PaulS

No argument from me, I couldn't agree more. To me, not recognising that the NT comprises of different views, opinions and theologies from within different times and socio-political contexts, has been the greatest disservice to Jesus and his message. To try and reconcile the contradictory views is to perform illogical and embarrassing mental gymnastics. Apologetics should be about apologising for ridiculous mind warping!

John, I agree with Pete & Luvtosew, so I won't reiterate their points. But I would point out that most biblical scholars agree that 2 Timothy wasn't even written by Paul. So fundamentalists aren't off to a good start in my book, trusting the words of somebody pretending to be somebody else. But even if we did accept those words, have a read of what it means in the preceding verses to have that form of godliness but deny its power. These verses quote such people as "lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God". Really, is that you? I doubt it. Cheers Paul

I doubt there is any easy answer AnneInTX. I too have had these nagging thoughts, particularly around 4 years ago when I was having a little breakdown of sorts. Like you, I was left questioning myself how I could 'make' myself believe something I didn't believe in. I simply couldn't. I think also like you, I'm a relatively sincere and conscientious person, but with plenty of blemishes throughout life. For me, I have resolved it by handing it all to 'God'. I wrote a letter to God explaining why I simply couldn't believe the fundamentals I had been raised on. Why all of those things made no sense to me. Why it didn't make sense to me that God would allow me to be created, tested on this earth by supernatural evil agents possibly leading me away from God, only to result in being sentenced to an eternity of pain and punishment. I told God that I genuinely think that love and compassion are true values to practice and aspire too and that I would continue to try and live out my life this way. But at the end of the day, if that is not enough for God, then He would just have to send me to Hell. By the time I had finished me letter, I felt very much at ease with this God. To clarify & read my thoughts on paper helped me to feel a release from the grip of these harmful thoughts of an angry, judging God. It just doesn't make any sense, and so I let it go. I hope you find some degree of peace. You are loved and that is all that matters. Don't let people stuff it up for you! Cheers Paul

Forgot that one. Of course our Church rightly recognised the crackers and grape juice as just that and didn't believe in it's literal transformation into real flesh and blood. No, we only stuck to true bible-based teachings such as God's hate of gays (of course we loved them, we just thought they were totally sick and depraved!), that everybody else in the world was miserable and intentionally rejected Jesus because they wanted to live in sin, and that everyone was doomed for hell unless they accepted Jesus as their personal saviour (babies and infants were a grey area though - at least we had some conscience!). For nearly 20 years I had all the answers and knew exactly what my purpose in life was. Those were the days!

John, You are in for an awakening, I am sure. I too was raised fundy for my first 20 years, only to reject Christianity entirely until revisiting it when I learnt about Progressive Christianity in my forties also. At the very least, what I have learnt about: the timeline of the writing the books of the bible, the cultural conditions in which they were individually written what the meaning of the words Jesus spoke 2000 years ago would have meant to the people of that time, as opposed to trying to hold onto those 2000 year old thoughts with the belief they have the exact same meaning for us and our culture today the differences between the Christianity of Paul and the Christianity of the surviving Disciples makes much, much more sense to me than the mind-bending apologetics I was raised within. I hope you enjoy learning more about PC and participating here. Cheers Paul

Luvtosew, I grew up within a fundy, Protestant tradition in Perth, Western Australian called Churches of Christ (this is that particular church's website actually - http://www.bassochurch.org.au/ ) and I remember we didn't regard Catholics as true Christians either. They were 'mistaken' you see, because they worshipped the Virgin Mary and foolishly believed the Pope was without sin. Also they worshipped 'idols' where of course we remained pure by only having crosses embossed on our preaching lecterns at most. Oh, also purgatory wasn't a biblical teaching apparently, so you were wrong there too. I remember that Catholics weren't regarded as 'Christian' enough - they were too lax in their Christianity during the week with them doing anything they wanted to0 and simply getting 'off the hook' come confession! Sorry to add to your burst bubble! Cheers Paul

