong indeed adopts this phrase from Tilich. I understand the word 'ground' to mean the essence of all being.

I don't think anyone here considers any other to be an enemy. I try to love everyone regardless of the views they hold. That doesn't mean I can't disagree/discuss/challenge another's views, or even question the reasons why they might hold them. As for cutting others a break - what break are they not being cut? I myself do not see PC as a united force trying to dismantle or attack. Rather i see PC as a very loose and imprecise label that encompasses more what it is not, than what it is. So I don't see it as a clearly delineated 'camp'.

Absolutely, there's nothing wrong with the stories, and I think many of them do reveal useful truths. Clearly though how one views and interprets those stories can be harmful to themselves or others.

I can roll with Jesus being viewed as a worthy example to follow in order to try and life a rewarding and satisfying life. It seems to me that empathy and compassion are probably the two most useful and beneficial human emotions. God or no God, if we all practiced empathy and compassion more, we would have a better society. But I still don't understand how one can say 'everything is of God' but then outline things that are 'bad' (eg ignorance, opposition, terror, torture, fear of death, ignorance, illusion, etc). If these things are of God, why are they something to overcome or get rid of? Incidentally, the sound of one hand clapping is silence. Cheers Paul

It still seems there is a dualistic notion there i.e. if you regard some of your actions as sins or that not every action is permissible, then aren't you saying some things are not of God (i.e. some actions) but at the same time saying that everything is God?

Matteoam, Welcome to the forum and I hope you enjoy reading and participating here. One question I have, if everything in the universe and all is maya, then what can your sins be except God performing as God does? Cheers Paul

I think you sum it up nicely, Joseph. I think the negativity towards fundamentalism is often a very real part of the healing process, but one that which the victim moves past over time. I say victim intentionally, because many of these people feel harmed & deceived by fundamentalism. I think as they come to new understandings of the bible, myth, metaphor, Christian history, etc, a new way of looking at fundy Christians emerges, and personally I think it is a view that includes compassion, forgiveness and understanding. Like Joseph suggests Matteom, there is a lot of positive discussion at this forum as well.

Not wishing to sound like I'm complaining, but I found PC to be a 'relief' really. Having been raised a fundamentalist but turned my back on it at 19, I think i have always carried some baggage. PC introduced me to a new way of looking at the bible and God. It's not the be all and end all, but in my darkest hour I am certainly glad I found it. Rather than just another reactionary term, I think the term PC is a useful term for indicating to others that there is another way to look at Jesus and Christianity. If it wasn't given a label of sorts, how would people recognise it or find out more information about it? Sure some people complain about other Christianities, although I haven't yet met the types that are always complaining. Similarly, I see very little of people here always speaking negative of scripture or dismissing it. I think that probably one of our biggest failings as people - we generalise and categorise too much. PC is not a clearly defined religion or movement. It is a bunch of thoughts and views loosely brought together under a label. Just like the terms Protestant and Catholic cover a wide and diverse range of views, so does PC.

Welcome Erik, I hope you enjoy participating here. Cheers Paul