matteoam

All I can say about the gentleman you spoke to who condoned stoning is he needs to do is read the words of Christ. That legalism was done away with by Jesus. If you buy into that.

And it is my understanding that in later editions of the Origins of Species he addressed the controversey created about his theory and God.

I understand Romansh. Evolution makes Gods work all the more miraculous though I understand that some might not share the notion that an agent is involved.

If he's committed to listening to his pastor then he should make his children understand. Though gift giving is kind of what it's all about at Xmas as it seems that if you buy into the incarnation that was the ultimate gift. But I have no idea what you should tell him as I don't know you or him. Discernment is something that can only be done when you are committing yourself in someone's life. It's not about giving an opinion or giving some your advice. It's a complicated situation.

Paul Exactly.

There is something disingenuous about what want to hear from people but are unwilling to accept what is given as an opinion. I think everyone in this conversation speaks in their own words according to their understanding of molecular and evolutionary biology. Including yourself. I am not knowledgeable about these sciences. All I think I know is the God is the source of all creation. But I also think that the notion of what or who God is differs. Even those here who present a more atheistic view are as correct in their understanding of the process of evolution. I think what you want to do here is present a dialectic in which you come to the table already presuming that if you are an atheist or if your theology differs from anyone's them you are right and they are wrong and you seem to want to convince us of our errors. That's fine. Whatever. Maybe you need to study evolutionary vilify and molecular biology to see what these sciences say about cell growth. Maybe you should also study paleantology and physics without judgment that what some experts in these fields think theologically. If you expect an answer without any reference to outside doyrces then that is impossible. You cannot express an opinion without knowledge from another source. In your case it will be the Bible. So are you willing to not refer to scripture to explain science? That's absurd. One has nothing to do with the other. I can't explain the phenomena of cell growth. Are you willing to listen to a person more knowledgeable in that field without critical judgement of them if they don't say well its God?

Well I believe in intelligent design but to call God a "body" an "agent" an " intelligence" is to idolize God. Even calling God a god is diminishing God because it evokes images which are graven. Any language is inadequate to even discuss attributes. That being said this uses evolution as Its tool. It is ksomething to be known as itmanifests through us and to the extent that we are conscious of it. Even then we fail to truly realize it. It manifests in and through and as all things. It is not something science can or should attempt to prove. That bring said as Steve says it may not even be necessary to posit it at all.

As opposed to the abracadabra that a literal reading of the creation stories show? I don't expect those who wrote the creation stories to know science and I don't presume to expect God to expect them to. If you accept that God reveals truth to humanity why wouldn't you think that God did this through Darwin and down the line of evolution despite some people not believing? That to me limits God. Who are any of us to question how God does anything? I take every aspect of the natural world as proof of God. That means diversity. That means natural selection. That means process over time which we are restricted by. Fundamentalism (theological or secular) makes presumption and presuppositions about God that have no basis in truth. I for one presume nothing about God and expect nothing other than His enduring grace and mercy. Everything else is window dressing. I try to be a good skeptic and consider all possibilities and try to not judge. In that I can only have faith.

I am not a evolutionary biologist but this seems to be a very superficial understanding of the process that you think they have about the process.

1. Okay well the idea of ex nihilio creation is contentious because the Hebrew of the Book of Genesis doesn't support that. 2., 3. And 4. you started out as a single cell being and then grew. What you think evolution is from the paragraph is illogical. That and anything is possible for God. 5. Evolution is not an agent as your paragraph suggests. It is a process. The reality is that no one knows how it works fully but there are enough clues in which a reasonable enough idea can be given. If any scientist can offer other theories then that can be tested and the theory will change. Darwin's initial theory was not new and is not orthodoxy from what I know. Like all science it is a stepping stone. I personally believe that the material universe was created by God in six days and it had been taking him billions of years to do it. He is still doing it by the way. And also believe that God really isn't a being so really isn't an agent. God is Being itself. If I'm wrong them well ... so what? I believe. It doesn't matter if its true or not. Belief and faith are more real in truth. Faith is all everyone had all the time.

I have never heard any scientist who thinks Darwin is God. I have heard people say Clapton is God given his influence in rock music. I don't know where this Darein/God association came from but it doesn't make sense. So if renewedfaith1964 can point to where this association is made pleas do so. I don't think Darwin would approve of being associated with God. He seemed somewhat modest about such matters. Also it is my understanding that Darwin addressed the controversey with creationists at the time to dispel the myth that he did not believe in God among other issues. He does place an agent - the Creator as being at the beginning of natural selection. Also he did not write The Origin of Species not call the The Origin of Life as a treatise attacking religion or belief in God. I am sure that will be contested. Why are people's belief in God threatened by evolutionary theory? This topic is passé to done extent. At least I think so. God about putting it aside and dealing with the real problems in this world, whether one believes in God or not.

