matteoam

I'm here because I'm a glutton for punishment.

I am not much of an admirer of Plato. Plato obviously hated the physical world. I think we are our bodies as much as we our spirit or soul.

Welcome Robert.

My concern is that PC will become so vague that it will become an "anything goes" perspective. The Gospel of Me will prevail.

Coming to this late but I have found that following Christ is costly. As I go deeper into practice and be more obedient to spiritual things the cost is my own creature comforts because of the realization that I cannot sit on the sidelines if life in this broken world. Getting over myself is learning to serve others. That is a hard thing to let go of the "I" I thought I was and realize there is no "I" but the Christ or Buddha nature which masquerades itself as "me".

Marx makes absolute sense to me in his historical context. His materialism doesn't really surprise me either given the situation Europe was in. But he brings the materialist perspective to its logical conclusion in terms of finds a solution to to the problems of the day. Humans are social creatures defined by their environment. If you take the spiritual view, you can take your pick of the traditions but again all in terms of their cultural and historical context. There is no dongle Christian theory of free will but I personally accept the view from Judaism and Eastern Orthodox in the sense that there is no original sin per se but we are very damaged spiritually (that's putting it lightly) and we are determined to some extent by what we inherit. But the ideas of Fate and Destiny in Hinduism can be equally true in that we can help shape these with our choices. The Reformed view makes no sense to me logically (total depravity and all that). There is no room for free will if God wills it. If God wills it then God sees far beyond what we can see - so our predicament still hadn't changed. I sometimes think that free will is more an absurd condition. Damned if you do and damned if you don't can be equally valid when it is expressed in the positive - saved if you do saved if you don't. Regardless we are all active participants. If there is room for that participation expressed as "free" then, well, I have no clue.

Right not a rejection but it's limitations. He did reject idealism so far as I know as was traditionally know. Or maybe he had another version of it. He never seemed to be much of a Platonist or someone who would be Aristotlean in his views.

Yes Pete. Karl Marx didn't think consciousness determined being but social being determined consciousness. He was a materialist who rejected the ideal of free will. "For the idealist, the mind--or the spirit, in the form of God--is the origin of all material things. The ancient Greek idealist philosopher Plato, for example, argued that the world and the things in it were determined by universal, logical categories. Therefore, every specific tree was a copy derived from the universal category "tree."" From "Why was Marx a Materialist?" By Paul D'Amato from www.socialistworker.org I think the notion of free will is far more complex from a strictly materialist view, or from any spiritual view. Despite the fact that there is the potential for change within human beings that capacity is determined or shaped by forces beyond his or her control.

Joseph I know that everyone had their path and I respect that. But there is way too much talking past one another in this society which is not being addressed. Whatever will come if it I am not worried about. That being said I am very depressed when it seems that groups can't just attempt to live up to their own standards of true tolerance. I don't really listen to Pat Robertson. The point is that we are not talking to those with whom we have the most differences. All that is hurled more often than not are stones of judgement.

True but the conversation needs to take place on a larger more relevant scale. When someone like Krista Tippet has an evangelical like say Ravi Zacharias or Pat Robertson on her NPR radio program On Being then I will know this society of ours is truly tolerance and open minded.

I think the evolution of Christianity in its diversity points to God working through it. I am on board with non-theistic and even atheist views held by people like Greg Epstein and Alain de Botton who recognize the morality inherent in humanity beyond the images of tradition, even as I recognize the necessity and truth in these images. My hope is that humanists like them become the standard. Then maybe a mature conversation can place in the public forum. Maybe people will emerge from their darkened buildings and interact in true community beyond their own beliefs.

