des

Hi, I had an experience recently, changed my faith, my feelings, etc. I felt "renewed" in my faith, so I am wondering am I "born again"? This term has been so badly messed up by Fundamentalists that I doubt I could ever really use it seriously. So I use the term "renewed" (for lack of anything better). I began to dust off some of those hoary old concepts and look at them in a different way. For example, the incarnation. I never particularly liked it. But then I thought isn't God alive in all of us, why wouldn't God be alive, and perhaps in a unique way, in/with Jesus. I thought about a lot of such things. But it was more "thoughts", it was also feelings and "spirit" for lack of a better term. So anyone else have such a feeling(s), experience? Anyone care to give it some additional light? --des

Hi, I was wanting to respond to this particular post here. >on social justice for all...but in your view, do you think that 'maybe" the point about Jesus being "The relm to God for US.." might be the key element 'difference' between Progressive verese liberal Christianity? Well I would certainly buy this as the key element to Progressive Christianity. But to separate it from liberal Christianity might be a little more difficult. Who would you say was a liberal (vs Progressive) Christian. And is a liberal Christian sometimes just another name for a progressive on? >And you you think that between the far right''s exclusive view on Jesus as savior and everyone ELSE is unsaved.... Well you definitely captured the conservative or fundamentalist view all right. >nd the far Liberal left of rejecting any sort of any sort of Savior figure even in the form of a Cosmic Christ. As far as I know the only person to use the Cosmic Christ is Matt Fox (at least the term). I definitely just love the concept. Maybe you are talking about some UUs? Or people who see Jesus as a teacher, prophet, etc but not as in any way the Messiah. Is that describing a Jew? I mean they may not really be part of a Jewish synagogue or consider themselves Jewish but that's the difference no? Btw, I think that that pretty much captured my views (which have evolved) a few years ago. > Do you think this is the open balanced middle? I'd definitely say it is balanced. But is it the true middle? There must be thousands of non-fundamentalists going to church or not going who don't think that non-Christians are going to hell. But who don't really have any specific thought as to what happens, who is saved. Maybe they feel that "good people" go to heaven regardless of faith and "bad people" go to hell. I think that's the middle really. For example, at least in this country, I don't think the average Catholic believes that all the "nonbelievers" (even good nonbelievers) go to hell. What's that no.? I don't know if Progressives are more liberal than liberals or are not as liberal as liberals, but I do think that liberal (or should we say blue states -- gosh I hate that!!!) is over used and almost meaningless (as is conservative these days). Just my 2.3¢ --des

>I 'think', and this is just a guess on my part, but I think Ellen may have damagaed feelings from her days being raised CS..and if so she should exchanged thoughts with Robin Williams. For one thing Robin Williams is great and at seeing the humor in things and maybe this could help both of them with their ultra fundie CS burned backgrounds. I think CS is kind of a damaging religion in many ways. It's good to be able to see the lunacy in it. But the whole idea that you are perfect means that a lot of your experience isn't valided. If you are sick, you aren't really sick. If you get picked on by other kids that's not really happening. Clearly being sick or picked on are never good things but at least in normal families you have your parents on your side saying it's a bad thing. In CS you don't, you are kind of left on your own as a young child. So that's why I think it can be damaging in a psychological way. From the sounds of it, Ellen, Robin and I shared a more Fundamentalist CS background. I know there are some CS who don't take everything quite as seriously. My dad esp was VERY devout. >Yeah, I agree but since all these groups are equally fundamental they all get really p-ssed off when you tell them this. yes, and they are quite sure they are totally right. Have a market on truth and no body else has any. Quite like Christian Fundamentalists in that respect. >True. They site Scriptures where God said not to eat meat with blood in it. They believe that traits of of a person's soul or even an animal's in in the blood. They also quote medical health reasons like Hep B and C and AIDS. I never made the Scriptural connection..but the Hep B and C and AIDS part has been medically verified. It's interesting but CS always talk about the medical disasters (and there are lots of them). But they don't acknowledge anything in their own positions. I see that here as well. How many more people lived due to blood transfusions than died. Prob. quite a lot more. > I believe in the Web of Life concept that humans and animals and nature are all one big family and that God's Holy Sprit can be felt most strongly in nature..but the idea of God being an impersonal force that lives in the center of the earth is too abstract for me....Though I CAN understand God's Holy Spirit dwelling on and through the earth and the cosmos..If that makes any sense... Yes, it makes sense. I also wouldn't place it specifically in some place like the center of the Earth. --des

