romansh

Is man part of nature; is so is there anything he can do that is unnatural? comment: I have started this thread in the past on other fora and it can be quite divisive, So be forwarned. For the record my position is yes and no.

It's not just progressive Christianity. It ought to be all of us, gaining a deeper understanding and awareness of our thoughts and the underlying causes. These causes are there and we are for the most part oblivious to them. In my opion of course

There is a huge genetic component I suspect, I can suggest Robert Wright's The Moral Animal (and The Evolution of God). Having said that there is societal aspect that can overwrite to some degree our primitive programming. This is why I don't think morality whether for fiscal, sexual, etc responsibility should be our touchstone for behaviour. At the end of the day, morality is both genetic (evolutionary) and societal imprinting. This is where our disgust etc comes from. So our intuitive morality has been a useful guide in the develoment of the human race, I would argue there are better tools today. In the Bible there are numerous appeals to casting aside this emotive type of judgement. Admittedly this is difficult. I agree, but the pace of the evolution of human progress and society have far out paced the tools that billions of years of evolution have endowed us with.

How does one celebrate this civil non-marriage union? Sounds pretty non spiritual to me. I think executives have more fun signing a legal contract.

No I'm not arguing that morality is relative. I'm suggesting there may be better tools for dealing with thorny issues than morality. End of the day morality is just a gut feel to what is right and wrong. At least from my perspective.

This is sort of my point - why through the lens of morality? If I were to be in this line of thought, I would aspire my daughter to be a successful prostitute rather than an unsuccessful hooker. That I would not aspire my child to be a garbage collector (dustman) is also neither here no there. We are conditioned from early childhood to what is proper and what is not.

Why does morality keep shifting? Why even look at it through the eyes of morality? For some eating burgers is morally reprehensible, ergo cooking them has to be up there aswell at least for those that think eating meat is immoral.

So if were married in municipal registery office I would not be married? We will have to create a new verb here. Does marriage belong to people or to religious, private or state organizations? But I agree, if an organization does not want to marry my sort, then fair enough. Of course this is a bit more problematic if it is a governmental group that is disenfranchising me.

I think I understand what you are saying here, but I would say necessary rather than useful. I suspect it is the only way we can communicate. I think this quote by George EB Box is insightful. Three questions come to mind: 1) if the is and is not model is wrong what is a more accurate model. 2) what is wrong with the more accurate/useful model. And finally: 3) what is wrong with Box's model that All models are wrong, but some are useful I could chase my tail here for a long time.

The way I look at it is - I have a pretty clear vision of what god is not, but I'm far from sure what god is. Then perhaps I'mtrying to parse into is and is not? Ahh purpose, there's another quandry.

Thanks for the welcome Joseph and Paul. In some ways I agree with you here Joseph, but semantics are important. What would happen if I were to suggest someone who is a follower of Spong is not a Christian. I suspect I would be put on the mat pretty sharpish and quite logically so (from my perspective). Just try calling me an atheist and see what happens . On the otherside: Imagine the word tree. For me it conjures up some non-descript deciduous thing. But do I include insects, birds animals in my thought? Do I include rain, air, rays of sun? Do I strip the soil, moisture and nutrients from the tree; what about lichen mosses and other flora? Where does a tree stop and the rest of the universe begin? This is what a label does, not always well, but it splits things into is and is not.

Paul I can't specifically speak to the way. But it all boils down to parsing (for me) the historical Jesus, the mythical Christ and the interpretation(s) thereof. I started down that path and Weyler's book The Jesus Sayings I found a great resource. Whether it is an accurate reflection is another matter. Anyway his punch line can be summed up here. It is (I think) a beautiful little poem based on what were, for Weyler, Jesus's historical words.I have to admit I was enamoured (and I suppose I still am) with these thoughts. So far so good. But I was then asked why parse the words of the historical Jesus and the mythical Christ. Cannot there be insights into the cosmos and the human condition in history and myth? Is that not what we are looking for?

I can't speak to the influences of your latter three and their consequences. In some sense it could be said they have not taken hold. But to Lucas's Star Wars it was definitely influenced by the works of Joseph Campbell - eg Hero with a thousand faces. And the myth of Star Wars is being concretized as we deliberate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jediism

And The Moral Animal, the book put evolutionary psychology to the forefront.

In a previous life I was a star. Today I'm stardust.

Does not art (at least good art) express a profound psychological truth? I'm not referring to Dan Brown's latest thriller.

And what is myth, but an art?

I have to admit I have done very little research on this topic for a few reasons, but my take on this subject is Jesus was real, but Christ the myth has built up around him. Now that may have sounded derogatory, it certainly was not meant that way. Because in some sense myth should be held in higher esteem than history. I'm not sure I have explained myself well, but I'm happy to elaborate if required.

Paul I got stuck on the second page - none of the answers fit me. So I suppose I'm not going to get reincarnated. I understand this is supposed to be a bit of fun but it does propagate a particular aspect of Buddhism and it reminded me of an essay by Stephen Batchelor, where he says: from

Two books of this ilk I can recommend The Case for God by Karen Arnstrong and she has a nice TED talk aswell and The Jesus Sayings by Rex Weyler I enjoyed both books, though I did not agree completely with Armstrong

Hi from a kindred spirit (agnostic in this incarnation)

Joseph kindly asked that I introduce myself. So here goes. Hi I am what can be considered an agnostic, and I suppose by some definitions an atheist. But that is a semantic battle I have little interest at the moment. I am a moderator and administrator of a little known agnostic forum. It's motto is A forum for people of all persuasions. So if anyone is interested to see the dark side - they are more than welcome, I have been thinking about Spong's works and wanted to find out more and his website pointed me here. I don't know for how long I will stay as our little agnostic forum can be a black hole for time. Anyway I posted a link to a Spong video and I got the expected reponse from our resident fundamental Christian - that Spong is not a Christian. If any one would like a peek, here is the thread. Anyway I will trawl though Spong forum to get alternative points of view. My apologies if I have broken some cardinal sin in linking to another site. My influences in life - the universe (I tend to be monistic in outlook). But from a pluralistic point of view my wife, my late son James, my family and a pretty good science education (despite the material the pedagogues had to work with) have been huge influences on me. Two authors that have shaped me Douglas Adams and Joseph Campbell. I have never been terribly Christian, my peak would have been when I was confirmed as a skeptical 17 year old (Lutheran). I could never get the hang of the literal bits one requires to be a traditional Christian. Enough about me. Have fun rom

I think we need to take a slightly longer term view and maybe a broader perspective and I accept particular minorities may at times experience a reversal in acceptance. But the overall trend is for the better.

Meister Eckhart wrote: If the only prayer you ever say in your entire life is thank you, it will be enough. Of course he might have been wrong. rom

Hi Rob Speaking as a devout agnostic, I don't quite see it the same way as you. I like Joseph Cambell's interpretation of the Garden of Eden Story - Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for gaining a knowledge of good and evil. So to get back into the Garden of Eden (metaphorically speaking) we have to give up thinking in dualities: ie no more Jesus/Judas, God/Satan. Ditto for man and God. This is what was meant when Christ said "I and my Father are one". We too should endeavour to be Christlike. Be one with God and not merely have the holy spirit in us.