Soma, I love the following story told by Marcus Borg in his book The heart of Christianity: It’s the story of a 3-year old girl. She was the firstborn and only child in her family, but now her mother was pregnant again and the little girl was very excited about having a new brother. Within a few hours of the parents bringing the new baby boy home from the hospital the girl made a request: she wanted to be alone with her new brother in his room with the door shut. Her insistence about being alone with the baby made her parents a bit uneasy, but then they remembered that they had installed a baby monitor system in anticipation of the baby’s arrival, so they realized they could let their daughter do this and if they heard the slightest indication that anything strange was happening they could be in the baby’s room in an instant. So they let the little girl go into the baby’s room and shut the door and then they raced to the listening monitor. They heard their daughter’s footsteps moving across the baby’s room, imagined her standing over the baby’s crib and then they heard her say to her three-day-old brother, “Tell me about God – I’ve almost forgotten.”

Greetings Linda, I hope you enjoy participating here. Cheers Paul

Bill, You misconstrued my point and overlooked that I directly said that this doesn't mean we sit idly by whilst others destroy. My post was intended to point out that in my opinion, telling others that they have their religion and spirituality wrong does nothing to help them move from one place to another. I am certain that if progressive Christianity was to become more of a 'movement' that inevitably rules and exclusiveness will follow ("We have it right - you have it wrong"). It is human nature. Perhaps my philosophy could be expanded to address the myriad of ways I deal with the myriad of situations where people cause a myriad of levels of harm to our community, but I can't be bothered. For me, everything stems from how WE conduct ourselves and whether it causes harm or not. I am coming to a humbling understanding that I don't have all the right opinions, that others have alternate views, and that for whatever reasons, those views are right for them at this time and may in fact even be the right views for all I know. I sometimes arrogantly think that I have better answers for them, but then I remind myself that I am far from leading an exemplary life with everything exactly where it should be. I'd defend my family too with a shotgun if somebody broke into my house with the intention to rape and kill them, but I don't encourage anyone else to feel that way. That's up to them. Does that make me right and them wrong - I don't think so. Every day around 21,000 children like yours and mine die from malnutrition and curable disease. I could look at people like you (and me) and criticise them for the 'harm' or lack of action they take in rectifying this situation, but I don't know what purpose that would serve. Paul

Bill, To me the best way to 'do' something is to live your life that way. I don't need to 'do' this in a group. I try hard to live my life through compassion, empathy, friendship and community. That's enough for me. For me personally, I find no desire to corral my thoughts into a identifiable, labelled group - PC or other. I don't think any religion really started out with bad intentions, but I think many end up becoming 'exclusive' or the 'answer' because they genuinely think that what they have is unique. For me personally, the 'good fruit' analogy sends shivers down my spine. This is exactly what fundy, evangelistic Christians often suggest - "don't hide your light under a bushel but shine it for the world to see (humbly though, of course)! I have no desire to be anybody's example of a better way to live. I get it wrong just as much, if not more, than the next person. Without trying to belabour the point too much, PC works for me, but I don't think it does, or even has to, work for everyone. There's been enough damage done by groups who think they have the right ideas about God and religion - can't we all just let it be? Just be ourselves, just live your life in peace and harmony as much as you can, and leave the converting to the evangelicals. That does not equate to idly standing by whilst others destroy the world, our community, or even ourselves. To me, and this is only my way of thinking, I don't have a problem with anyone unless their beliefs, actions, political persuasion, or behaviour hurts somebody else. For me, this philosophy can be applied in a macro or micro way (i.e. are you/I/are governments harming other countries, or are you/I/our governments harming the little man). You seem to think that those that participate on this forum or in PC general aren't "doing enough", but the impression I get is that these people don't just 'talk & write' about PC, but it seems to me each has their individual take on how to contribute to the world and does so. Some through their jobs, some through their community activities, some through their hobbies and fancies. Some simply from within their families. Just because they don't march under a banner such as "We are the PC Brigade" doesn't mean they aren't active in the world or that they aren't having an influence. I'm over people telling others what they do wrong. I would rather just preach/protest/engage with people by explaining what I think is right and why. Leave it there and if they want to change their views, hallelujah. If they want to keep their views, so be it. I would encourage one rule/philosophy in life - "Do what you want in life as long as it doesn't cause harm to another".