Interesting stuff here. I liked the comments on myth vs "literal reality". In UCC.Org I discussed the idea that something could be allegorical and actually truer than something that was actual factual data. Haha, I found there are LOTS of fundies there.... Jesus spoke in parables. Why did he do that? IMO, he was giving more vivid pictures therefore making what he said "realer", he was story telling which is an art (and art is more true sometimes than life), and he was giving examples that people would remember and learn from. (If I were to guess which things Jesus actually said vs thoe things that were ascribed to him I would guess, the Sermon on the Mount (very visual, lots of colorful contrasts and parallel structure to boot) and the parables. Some stories in the OT actually make almost no sense on a literal level but on an allergorical level are more powerful. Joseph Campbell in the "Power of Myth" talks about modern myths in our culture (lots of similar elements virgin birth and resurrection... makes you wonder) but also of Star Wars and the planet Earth photo shot in outer space. Is that mythology of the earth from space a fairy tale? I would contend NOT. But the reality of the Earth without political boundaries is not exactly day to day "reality" either. Also I see Jesus as our saviour for our times and our culture. Have you all seen the "Savior of the Klingons" or "Savior of the ETs"? Basically it is the idea of some other very alien culture like the Klingons or some gray dudes with no ears and big eyes, well who comes to them as God? Well in some ways we have folks that live in very different societies than us. The Asians or Native Americans have very social communal sort of societies. So does Jesus of Nazareth represent the same values to them as they do to us? Although I did study Buddhism briefly, think it has a lot to teach us, I also think it is well, more alien. (Although as the world gets smaller, who knows?) Also our world is changing. I see there are sins, if you want to use that word, that there weren't back 2000 years ago. Sure there was fornicating, and don't those fundies love that one?? But there is now the possibility of killing off everyone on earth or the threat of global pollution, which the fundies talk about not at all. Maybe some day the whole idea of some guy in Nazareth 10,000 years ago (if we manage to get that far??) will seem not relevant anymore. I am open to that possibility, but I don't exactly need to concern myself with it. :-) Not sure if I think that Jesus is everyone's savior whether they know it or not. But I believe in cultural relevancy or something like that. That Jesus was for our time and our lives or something like that. And that Buddha was for some other persons times and lives. And maybe the "Four headed Thing" is for someone else's times and lives. And so forth. I'm not sure if I expressed this too well. I'm not exactly sure what salvation is, as I don't believe in a literal place like heaven or hell. I suppose salvation is finding the kingdom of God within you and others. I don't believe you need Jesus per se. But you need something greater than yourself. BTW, I think it is no doubt harder to be a Progressive Christian than a Fundamentalist. You have to decide a LOT of things.... --des

>We sound like we believe the same things. Cool. One nice thing about this board vs UCC board. You don't have to defend your beliefs. I think you get deeper discussion. When all you do is debate discussions become arguments and everyone is a bit defensive. >Exactly! But isn't it funny how many Christian sects teach that, until they ate of the tree, the didn't have the knowlege of "good and evil". Yeah, it doesn't make sense. God tells you "no, don't touch that tree". And then they go out and eat from it, disobeying a direct order from God. If they didn't have free will how could they disobey anything? And if they didn't know evil how could they disobey God? I find all sorts of silly things in that story on the literal level, on an allegorical level though something else. I don't know how these literalists make any sense of the Bible at all! My sister has some interesting comments though. I asked her (she's very wealthy, unlike me) what about Jesus saying "give all you have to the poor". Oh no, that's just meant for one guy, that isnt' meant for everybody. Well then why are the say the letters of Paul meant for everybody, weren't they written for a specific group at a specific time? Oh no, these apply. And they say they don't interpret! >Some groups teach that they had free will first (like my old church), but many teach that it was the act of eating that GAVE them the free will to do evil. LOL. So ok they only had free will to do good. How is that free will? And if God says "don't do it" it was ok to do it? Hey I'm not one to do everything everyone tells me to but still... :-) --des

