On 7/19/2019 at 7:23 AM, thormas said:

I think they are different but one individual can be both. I also agree with you on prophets. Not sure if apocalyptic language is just the symbolic language of mystics (will have to check on this) as it seems this language and its expectations were taken literally by people like Jesus, his disciples and Paul.

Do I remember correctly that Borg thought of Jesus as a mystic but not an Apocalyptic Prophet?

I'm not certain, I have only read some of Borg's books.  Borg understands Jesus mysticism as something that may prompt social action, so I am guessing he is not really challenging the apocalyptic aspects of the traditional understanding of Jesus.

N.T. Wright is helpful in understanding the apocalyptic imagery in the Gospels as mysticism.   People like Schweitzer may have accidentally understood it in more concrete terms and may have based some of their conclusions on false assumptions.

On 5/14/2019 at 5:19 PM, romansh said:

No one has a monopoly on the universe either. I don't even have a monopoly on my back yard.

But the universe does shape us.

I always dislike this sort of (mis)use of religious language.   Usually, we associate such verbs with acts of will.  Which makes the term "God" much more appropriate.

But I think that just shows how Burl's observation is accurate.  Most people here would probably be much happier in a Unitarian Universalist church where people can be happy pantheists asking speculative questions for the rest of their lives.  Christianity has always been about believing in and following Jesus, even if the exact way that belief and discipleship unfolds look different in different time periods and levels of understanding.

On 5/13/2019 at 2:25 PM, Burl said:

I think so.  Unitarians are closer to the Frisbee-terians.  Their faith spends a lot of time flying over the fences of other religions and philosophies.  

I think many members (past & present) of this forum would feel very much at home in a UU congregation.

 

I think that's true.  Progressive Christians would be many Episcopalians or the UCC.  They reinterpret some things in Christianity, they might emphasize creedal belief less, but they still value Christian identity and traditions, even if they understand them very differently from fundamentalists.

Whereas Unitarians really have no shared beliefs and few shared religious practices (many of them are not Christians), only shared values.  They value intellectual inquiry primarily, individualism, and western humanism - not very different from the old ethical societies in the 19th century. 

They are really different, only similar in their liberalism/modernism.

16 hours ago, thormas said:

But to say Jesus was an Apocalyptic Prophet is not to say he was a Zealot or had a political message. 

It seems most or many (?) biblical scholars see Jesus as an Apocalyptic Prophet. I never considered Borg, w.hom I liked very much, a true biblical scholar and also thought he had a view of Jesus and then found that Jesus in the NT.

I don't believe apocalyptic prophet and mystic are two different things.  Apocalyptic language is just the way that the Abrahamic traditions use religious symbols to articulate their mysticism.  We are used to thinking of a prophet as someone who prognosticates the future, and I don't believe that captures the whole reality of what a prophet was in Judaism.

On 5/25/2019 at 12:35 PM, romansh said:

Is it a fact that Jesus existed?

Almost all historians believe that is a reasonable conclusion.   Mythicists are simply not taken seriously in academia for the most part. 

On 5/25/2019 at 12:05 PM, thormas said:

Actually, not a hypothetical which was the point. Also, there seems to be a real difference in what passes for 'religion' today, as evident in a quick comparison of evangelical and progressive. Progressives don't focus on separation from God and sin. 

People differ on the understanding of Oneness: for some it is the pantheist viewpoint for others it is a oneness that is both ontological (one Being) and also a a shared way to Be: the Being and the Way to Be is One (there is only the One) but the many coming together in Unity/Oneness is a higher reality or Beauty that the unity of sameness (Whitehead). The panentheist doesn't (necessarily) hold to some separation or a literal separation: there is still only Being. However, they do grapple with the apparent paradox of many in the One which seems to suggest diversity, difference and.......separation.

Now that is an interesting question: "is God totally an action? Not sure that is Spong's conclusion as he seems, rather, to be trying to get readers to think outside the theistic (Supreme Being)  box.

 

Making distinctions does not necessarily negate nondualism.  Trying to reduce our understanding of reality into a naive monism risks excluding certain elements from our experience, the opposite of being mindful.

All major religions, east and west, have a narrative that there is something wrong with the fundamental state of affairs in the human condition; something that needs fixing in the human person.   Whether we talk about sin or delusion doesn't really change that.    Evangelicalism simply focuses on a subjective rather than metaphysical approach.

On 3/23/2019 at 2:46 PM, romansh said:

Last week I created a blog … just to jot down my take on various aspects

If anyone is interested here it is. I noted some aspects of what religion means for me. Still a work in progress.

And my closing summary:
 

Comments welcome.

You're going to find fundamentalism and literalism in any world religion.    As they say, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

I studied Buddhism in the past.  Certain forms of Tibetan Buddhism are full of dogmas similar to Christianity.  The presentation we have of Buddhism in the US is primarily a Japanese and Taiwanese originated movement called Buddhist modernism, similar to liberal Protestantism in its impulse (make Buddhism compatible with the modern, scientific and technocratic nation state).  D.T. Suzuki was primarily the one that first introduced Americans to this notion, but it has earlier antecedents in Soyen Shaku's reformist ideology in Japan in the 19th century.  Soyen Shaku was responding to the new Meiji regime's critique of Buddhism as superstition and unsuited to a modern nation-state.

