romansh

Exactly … 5 million votes effectively were ignored. This is true elsewhere too. Even in Canada, rural votes carry more "weight". But a select few do not ultimately decide what the will of the people will be from an electoral procedure point of view. But that does not excuse President Trump, Republicans and Trump's supporters for ignoring the other 70 odd percent of the population.

I must admit, I philosophically disagree with this. I would word it: "Life is 100 % what happens to us and how we react to it." - rom Separating cause from effect

A couple of quotes from Sean Carroll J.R.R. Tolkien knew what he was doing. The secret to getting many things done is to think of each one of them as a procrastination strategy for avoiding the others. and The world is not magic — and that’s the most magical thing about it. plus a bonus We are part of the universe that has developed a remarkable ability: We can hold an image of the world in our minds. We are matter contemplating itself.

It's not an alternate version it is a version that I was asked to post. Which of the points were inappropriate for a Progressive Christian?

I get it too Paul. But I preferred the previous version. To be fair the latest version is still 'better' than the old version that haunts the forum home page. Not being a Progressive Christian I don't mind too. The previous step was a step to far apparently. Which of the three versions do you prefer? The other thing is if the differences I pointed out are nit picking then why may the changes? ( A question for Joseph)

Pelosi reached out her hand. Are Trump supporters turning the tradition argument on and off at will. The American people did not vote him … the Electoral college did. Trump (and his supporters) should remember he represents not just his base, but the vast majority of people who did not vote for him too. Over 74% of the population did not vote for him (note over 73% of the population did not vote for Hillary either). Some humility would be in order. Pelosi tried to be the bigger man, but sadly failed. Trump shows no respect, to people or the institution. And just compare Trump's tweets about Pelosi to hers about Trump … if you want to play the hate game.

Done in this very thread I agree it is nit picking … the nits moved in the wrong direction though.

This point moves teachings to teacher … going back to a more literal stance. And it reintroduces "God", whatever that is. The subject of the sentence is community of ALL people. This is simply shoddy prose. Have you taken your vow Joseph? I did not have a problem with this either … but taking a vow … the whole thing to me starts to read like more like dogma. Fine … the only change was work for strive. Not a major problem here either. "Protect all of creation" really? Does the universe need protecting? Meaningful faith? Believe in stuff meaningfully without evidence … How is this new version better than the original? "Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love" I get a sense that the previous version had become to secular and there has been a pushback from more conservative Progressive Christians.

Yes Trump's behavior brought Nancy down to his level. She would not have torn up his speech if Trump had shown respect and shook hands. The BBC is biased? Apparently what Trump supporters don't seem to recognize is that he also represents the majority that did not vote for him. His supporters seem to be loving that he ignores their wishes. You are right he does not care.

The BBC's fact checking on last night's SotU https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51381015 While Trump is not lying by commission, he is at least being disingenuous by omission. The BBC report draws similar conclusions to what I did here back in September. Not terribly surprising for the most part we were using the same US Government data. Well I suppose I am not surprised people are indifferent to the actual data and sooner go with what they are told that agrees with their preconceived bias. Not sure what to make of the [lack of] exchange between Nancy and Donald at the end.

Nice but based on the intro irrelevant to Dykstra's point. As you know as you have already read his article.

Being explicit?

Point 1 Believe that following the path of the teacher Jesus can lead to healing and wholeness, a mystical connection to “God,” as well as an awareness and experience of not only the Sacred, but the Oneness and Unity of all life; This has gone backwards for me. Point 2 Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience “God,” the Sacredness, Oneness and Unity of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom, including Earth, in our spiritual journey; This too has gone backwards for me Point 3 Seek and create community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to: All creatures and plant life; .... really creatures and plant life are now part of ALL people? Point 4 Know that the way we behave towards one another and Earth is the fullest expression of what we believe, therefore we vow to walk as Jesus might have walked in this world with radical compassion, inclusion, and bravery to confront and positively change the injustices we experience as well as those we see others experiencing; This I find poorly thought out. And as an aside ... Trump! Point 5 Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning with an open mind and open heart, than in absolutes or dogma; Similar to the original But I find it ironic that this version seems to have more dogma Point 6 Work toward peace and justice among all people and all life on Earth; For me changing Strive for Work is cosmetic, no significant change Point 7 Protect and restore the integrity of our Earth and all of Creation; Removed the infinitival clause strive ... fair enough So we are going protect and restore the Kuiper Belt? Point 8 Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love on this journey toward a personally authentic and meaningful faith. On this journey toward a personally authentic and meaningful faith? Would not a meaningful understanding be better than faith? I'm sorry the changes for me are walking away from understanding. It is as though the conservative sophomores got hold of the principles. I understand I shouldn't, but I can't help feeling disappointed for Progressive Christianity.

Thanks for the updated version of the PC principles on the other thread I mentioned earlier in this thread that I found this problematic: It is problematic for me for two reasons … self described agnostics could very well be believers … eg Mark Vernon and Salvador Dali. So in this sense agnostic is not really a useful example. In fact many PCs here take on an agnostic stance to existence. More importantly (I think) atheists should be included. Now I understand PC may not want to include atheists so openly, but perhaps the term non-believers could be used instead. It is encouraging that guidelines and principles get updated and revised periodically. So I don't know if you agree with me and if you hold any sway with those drafting what PC is, but it would be encouraging if non-believers were explicitly included in the ALL.

...

It is you who brought up the title and attribution.

But the thread owner can actually change the title … but in this case you may have to ask Joseph … actually as the owner you may have the authority and capability to change it regardless. This will depend on the set up of the forum. Normally thread owners can correct a typo etc in thread titles. But you still have my vote

Ahh … But you started the interrogation, so you have my vote You also undermine your position by implying you want to change the title of the thread. 🙄

Yes I agree … it is unusual for a Dominican priest at the end of his career come to the conclusion that Jesus of the Bible did not exist. Oh well, perhaps Paul will look at Dykstra's commentary and see something other than Brodie ...........another mythicist

You may well be right Thormas … Ehrman may well be certain of Jesus's historicity. Dykstra here then points out we better be clear on what we mean by Jesus exists. I only skimmed through the essay but I thought it made for interesting reading. Either way it should be how we interpret the myth of Jesus regardless of the historicity of the myth that logically should be important to PCs.

Ehrman in Did Jesus Exist? describes himself as an agnostic. Also if I remember correctly he said somewhere he was 90% certain that Jesus existed. How he arrives at that certainty is a bit beyond me. But in light of the discussion going on the other forum, for me it exemplifies for we what are the negative points of religion. eg

I always find Political Compass an interesting site. Not that I take everything in it, hook line and sinker. https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020 Logically I should vote for Hawkins as he/she is closest to my typical score of -4.5, -4.5. But of course that would be a waste of a vote if I had one. Gabbard and Sanders would be my nest two logical choices, if I did take the survey seriously. And then followed by Warren, Steyer and Yang. Note the right here refers to being fiscally conservative and not social conservative. In my experience people seem to be a lot more liberal than who they vote for.

Interestingly I try to get my news from the BBC which has a centrist rating As does the Economist (which I no longer read except at waiting rooms of doctors and dentists). The readership/viewership of the CNN appears to be more conservative than say the BBC and The Economist. But I should point out the chart is not the bias of news vendors themselves, but that of the audience.

I don't know Joseph, but she and Trump appear to go back awhile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_White#Donald_Trump_Administration