Thanks for the tip. No, I didn't mean to do this all that quoting within quoting. Yikes. Interesting comments. >Yesterday I was watching the Ellen when she commented that she was raised Christian Science and in so many words she was it understood that that she did not care for it. I think it would be interesting to here some more views from her on this..because I have always felt a commom ground between the fundamentalism between Christian Science, JW, LDS and Fundamental Protestants. Yes, Ellen D. and a no. of other celebs (Robin Williams, Alan Shepherd, etc.) among them have CS in their backgrounds. It used to be quite respectable and it is even mentioned as "toney" and "better" (in class) than Episcipals according to NASA in "The Right Stuff" (book not movie). Robin Williams says his mother was a Christian Dior Scientist. :-) He captures the quintissential CS idea that material things are to be sought after, even as you deny them. I think there are some correlations between CS (JW, LDS, and Fundies). Some of them relate to the whole world view being that faith. You can't have a normal conversation with a Fundamentalist or a CS (I know the others less well). Everything gets filtered thru the lens of that religion which has it's own terminology. IMO, CS is the worse because it could actually kill you. (Though isn't JW where you don't have blood transfusions?) As for the definition of Panentheism vs Pantheism, thanks. I think I wasn't really thinking about that difference. Panentheism is God is IN everything COMMA. Pantheism is God IS everything PERIOD. (God is not listening? :-)) >To say that God is "personal" doesn't mean that God is an individual looking over our shoulders. Too often, "personal" is equated with "individual" in our highly individualistic world. This is where it gets taken to extremes. God is not just looking over your shoulder but involved in the most mundane and silly aspects of your life. He's (it's always HE) is telling you the most mundane things you can imagine. Unfortunately God used to forget to tell my sister say to be nice to me. Then lately He has changed His mind. > In fact, in the trinitarian formulation, the idea of three"persons" is meant to mean three distincts ways of existing. (Have I mentioned this on this board somewhere else? Oh well, here it is again...) Haha, well I haven't read everything on the board so I luck out. :-) The "persons" thing gets a bit overdone, however, in my church they say "Creator, Christ and Spirit" more so than anything else. The only person in the mix was Jesus. But Christ is a title, no? >they'd keep it down in there ). Instead, it seems better to emphasize that to be a "person" is to be relational. To be in relationship means to be affecting and affected, a fully participatory existence. Wow! That's like heavy man! (as they used to say). :-) --des

No, that was an ad for some alert system for seniors. Wendy's had "where is the beef"? --des >On a lighter note, anyone remember the commercial from the 1980's where an old woman falls to the floor and yells: "Help! I've fallen and I can't get up!" Was it an ad for Wendy's?

Someone said that they wanted to discuss this subject. Sounds good. Did God send the Tsunami? Did God want the Tsunami? etc. Here are my thoughts: The Earth as it is always in creation mode. So in a sense, God "sent" the Tsunami", but only in the sense that the universe is always being created and creation is a messy and at times violent thing. If it weren't-- no tectonic plates, no earthquakes, no nothing-- we would be on a dead planet devoid of life. So God "wanted" the Tsunami but only in that sense. Because we are on a planet filled with life in all it's diversity. Unfortunately, we live where God lives (would make a good commercial or what?! Hey UCC! :-)) and a lot more of us are living there. Maybe a few million years ago there were more quakes, and there were quakes a hundred years ago. But vast nos. of people weren't living there. In fact , the destruction of parts of the Earth may make in more destructive than it had to be. If you clear cut forests, more beach gets exposed. If you tear down coral reefs there isn't as much protection. The other thing is that the first world *could* have saved lives, and chose not to. They could have built early warning systems, like Hawaii and Japan have. But they/ we didn't care enough (of course, nothing like hindsight too). This is the loosely interpreted social gospel that Jesus spoke. That we care for the poor, and this is the way we care for him. Maybe we should be funding family planning so that there aren't so many people living in some places that they shouldn't be. And we are spending our resources on war instead of fighting poverty in the world. etc etc etc. Then there is the response of people, and we see people helping each other regardless, and that's part of God as well. I have heard that these events bring out the best in people. I doubt God is bringing them on for that reason, but still s/he would want the best out of people. But I think in some ways it is bringing out some not such good things, like the US saying "we are being so generous" look at us while some smaller countries have actually sent in more aid but aren't being so vocal about it. We live where God lives. :-) comments. --des