In my experience, no fundamental Christian has ever changed their views about God and Christianity through rational debate. Rather, it seems to be something that 'dawns' on them over time (and sometimes not), sometimes a substantially long period of time. I don't see any other choice than putting forward one's own view, with appropriate reasoning. If they're not going to change their mind, what next? Shoot them? Unlike Bill, I see no point in 'organising' Progressive Christianity because all you're going to end up with is another class of religion and another group of "we're right, you're mistaken." Again, it seems to me that the logical escalation to their 'refusal' to see things the PC way means war, or acceptance. I know which I choose. I sometimes allow myself to get angered by some Christians and their (what I regard as blind faith) point of view influencing politics and society. When I can remind myself I take a deep breath and try to accept their point of view as one that for whatever reason works for them, but which doesn't necessarily work for me. My opinion is of just as much value as theirs, and so I will express it and my reasons and if they choose to consider it, well that's their business. If they don't well, there's not much I can do.

Having two sons aged 9 & 7, I question if I should be opening them up to all sorts of spiritual & humanistic pathways. I am not sure what to do. They go to a Anglican (Episcopal) private school, I wanted that because of the quality of education and facilities there compared with what's available to them publicly, so they get generous doses of bible stories and Christianity in their lives, albeit not as fundamental as I could imagine. That said, both of my sons view the stories as just that, stories and don't think God or Jesus are 'real'. To be honest, I have some fear that exposure to Christianity = fundamentalist children, but of course that's not the case. I have chosen to discuss other religions freely (as much as they are interested, which is very little), but more so to simply show them at every opportunity that life is different for everyone and that what works for one person, doesn't necessarily work for another. I truly believe this - I think two white Anglo-Saxon people (substitute any other race/nationality/culture) can be identical but then both find happiness in two totally different points of view. I don't think it's a case of one's right and one's wrong - rather that as humans we are all different, even if only minutely, but this can make all the difference in how we see/feel things around us. So currently I try to show my boys that what's important is not 'finding' a spiritual path but simply treating other people with compassion, understanding and kindness. The rest will follow in due course, or not. I'm at peace with that. Cheers Paul

Welcome Scott, Some might say Christianity would be better off without the likes of Spong & Borg shedding light on alternative understandings! Of course, I love their writings and am so pleased to have come across them several years ago as they immensely helped me understand the Bible and a new Christianity that I can more readily accept and feel comfortable with. I hope you enjoy participating here. Cheers Paul

Welcome Kathy, Your journey resonates well with me. I myself don't know where I sit with understanding God, other than to say that if I did believe in God it would most likely be in the same sense as you mention - 'ground of all being'. Welcome to the forum and I look for ward to reading more of your thoughts and enjoying your participation. Cheers Paul

I'm just wondering what are people's thoughts concerning the 'start' point of all 'this'? I understand this question as the question of Primal Cause. What I mean to say is that generally speaking, most here probably accept the Big Bang Theory as the start point for this universe, but what was before the Big Bang? Was there God before the Big Bang? If you don't believe in the Big Bang but perhaps hold a creation belief or other belief, what was before that? And by the term God I am not limiting God to the understanding of a supreme being, but God whether God be consciousness, love, or whatever else you may understand God to mean to you. Perhaps you think that God didn't exist before the Big Bang - if so why did God come into existence at the time of the Big Bang, and why? Also I'm wondering that if you answer that God was before everything, how do you come to that conclusion that God was that starting point and that nothing existed before God? For me it's like this - I don't know. I believe the Big Bang makes sense and that prior to the Big Bang there was nothing. But to my consciousness, that 'nothing' still must exist inside of 'something' - or is that just a limited human way to rationalise it? To say there was nothing before the Big Bang doesn't seem true because at that point all of the molecules that comprise our universe were squashed into one tiny molecule - so that molecule on its own, did exist. So there wasn't nothing, there was that molecule! Geez, I haven't even been drinking and this doesn't make much sense! Anybody want to offer some thoughts on Primal Cause?