The UCC I attend (I was not raised as a Protestant) is universal in its non-adherence to creeds, though they have their own "creed" or profession of faith. I don't think it's really possible to "not stick to creeds" as every community of faith has something that is like a creed. Even atheists have their own set of beliefs. My understanding is that a church that might consider itself part of the UCC is not beholden to the administrative body of the UCC or its synods. I may be wrong. Its interesting to see the evolution of the UCC from a historical perspective and how it initially grew out of the Congregational and Reformed denominations. I wonder though how many people are knowledgable of that. I think one can belong to almost any denomination within the mainline Protestant churches, as well as the Roman Catholic Church and consider oneself progressive. So this is wikipedia's definition of Progressive Christianity: Progressive Christianity is a movement within contemporary Christianity, characterized by a willingness to question tradition, acceptance of human diversity with a strong emphasis on social justice or care for the poor and the oppressed (often identified as minority groups) and environmental stewardship of the Earth. Progressive Christians have a deep belief in the centrality of the instruction to "love one another" (John 15:17) within the teaching of Jesus Christ.[1] This leads to a focus on compassion, promoting justice andmercy, tolerance, and working towards solving the societal problems of poverty, discrimination and environmental issues, especially by social and political activism. Comparatively, a further understanding within Christianity being of the Greek word agape or agapaó as used within John 15:17 translated to the English word "love" as that being of "i.e. embracing God's will (choosing His choices) and obeying them through His power".[2] This movement is by no means the only significant movement of progressive thought among Christians (see the 'See also' links below), but it is currently a focus of such issues in many parts of the world. Progressive Christianity draws on the insights of multiple theological streams including: 19th century evangelicalism, 19th and early 20th century Christian liberalism, 20th centuryneo-orthodoxy, and late 20th and 21st century liberation theology.[3] The characteristics of Progressive Christianity, and its distinction from Liberal Christianity, have been articulated in an article[4] by Hal Taussig. These can be summarized as: A spiritual vitality and expressiveness, including participatory, arts-infused, and lively worship as well as a variety of spiritual rituals and practices such as meditation Intellectual integrity including a willingness to question An affirmation of human diversity An affirmation of the Christian faith with a simultaneous sincere respect for other faiths Strong ecological concerns and commitment So I am all for questioning tradition, but at the same time knowing what it is. This requires to actually know about, even at the bare minimum, about the last 2000 years of Christian history. I am all for accepting diversity, though I have to admit I'm a bit tired of the constant need to point out differences than actually celebrating them and transcending them. I am all for social justice. I do wonder though what the limitations that PC has on its own commitment to it? That term "social justice" is vague because I think the Catholic Churches' Regnum Novum is a text that needs to be looked at and discussed more at length within a PC context and a dialogue needs to opened up to engage the Catholic Church about where the two different views on "social justice" converge and diverge. I am all for loving one another. I hope that PC members do that. Not just love those who are like-minded. I think PC needs to do better, frankly, in living up to all these proponents. I am not so much interested in what other Christians are doing as I am concerned about what PC adherents are doing. I know we're all on our own paths and we all need to evolve, too. I am all into liberal theology, but like all theology, even our theology, it is abstract. If PC creates a standard about what it means to be progressive, then is it progressive? How long before that progressive-ness becomes old hat?

The problem I have seen in PC churches I have been to is the self-identifying with a particular congregation. For example a church I frequent is under the banner of the UCC - United Church of Christ but are also a "Congregational" church. At the same time there seems to be an accommodation the pastor makes in their sermons and in the, I daresay, liturgy to the point where it seems a little homogenized if not wishy washy. This is the dilemma I think of PC. A church can identify as Presbyterian, Methodist, and consider themselves as "progressive Chridtians". Or not and stand alone or under the banner of the UCC. That to me is just an alternative to say the Southern Baptist Convention. Also in the church I attend at times the town is somewhat liberal I guess and there are is an UU church and another UCC church. The dogma is similar between the three. Honestly despite the Points of Progressive Christianity I don't see anything very progressive. I see an alternative view with its own exclusivity and preoccupation with "issues" and still mired in The limitations of modernist thinking - which all if Christianity. While PC may be influenced by post-modern philosophy it is still too concerning with the limitations of The Enlightenment.

Depending on which tradition you practice there is always the notion of self-knowledge being closely linked to or identical with God, Brahman or whatever it is. I see all these ancient traditions as touching in human psychology and getting to allow your unconscious to become conscious. That discovery of self is not always fun but very helpful once you "discover" it and it frees you to move onto another level of potentiality.

The Samaritan and the Prodigal Son are the two most important parables for me.

I love Spong, Fox and Van Weyer. They affirmed my commitment to being a Christian. I have no issues with them or their work. I do have issues with the notion that things have to be "predictable" and "tested" for it to be true. I find the modernist critique helpful in proving only one thing - that humans are flawed receptors of the Divine. I do believe myths are real and genuine and point the way to something we cannot imagine. The meaning of various events in scripture are more important to me than their historicity.