Original sin. What a pain in the butt concept. (Thank you Paul.) The words "original sin" don't exist in the Bible or in Jewish writings. A quote from Ben Zion Bokser that I like is: "The story of the fall of Adam expresses in allegorical form the constant necessity that man be vigilant against temptation." Jewish ethics requires the idea that humans decide for themselves how to act. This is so because temptation, and with it the possibility of sin, allows people to choose good and thus have moral merit. "Eve" was tempted and succumbed. "Adam" was tempted and succumbed. "Eating" of the tree did not make them mortal. "Eating" of the tree did not give them free will. They were already mortal and already had free will. And they certainly did NOT pass on sin and death to their descendants. There are so many layers to the Genesis story. It's fascinating. An even deeper layer is Esoteric Judaism (and Christianity), but we won't go into that here. I definitely agree that the concept of original sin is anthropocentric and it seems to have started with Paul. Don't get me wrong, Paul had some beautiful thoughts about God. I truly appreciate his (and Luther's) view of faith as opposed to works to gain "salvation". BUT (and it's a BIG but), if he hadn't proposed "original sin" in the first place, we wouldn't have to worry about being "saved" by faith instead of works. LOL! I'm reading "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" again. Have you read it? There's this planet with WAY advanced technology that makes planets for people who want a custom planet to live on. Turns out, they made the planet earth. Recently, our current planet earth is destroyed by a group of intergallactic real estate developers. So this advanced race decides to make a new one. (I am skipping a lot of detail here.) The reader walks in on the planet being made, pretty much as the makers are burying fake dinosaur bones. You get the impression they are doing so mostly to mess with the future human inhabitants. Maybe you could tell your sister about this theory and see what she thinks of it? Here's a quote I found that sums it up: I agree, if by sin we mean we sometimes do bad things to each other and to this planet. But, now that I think about it, I really hate the word "sin" because of all the baggage that has come to be associated with the term. Sin to establish independence from God is definitely found in esoteric Jewish and Christian thought (especially Gnosticism). I find it intriguing, but a little TOO hidden. First we have to define what acts or lack of acts are considered sinful. If someone believes (perhaps like your sister), that BREATHING is a sinful act than yes, we all sin. But like I said above, that is "original sin", which I reject. If you follow the STRICT Jewish definition of sin, then wearing cloth of mixed fibers is a sin, because disobeying any law in the Torah is a sin. All humans "sin". Even if it is something as simple as yelling at someone who didn't deserve to be yelled at. But much of what is defined by religion as "sin", isn't sinful, imo. I guess that's why I don't much care for the term. As I mentioned in the other thread, I believe that the very nature of reality is "libertarian free will" (or radical free will). I don't believe we have an inherrant sinful nature. I do believe we have choices. I don't think Jesus was born to atone for original sin. I don't believe in substitutionary sacrifice. I don't believe God would require such an act. It's sick, imo. It was brought up in another thread that Jesus wasn't sent or asked to atone for mankind. But maybe, once he was here, he volunteered? I haven't explored that idea much. To me, it begs the question: What did he volunteer to fix? Original sin? I reject that. Karma? My jury is still out on Karma. I believe Jesus was a mystic, a healer, a teacher and a social prophet. I do believe following "the way" that Jesus taught can lead us to a life fully immersed in God. I think Christianity is more about a "Way" than about dogma or belief. Aletheia Thanks are in order to St. Paul and St. Augustine for, well, screwing things up. I'm not sure but wasn't St. Augustine responsible for setting Mary Magdeline up as The Sinner? I don't think the term "fall" is in the Bible nor is sin-nature. >"Eating" of the tree did not make them mortal. "Eating" of the tree did not give them free will. They were already mortal and already had free will. And they certainly did NOT pass on sin and death to their descendants. Eating the tree didn't give them free will because if it had they would not have been able to eat from it. A bolt of lightening would have come down. Or God would have grabbed them by their clavicles or fig leaves or something. I think they did not become mortal that way because they were made of dust and ribs, that's pretty mortal stuff. And sin, well if they disobeyed God then easily their children could have too. (In fact, their kids didn't turn out so well.) >I've met him ya know. Matt Fox. I attended a workshop that he did, here in Utah. Really nice man. I would love to go to one of the Techno Masses. They sound way cool. It's his way of trying to involve the youth in something that can open their hearts to God. It's his way of helping them to experience mysticism. I met him too, though at a conference with lots of other people. As for the Techno masses, well I'm not a youth anymore. He might of lost me, but I don't think he is all wrong for it. And yes, I have read "Hitchhiker's Guide". :-) As for Luther and Paul, the idea of saving by grace, nice idea, but then you have to have original sin. I agree with the idea of grace, but I guess I interpret that differently. Grace being a gift from God-- it's God's presence in our lives in real ways, vs something given to us by Jesus dying on the cross. >But, now that I think about it, I really hate the word "sin" because of all the baggage that has come to be associated with the term. Yes, I tend to avoid it. I was using it here for argument sake but I really think it comes with lots of baggage both as to what is concidered a sin if you are one of those fundies and the whole sin nature thing. Doing wrong is ok (well I mean the term!), doing evil (except if they get into all that exocerism stuff), etc. I definitely do not agree with Leviticus on sin or that breathing is a sin(shudder). Just things like the following: we will all almost invariable lie (some of which might not be a sin), we aren't always good to each other as we should be, we are all at times hypocritical, etc. that sort of thing. And some of this is covered in the Bible and some is not. Now I think the catch comes, are we all so bad/sinful that Jesus would need to die on the cross for us? That's something I don't buy. I also have trouble believing my sister goes to heaven while the godless Dali lama burns in hell. I don't believe in hell as an actual location either. >I don't think Jesus was born to atone for original sin. I don't believe in substitutionary sacrifice. I don't believe God would require such an act. It's sick, imo. Yes, when Jesus died "for the sins of the world", I have always interpreted that to mean that he got the establishment so p**** that they murdered him. I have never felt that meant original sin. The establishment was pretty much the world or the world they knew of anyway. >Was Jesus just a man? Was he divine? An avatar? I haven't decided yet. Definitely an avatar :-) I also think that fundamentalist faith puts all cards in the crucifixation box. Jesus might have said the things he did, but they weren't as important as his life or teachings. I put it in reverse order. Jesus died BECAUSE of his life and teachings. He was a threat.. --des