Gaylordcat, I have recently read Aslan's book which I found very interesting and well put together. I particularly liked how he didn't dance around the 'nasty' side of Jesus - Even in the NT Jesus wasn't all love and bubbles, he was a Jew first with a message for the Jews, not the whole world, and he was an 'end of times' believer. I think his death threw his followers into a bit of a spin and left them wondering what to make of it all, but enter Paul (who never met Jesus) and all of a sudden we have somebody embracing a world-wide view of Jesus' teachings and pushing the envelope. In the process, Paul turns Jesus and his message into something he/it was originally not. That's what I think anyway. I don't have a skerrick of hard evidence. Like Bill (and maybe like Paul) I extend Jesus' teachings and think that love and compassion is something the world could do with and if we were to all have those two ideals as our primary concerns, everything else would tonk along nicely. I am not waiting for God to come through the clouds on a stallion to damn the heathen and stamp his authority on the world - I am doing my bit to work towards a better world and future for my children and the generations to come. Why - because I love them. Why do I love them? That's the bit for me that leaves room for God. But again, it's all pretty open-ended for me. Cheers Paul

For me it's mostly JWs and Mormons and it depends on what I'm doing. If I'm busy like you we're Rhino, I fob them off straight away. I tell them I have my beliefs and am comfortable with them, I wish them all the best and send them down the road. If I am not in a rush and its convenient, I may have a chat or discussion with them. After all, they're knocking on your door and don't know how they may be interfering with your life. To their credit they have always accepted any brush off with a smile. Probably like door to door salesman, they know their 'hit' ratio is very poor.

Thanks for the tip, Johnny. I am away for the night with work and was looking for a little filler - this hit the spot nicely. A wonderful movie. Cheers Paul

I came here initially because I was learning about a new approach to Jesus & the Bible that fundamentalism hadn't ever indicated existed. To me this was truly astounding and an approach that I could understand and even accept to some degree. I seeks answers but not answers that I need to take on for myself, but answers that help me understand why some people think some things. I find it all very interesting. Food for thought you may say as I continue to live, evolve, and develop as a person. I have stayed here because I enjoy the courtesy usually extended to and by everyone, regardless of their 'position' or beliefs, and I continue to learn about what makes others tick in regards to God, religion, agnosticism, and atheism. I welcome the diverse points of view and find they all enrich my understanding of 'us'.

Welcome Amy, May we all travel a road that gets us there without harming ourselves or others. Cheers Paul

Welcome Beachgal, I hope you enjoy participating here and sharing your views having been through a similar journey as so many here. Cheers Paul

To me it seems pretty explicitly clear in the NT that Paul had no intention of taking his message to the Jews, but rather only chose non-Jewish people to take his message to. I don't know if there were synagogues in Rome when Paul went there to set up camp only to find Stephen had beaten him to the punch, but it is clear that he had no interest in hanging around Jerusalem. Who is worth following is a good question. Or more to the point, why restrict the choice to historical Jesus/Gospel Jesus? Does one have to 'pick' somebody to follow, or can we take various excellent teachings from the many excellent, yet only human teachers, and continue to evolve? Maybe God intends something for us that isn't Jesus? Maybe that's why only now scholars and theologians are able to present such compelling arguments concerning what Jesus was actually all about vs the Gospel version. Who knows.

A book I have just finished called Zealot, presents a convincing argument that Jesus should be taken in context of his culture and time. This book points out that Jesus himself stated several times that his 'message' was to the Jews, not the gentiles. It would seem that Jesus' 'message' didn't extend outside that circle - so to love your enemies wasn't to turn the other cheek to the Roman soldier torturing you, but was intended as a message for Jews to love their fellow Jews. It seems that Paul took Jesus' message and chose himself to expand it to include gentiles. Whilst the Gospels may present Jesus' currently understood message 'clearly' I think we should be at least conscious of the fact that with the gospels having been written at least 40 years after Jesus left, it is highly likely his 'message' was lost a little in translation. That said, nothing stops us (or Paul) from building on that original message and developing it even further for our world today.

Welcome Gaylordcat, I too have just finished Zealot by audiobook (this morning actually) and found it to be extremely interesting and the most sense I have heard yet made of the historical Jesus. I believe that putting Jesus in the cultural/political context of his time helps form a picture of what Jesus was about and helps better understand the Bible. I hope you enjoy the discussions here and I look forward to your participation. Cheers Paul

Unfortunately for many, the security offered by 'believing' is much more rewarding than 'searching' and having to live with unknowing.