Pete I think you're making a generalization connecting Constantine to fundamentalism as it is known today. History is not that simple. When I think of fundamentalism, I think of it as a movement in Christianity that "started in the 19th century and early 20th century British and American Protestant denominations among evangelicals who reacted energetically against theological and cultural modernism." thanks Wikipedia. One can argue too that those beginnings differ from today's fundamentalists. The church at the time of Constantine were catholic (small "c") and at the time did what they had to do in terms of labeling some as heresy (Arianism for example) because it was a matter of survival. Something no one here can relate to. They were not yet divided into the Roman Catholic (Latin) and Eastern Church (Byzantine/Orthodox). The first schisms occurred in 431 and 451. That being said, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are not fundamentalist nor should they be associated with fundamentalism. Ask any Roman Catholic or Orthodox theologian and they will clearly point out the differences between some Protestant evangelicals. I think people use the terms "conservative", "traditional", "orthodox", and "fundamentalist" synonymously but they are not the same. Also to generalize about what fundamentalism means that "saying they have the only true position on the faith" is not accurate either because that would include Progressive Christianity too. I also think it is too much of a generalization to say that doctrine and dogma is just a matter of opinion. Yes, humans are involved and it is always flawed, but what we criticize as doctrine and dogma of the RC and the Orthodox churches for example were rigorously argued, meditated on, theorized, and even experienced in mystical or subjective way and very much with serious discernment. I cannot say that God wasn't involved since I believe God is in everyone, all the time, doing what work needs to be done in everyone, all the time. Bishop Spong is to me an essential part in the evolution of the tradition as can be seen from his own evolution by his experience of God and Christ. As Americans we think that is all that it is about. Opinions. Wrong or right, with "us" having the "right" opinion and "them" having the "wrong" opinion. I believe that it is all about something much more significant and deeper on a spiritual level. Something we are not even conscious of. It may be destructive or constructive but God, or Spirit, or whatever, is still at work in all of these folks who are all working out their karma. I'm not making an apologia for them and I don't want to diminish your journey, but reducing their beliefs to "opinions" is not even polite despite all the justifiable feelings we have when we react to them. God is working in you as much as God is working in any fundamentalist Christian you disagree with is what I am getting at. So, I really say all this in peace and love. Seriously. None of it is meant as an attack on you. I hear you when you speak about your experience and it pains me to even imagine, which is all I can do, about what you have experienced.

Steve I also see things the way you see them, too, and wasn't trying to be glib about my last comment. I can't even really conceive of using language like "quarrel". Was it Democritus or Socrates who is reported to say that we don't really know anything but only have belief? So, I would use the term "subjective" rather than relative, but is it all semantics. Postmodern christianity opens the whole gospel up for me but allows me to retain a lot of what orthodox theology too. But God is not a "thing" that is something other than how I self-identify. The only analogy I can make is I liken God to the ocean to a fish, or air to us. Fish swim in the ocean. The ocean gets in the fish. The water that is the ocean is in the fish. The water that is in the fish's cells is the water too. I move through air, it is in me, in my cells, but I am not the air at the same time. Like the lyric goes, we are all stardust. The personal aspect comes into it when I interact with others in that recognition of my one-ness with others. I come to know Christ through the scripture, through my meditation, and through my interaction. Taking it further, though, from images, I should say that I can identify with the non-self, or Brahman. I think this is the "holiness" that is inherent in everything. It's not even an "it". There isn't any language I can use to describe "it."

It also involves experience and I consider myself to have a personal relationship with Jesus and god THROUGH others. All are Christ to me.

Amen

Constantine's mother Helena was instrumental in the period and famous for her piety. She is considered a saint by the Orthodox Church, as well as Lutheran and Anglican churches. Agree with Constantine or not but he lived up to being "the Great." He was baptized as as Arian Christian on his deathbed which I heard somewhere was a popular thing to do back then. Do was he a Christian or not? By whose standards? Does it matter? I don't think so. I still think Christianity really started with the church fathers as Paul tried to broaden the base by including Gentiles. Is there antisemitism in Paul?

Good thing I don't posit that idea of God then. But no one religion really does. You have to look at scripture in terms of a relationship with the Divine. Christianity is not the only religion that posits a personal relationship. Even the non-theism of Buddhism still involves a relationship with immanence on a non-dual basis (tantra, Dzogchen). There is also the awareness of rigpa in Tibetan Buddhism which is a self- perfected state of all beings. Some Buddhist think the Busdha was an incarnation of Indra. Whatever floats your boat I say. I am a panentheist with pantheistic leanings. I do feel sometimes that materiality and non-materiality is God.

Joseph, that is so true that "the word 'holiness' separates where there is no separation."

Holiness is synonymous with sacred to me. God is not bound by the world but actively in it. That's a dichotomy but it works for me. I don't think holiness is seperateness so much as a seperateness is a false belief. The world is about division, fragmentation and otherness. The reality is that there is only One. There is no me/you/God. We of nor perceive that we are holy as Godvis due to our false belief. All religions have this idea in their own way of expressing it. God as seem in the Bible is always ready willing and able to engage us in an intimate relationship that can be expressed in many forms (child/parent, master/slave, lover/beloved). All that we perceive as negative aspects or attributes of God is his holiness being poured out onto us.

Roy I hear you on having a relationship with God through prayer. I need to work on praying but find to be not emotionally or intellectually satisfying but the act itself which includes meditation opens me up to Gods presence which does come to fill a space but is something that is already there which I didn't see or realize.