Hi Jen. I've posted over there a few times under this same name. I'm still interested in getting to know more of the people there, but I'm a little tired that the only topic appears to be homosexuality. I have no problem with anyone's being gay. It's just that, once in a while, I'd like to see some theological or metaphysical discussions going on. So I come back here. The people here are great, but the board is WAY TOO QUIET! Wake up people and post! I hold the view, like Judaism, that humans were not born into "original sin". I think we were born with a radical free moral will to do good and a radical free moral will to do evil. By "evil" I mean the opposite of any action or lack of action. I know this opens up a whole "Well, then what did Jesus come for" can of worms. Marcus Borg's "The Heart of Christianity" has very good answers. So do many other progressive Christian thinkers. Good for you! It took me a long time to say: "I can't swallow this anymore. I'm outta here!" A discussion I've longed to have on this board: Which is the greater good? To have complete free will? Or to have the possibility of evil removed? I've hinted at this question in other posts, but no one seems to be biting. Having free will means more than my being able to choose to murder someone. It also means I can choose to walk out my front door in the morning and get into my car to go to the store. The "butterfly effect" that this simple action sets into motion is STUPENDOUS. Having the possibility of "evil" or pain removed means more than God's stepping in to stop the Holocaust or a tsunami. Unless we want God to be a cosmic superhero that does pretty much nothing but interfere in every action that could bring harm to us or any other living creature, then God would have to set things up from the beginning so that "evil" could not happen (ie no free will). There would be no more death or disease or injuries or pain, but the possibility that I could get in my car and drive to the store (and possibly hit someone) would have to be removed as well. I guess God could make us immortal supermen (like Jehovah's Witnesses believe), but then would have to take away our abiblity to procreate because no one would ever die. It's been a somewhat popular topic around here lately though (at least with me). It's my understanding that Christian Science is a New Thought church (although no longer affiliated). That means the God you were raised with is Pantheistic. A pantheistic God is truly an impersonal God. I don't know how much New Thought churches truly explore the implications of pantheism though. Basically, from that perspective, there is NO YOU at all. You are God. God is basically having an existential crisis or a daydream. However, panENtheism is making an inroads into New Thought churches. From those members that I've talked to however, it's very slow going. The impersonal God of pantheism combined with the personal God of theism is basically where panentheism came from. Other names are "qualified monism" or "qualified non-dualism" or "Monistic Theism". It could go on and on I think. I'm a panentheist. I believe that God does know all the particulars of you. I don't think anything is beyond God's notice. But, I don't think God is particularly concerned with the things most people think s/he is. For example, I don't think God cares if you eat pork. I don't think God cares if you are in a same-sex relationship. I don't think God cares if you swear. Etc, etc ... Exactly. I do think God wants us to be kind to one another with all that entails and s/he hopes that we can learn to get along and to take care of this planet. But should s/he force us to do so? Would that be the greater kindness or good? I love that particular sense of humor so much that I have FIVE cats. See above. It's very nice to have you here. Please stick around! Aletheia Re: UCC board. Yes, well that was me des. I used my real name as they asked for that, so it is a different name. I HATE using my real name, this is the net where they archive things basically forever. Also things have gotten quite contentious, lots of anti-gay talk though that has very recently gotten a bit better-- and they limited to two discussions. Fundie UCCers. That