I think there is a new fundamentalism in the US if you look at the influence of neo-Calvinists done of which are part of the "emergent church" mark Driscoll comes to mind. That and people have a tendency to retreat into conservativism in uncertain times. I really don't think PC has the spiritual grounding to maintain itself. Those who will pursue this path will but if and when things get worse in the society I font think PC has the legs to stand on. Even PC on the whole is far more liberal than many very liberal emergent Christian figures. For example Marcus Borg and Brian McLaren have many things in common theologically but Borg goes beyond the evangelical notion of Jesus. Both are relevant today but move parallel with one another. Is there any talk about the work of McLaren, Rob Bell, Tony Jones, Peter Rollins and other emergent Christians here?

Romansh It's my opinion that groking is essential to engage in dialogue with those whose beliefs differ than your own. Of course it's everyone's right not to grok. I know in many of my posts I seem critical of PC as it some (perhaps most perhaps not as many) seem unwilling to grok. Hey it's their right. It's been my experience that coming to know "the other" (in this case those Christians who have very very very different theological views from my own) then I don't seek to change or enlighten them with my own views. That would make me no different than how negatively I perceive them to be. I understand why the view of Hell of some Christians is held. These people are not moral monsteras. Some might be. They have a very solid rationale and sturdy foundation upon which to state their beliefs. You're free to disagree with that or not but it's a fact that their beliefs are reasonable to them. Whether they are wrong or not well for me I don't know. I only know what works for me - the greatest virtue a progressive christian can hold. What matters is will I consign these people to hell because I don't like them or disagree with them? By hell I mean demonizing them or not seeking to understand them. Should we want to imagine why people think differently than us? That doesn't mean what they believe is right. But we all have to get over this "we/them" mentality.

As a Roman Catholic growing up the notion if Hell was similar to how Bart Simpson thought of it - kind of cool because there were pirates in Hell. I kept being told it wasn't a good place to be.

I sometimes wonder about the notion of God's punishment and how we end up thinking about God. If of course you are inclined to personalize or anthropomorphise God. Having children has made me think more about it. When I have to discipline my child as they begin to become more conscious of themselves and begin to realize how much they can get away with they might form an image of me as overtly disciplinary. To them there is some fear as they realize the limits of their own actions. Even despite my assurance that I love them it is almost impossible to communicate why discipline is needed. I am not tslking corporal punishment here either. Raise this natural growth of consciousness with the need to right formation to the cosmic level along with some natural human tendency for dysfunction and no wonder the image if God can be seen as disciplinarian who will punish you for eternity. I can only wonder. Even the law of karma is somewhat worrisome as it implies that you are redponsible of the pain an suffering you may cause to yourself and to others and that amount of suffering and pain in indeterminable. Do we know anything about our past and future lives - if you buy into that. Even if you font thee is the acceptance that our actions, thoughts and intentions matter and no matter how good we think these are they might not be enough. Good intentions can go back very easily. No one knows if they can do good without doing harm. Never was a good act done without someone being harmed by it to some extent. That caild be a necessary harm, but harm nonetheless. Some Christians believe that Hell is not so much punishment as it is purification on a deep spiritual level.

I think its interesting that the concept of Hell is not restricted to Christianity and goes back to ancient Egypt. The idea of judgement makes me think not so much a place to consign those who don't agree with a worldview as the idea of karma. As if our actions are somehow affective to not just the materials forms but non-material forms. I don't buy into the Christian notion of hell that evved out out Jewish apocalypticism but am more wiling to accept the possibility that other dimensions of reality exist at other frequencies where other "beings" exist and that we are somehow linked to. Hell then can be a result of our actions and not seperateness from but still a part of, for lack of a better term, God. There is no anthropomorphic being but an essence or energy which is intelligent in some way as I think all material form is conscious.

My point is that I think the most conservative and fundamentalist Christian who takes the bible literally is as much a Christian as I am. I don't think they are delusional for their beliefs. I affirm I them despite how difficult it is to engage with them in a conversation and more importantly be part of the body of Christ with them. I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water when I question tradition as it applies to living in this world. I try to love those more who have harmed me. I affine he belief of atheists who have more of a problem with liberal or progressive Christians than they do with fundamentalism. What I love about Andy's post is his doubt and not believing the creed. Good for him! I don't either but I still show up for community.

I can read someone like Borg and agree and disagree (but mostly wonder what his point is). I can also read someone like Ravi Zacharias or John MacArthur and feel the same way.

As someone who considers themselves a progressive christian it would be disingenuous of me not to question PC itself. If I didn't then I would be no different than those whom I think I differ from. Why should I for example accept what the likes of Borg, Sping, Crossan, Ehrman and others say about what it means to be a Chrustian on faith? Does that make me somewhat dogmatic? Does that make me more susceptible to a certain type of idolatry?

I don't anyone is wrong in their belief unless it is overly bigoted and hateful especially when a comment is masked as hyperbolic. Not that PaulS is making such a judgement. His comment is vague at best so I cannot really discern what he thinks about people who do believe in the creed especially the mention of the flat earth theory. As if he's equating that believe with a heartfelt faith? I wonder why PCers are so quick to criticize the belief of others who are not part of a forum to explain their beliefs. I also wonder why PCers in many of the forums seem to have an ax to grind. What then is progressive about PC? To each his or her own I get. I feel that way too. But what is helpful in grinding that ax to people who seem to think the same way? Why label yourself as something different when it's not clear what the difference is in conveying the idea?