really annoys me. Don't Fundies have enough churches? (Chuck Corrie--sp? blog talks about a fundie wing of the UCC which would like to "save" the UCC from itself, ie prob. most esp the Open and Affirming stuff). >I think we were born with a radical free moral will to do good and a radical free moral will to do evil. By "evil" I mean the opposite of any action or lack of action. I would go along with that as well. Yes, it complicates the why did Jesus come thing. But I think that our radical will to do evil needs work. :-) Part of the reason it didn't take me long to say I don't buy it, is somethings I never bought in the first place. Christian Science is so different, such a different view of God, that I had more of a hard time getting away from that. >Unless we want God to be a cosmic superhero that does pretty much nothing but interfere in every action that could bring harm to us or any other living creature, then God would have to set things up from the beginning so that "evil" could not happen (ie no free will). Yes that would be one annoying God alright. "You think you want to do that, think again, no wait, you really didn't think it did you." Without free will both for good and evil we would have no individuality accept whatever it was that God allowed, meaning you wouldn't have any. >It's been a somewhat popular topic around here lately though (at least with me). It's my understanding that Christian Science is a New Thought church (although no longer affiliated). That means the God you were raised with is Pantheistic. Well it's kind of that CS started New Thought. I think most of the founders of New Thoguht churches (Unity, various Divine Science, etc. etc. were ex-disgruntled and maybe ex-communicated CSists). This was all at a time of lots of "new thought", Mesmer, the Transendetalists, etc. I never saw the CS God as pantheistic, ie God is everything. But God is definitely everywhere. They teach you that in the numbingly boring CS Sunday Schools. For a really interesting read, "God's Perfect Child: Living and Dying in the Christian Science Church". Though it helps if you know a bit about it first. And God is definitely not any*thing*, more qualities that are anomolous, like Love. Everyone knows what Love is, but it is not like Love in the CS church. But maybe I'm confused on pantheistic. >I don't know how much New Thought churches truly explore the implications of pantheism though. Basically, from that perspective, there is NO YOU at all. You are God. God is basically having an existential crisis or a daydream. Well that's getting real close. You as you, are basically an illusion. There is some spirtual you that is real. Of course, you don't exactly know who that spiritual you is. It has no body (body is imperfect, a lie). It doesn't eat, or like to do things, etc. So you do exist at some level, but I always thought that it didn't mean anything. It's a hard concept to sink your teeth into, esp. since you have no teeth. :-) Fraser points out that there is a big philosophical problem when the focus is on healing. If your body doesn't exist, why is health really a better condition than illness? Yes, I'm familiar with the term panentheism, it basically I think mean God is IN everything vs God IS everything. Or that's what I think. It sounds like nitpicking but it is a big difference. God can't be everything as there is evil in the world. I think it is what I am most comfortable with. >But, I don't think God is particularly concerned with the things most people think s/he is. For example, I don't think God cares if you eat pork. I don't think God cares if you are in a same-sex relationship. I don't think God cares if you swear. Etc, etc ... I could go along with that. I think God knowing your particulars and not being concerned with them is and not knowing particulars, while not quite the same, sort of comes down to the same. But I would guess it says qualifiable differences about God. It says God knows everything vs God might not really know some things. I have two cats and a dog. I think God is having a very good time around here. Esp. when the cat tries to swim in my fish tank. :-) Sorry re: double posting but these were such different topics. --des