PaulS I acknowledge that "some" thought the earth was flat but I think it is a myth that everyone thought this as it is also clear that "some" thought it was not. The flat earth theory is used today who are critical of religious belief to point out the ignorance of those who were religious. There is no need for you to prove anything as I know some of the history. It really is not helpful to criticize those in the past for what they believed as it implies that we all know do much and are so much better. I contend that in today's worldviews not much has changed in human nature. We can criticize the past but we are more than likely doomed to repeat it in some fashion. True advances in our consciousness have been made and society has made "progress" but on the whole we have not changed as human beings very much if at all in the last couple of thousand years. The superstitions may have changed to some extent but in today's world there are other feelings which express our anxiety about uncertainty. When you say that things change and what was good for people in the past may not be appropriate in this day and age. What do you mean by appropriate? This is a vague comment about what people choose to believe and which for them is a truth that acts as a foundation for their lives. Their belief in the creed can be an existential claim as well as commendatory. It may not be either for others too and that just as good for them. The problem with church culture is that it is somewhat compulsory but then again all cultures are like that to some extent. That is just the way most humans are. If you are speculating that you are right and they are wrong then you also need to speculate that the opposite are true. Or one can speculate that there is no duality of "right" or "wrong" at all and merely an evolution of consciousness that has no value imposed in it.

I recently listened to an episode of the Drew Marshall Show, which is billed as Canada's most listened to spirituality talk show. http://drewmarshall.ca/rss/tdms.rss Drew interviews Brant Hanse, who has a blog on CNN Belief Blog called "Mr. Spock goes to church: How one Christian copes with Asperger's syndrome". Brant Hansen also hosts a radio show on www.air1.com. I never listened to Hansen's own show. Anyway, if anyone can access the above link please do. Maybe to some extent it has some relevance to the idea that some churches have created a culture which might make some members reluctant to admit their non-belief. The topic is not limited to people like Hansen who may have Asperger's but those who do not really react as emotionally as those fellow Christians in the pews. I also think that most churches, even PC churches to some extent, do create a culture that requires anyone to believe certain things. These could be spiritual in nature, or could include liberal or conservative opinions on any number of topics. While Hansen spoke in the short interview, I could not help but feel the same way when I think about how I might feel while attending a PC church of which I am a member, or when I attend a local RC parish in my area, or more modern services of the evangelical type. When Andy raised the issue of the significance of the Creed, I could not help but think about his experience, which I know nothing about, and whether or not he feels obligated to fake it? Andy, would it be too inappropriate to share your experience, perhaps not even under this heading of the Nicene Creed, but in another forum if the moderator might think it fits in there?

Andy, for what it is worth, stick to the parts that you believe. I admit that there are parts that I cringe at, but then for me, what I do is try to figure out where that feeling is coming from. If I cannot resolve it, if I feel that it is a paradox of some sort (not that you think those parts are) then I try to transcend it and emphasize the parts I believe and integrate them into my life. PaulS, when you say "people also used to believe the earth was flat, but most people don't hold onto that view anymore." What people? My understanding of the flat earth theory is that before Christians there were Greek philosophers who theorized that the earth was flat and some who theorized that the earth was spherical. There is the view of some modern historians (who are not creationists or who hold to the flat earth theory) who think that the notion that the scientists, theologians and philosphers in the Middle Ages believed the earth was flat is a myth. When you say that you don't want 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" you kind of do belittle them. You imply that your belief is more possible than their belief. I think the word "possible" is an important word, but when we all get into worldview discussions, we all want to think our beliefs are the right ones. I have become more conscious of the fact that despite my spiritual and religious beliefs I am at the heart of it all a skeptic. I wish I were more of a skeptic in the philosophical sense of the word, in that like the Greek Skeptics I would be willing to consider all possibilities and withhold judgment. Andy, keep doubting. Is your lack of belief in parts of the creeds enough to make you not want to be part of the faith community you are involved with? Is there something more that might keep you coming back, so to speak, or do you think you need to find another community?

Who knows if Bishop Spong is a member if the message board. For me I don't get bogged down the propositions of the creed. I consider myself progressive to the extent that I question tradition but don't discard it as I have found it helpful in my spiritual journey. For me personally I find some PC liturgy to be lacking in enough of a structure for me to grow spiritual. I believe in the Nicene Creed when I particiate in spiritusl worship in that type of faith community. I know the history of it and don't make it an idol of worship. I do go deep into what it means for me as a PC and it is for me part of the foundation for my evolution in God. I participate in the Eucharist as much as I participate in other rituals. Understanding the history of the creed formations doesn't diminish their spiritual depth.

The Benedictine monks I have fellowship with have a mass for the Faithful Departed on this day. As I end my preparation of becoming an oblate the gesture seems to me heartfelt (to say the least). So the meaning of the day has some meaning which it never did before.