Thanks for the welcome! >This family member of yours who is all into Campus Crusade For Christ...does she inform you that because you have decided that you are a Progressive Christian Christian Rather than a Fundamental one..that you are an unsaved "cult"? Just curious. Oh my sister is MUCH more sophisticated than that! She is a skilled middle aged proselitizer (which makes me an unskilled sophisticated progressive Christian-- I really really like the 8 points btw). Anyway, she doesn't say anything negative in her proselitizing, she tries and takes your position and show it as limited, but she will sort of side with you as far as she can. I think she retains the cult status for something like Christian Science or JW. I may be (in her eyes) a cultish follower, but she is a better arguer than that. After you say you agree with several points that she says, then she says you ought to read _____, you'd really like him (which I doubt). She also asked me who I read, adn I evaded that as I ahve read folks like Matthew Fox and Spong. :-) --des

Ok, here's another topic from the vast conversation starters proposed by my fundie sister. She kept talking about well that's from the fall, or since the fall, or we are fallen so... Another term she used was "sin nature" almost like it was one word. I'm assuming the fall is represented in the Bible by the (IMO) allegorical story of Adam and Eve. And Eve (blame it on the woman!) takes of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. And wham! Matthew Fox, who I read most of the earlier stuff (I think he is now doing "rave masses" and has kind of lost me) talks about Original Blessing, etc. One of his comments is that original sin is anthropocentric and ignores several billion years of God's blessings. (Of course, he would be wrong by several billion years as fundies like my sister think the world is only a few thousand years old --wasn't God clever with that fossil record). Fox claims that most of thsi got started with St. Augistine. I'm afraid I'm not much of a biblical scholar but I don't see much talk of sin nature, fall, etc. coming from Jesus' supposed utterances (I still believe the Bible was written by people, yet another topic). Anyway, I have no problem saying we are all sinners (I am not really into that as my mantra), that we all fall short and so forth. I think it is just that we live in a society, in the world, and are surrounded by all sorts of forces that shape us and create dissonance between ourselves and God. I have actually read some of these fundies, who say that it is clear that even babies sin (I think they are thinking of age 2.) But I don't think of a two year old as really sinning. They say "no" a lot, they pull the cats tail, they have tantrums, but they don't really clearly know that what they are doing is wrong. It's more a function of establishing some independence. (Raises a question: Do we sin to establish independence from God? Alas I am giving myself a headache. :-)) And is this idea that we will inevidedably sin, different than saying we have a sin nature, or that we have "fallen". If God created us, he/she supposedly allowed us to be created with a inherent sinful nature, why the heck did God do that? Of course it nicely justifies Jesus' necessity, but I still don't like the idea that the Awesome God creates a Nasty Populous. Your thoughts? --des

Hi, I'm new here. Have been posting over at UCC.org but I'm afraid there are a LOT more fundie UCCers than I ever thought possible. I had the good fun of being with my born again Campus Crusade for Christ sister for a week. Whew, a breath of fresh air over here!! Anyway have given this personal God thing a lot of thought (both before and aft). My sister is quite literal about this. God knows everything, God has personal conversations that are quite specific, God answers prayers in specific ways, and God finds your parking space (not sure how this all works into the dying on the cross to save you from sin...). I guess it is nice as it is all quite well mapped out without any kinds of nuances. But I don't buy all that. If God finds you a parking space right up close, this might be convenient but isn't this not so good for your physically? (and so on) (And of course the whole thing with the Tsunami is a bit troubling-- if God knows everything why did He-- as they say-- allow it; and if He let it happen then why since He is omnipotent. That's pretty mean, no? Or since they are mostly Muslims and so on, is it ok for God, since God is a Christian God--- YIKES.) OTOH, I am a bit bothered by the God that I was raised on as a child from a good Christian Scientist (it's neither ,but then that's a whole other topic)... The God of Life, Truth, Love. The God of Love that loves you but doesn't know you in any sense personally so that Love is just a quality. Love is some kind of metaphysical reality that really makes no sense, imo, as it doesn't ahve anything to do with your experience. So I've come to some nuanced thoughts: God is both personal and not personal. God loves and knows me in an individual way, as a person, but doesn't know all particulars. God doesn't know (and/or doesn't care) that I like Star Trek, Harry Potter, dogs, etc. etc. God doesn't know or care that I am good in art but poor in math. Those sorts of things are beneath God as God. I would guess that God wants us to be well for lack of a better term "inline"-- whatever gifts you have you use for God. Of parking spots, God knows nothing. I would guess He/She is ticked off at the way we are treating creation (the Earth), the poor, etc. because it's out of line with God-- but as to the specifics like acid rain and welfare reform, it isn't God's thing. Jesus said "render on to Ceasar", I'm guessing this has more to do than coins (and wouldn't be just Roman coins.) This seems unimaginably complex and nuanced. But I do feel God gave us intelligence, imagination and so forth, to think about things, to question things, etc. I also feel God has shown a sense of humor. God created cats for example. :-) Any comments? --des