On 1/22/2019 at 8:55 PM, PaulS said:

I think those sort of words may have been placed on Jesus' lips by some NT writers.  I think it's pretty convincing that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who believed the coming of the Kingdom was imminent and that the evil powers (Rome) would be overthrown 'in this generation'.  When Jesus got executed and 'this generation' didn't see the coming of the Kingdom, Christians began to 'interpret' Jesus differently and make up new stories about the Kingdom.

Not all Biblical scholars see it that way.  Marcus Borg, for instance , didn't see Jesus having a particularly political message, as if he were in the Zealot camp.  Borg favored a more mystical interpretation of "Kingdom of God", as do many traditional Christians.

On 1/16/2019 at 11:22 AM, thormas said:

I, speaking as a progressive Christian, don't tie this to fear of no longer existing or not wanting this existence to end. It seems obvious that this existence will end (that was always the case) and no one has any 'earthy' idea what 'continued existence' looks like or consists of - as evidenced in our long ago discussions of all becoming One. I doubt progressive Christians think of this as a carrot; it is simply a 'consequence' of what such a person believes about God/Life. 

 

 

That's a good point.  It's a mistake to think of religion only as about manipulating people to control them (Marx).  That's a very limited perspective, and does not respect the diversity of reasons why people are religious.

Most homeless people I've encountered weren't drug addicts.  One person I knew who had been homeless simply had misfortune in her life.

On 1/22/2019 at 11:00 PM, thormas said:

Seemingly, Jesus thought the endtime was imminent, as did the Baptist - not sure off hand about all the prophets.

Many scholars have simply misread Jesus' Olivet Discourse.  N.T. Wright discusses this point in his works.  Jesus is not referring to the end of the world as we would understand it, just to a judgement that will befall Jerusalem.  Jesus uses apocalyptic imagery that was misunderstood by 19th century liberal scholars.

I consider myself a "progressive Christian".   I am an Evangelical Lutheran and I support the full inclusion of gays in the life of the Church, and I also do not believe being politically "pro-life" is a litmus test for Christian discipleship (in this respect, I'm very much in line with my denomination's own social statements).  But beyond that, I am very much a traditional, creedal sort of Christian, as are most Lutherans I know. 

So in one sense, I do see myself as a progressive Christian relative to American evangelicalism with its moralism, biblicism, and politicization of religion, but on the other hand, I am not a progressive Christian by the standards of this site- of espousing theological liberalism.  Yet I think there are far more folks like me out there in churches than there are Christians who are essentially wedded to theological liberalism.

So what really is "progressive Christianity"?

49 minutes ago, thormas said:

FD76,

You really have to be more thoughtful and also read more carefully. Once again, you dodge and move to a new topic, now it's surrogacy - really? As should be obvious and from you own words, the point is exploitation of another (or self) and this, an expression of human self-centeredness, is present in prostitution, in some marriages for all the ignoble reasons you imagine and many other interactions. So, if we are talking about self-centeredness or (the original and only) sin, it is a sweeping, far-reaching reality. 

Now, surrogacy: so if someone hangs a sign outside their door, I would be suspect - however, it this falls under medical or psychological need and one even gets a referral from a doctor - we seem to have moved from exploitation to care (perhaps). However, if the 'patients' motives are suspect or the 'provider'' has his or her own issues we might be moving back to exploitation. Even you must recognize this.

I think that's just soft-peddaled judgmental, puritanical, and narrow attitudes.  You may cloak your ethos in the language of love, but you'ld consign a great deal of humanism to the scrapheap just because it doesn't measure up to a medievalist religious vision of the world.

I frankly don't care what most other Christians believe about sexual ethics.  Most Christian sexual ethics is far too much about controlling other peoples naughty bits and falls far short of a real ethic of love that doesn't denigrate pleasure or the human body.  Sexual repression is not healthy.  Realistic teaching and instruction on sex is healthy.

8 hours ago, thormas said:

FD76,

Who said anything about excommunication or ostracizing another?  Dodge ball anyone?  The point was that the Lutherans, hopefully, would act, that they would do...........something. And it's not about your ideals, it is the commandment (or if you prefer) the way of Jesus who Lutherans supposedly profess and follow. I actually can't believe that a Christian would prevaricate on this or similar issues. 

But you would be concerned about exploitation, well that is what prostitution involves so .............the concern would have to include the vehicle (i.e. prostitution) by which another is exploited or, simply, the lack of love for your neighbor via the vehicle (i.e. prostitution). But again you go to moral purity while I am simply talking about love of neighbor. 

Prostitution is legal in Germany, so Lutherans and Christians should bow to the state? What in the name of God was legal or condoned by the 'state' under Hitler? And people, who bowed to what was legal or acceptable then, were considered cowards and sympathizers. Prostitution (defined/discussed above), simply because it is legal in some places, is no longer a concern for the Lutheran, especially in Luther's home? It was also legal or acceptable to stone people in the time of Jesus: did he just say to the crowd, "it's legal, I don't want to ostracize anyone with a stone in their hand" or did he, knowing it was wrong, go against the norm, the legal, the expected and accepted and say, "he who is without sin..................?" 

I don't believe all forms of sex work would necessarily involve degradation or exploitation.  Have you heard of sexual surrogacy, for instance?  You are making sweeping judgments on things I don't think you have much knowledge of.

Prostitution is a concern for us.  Officially, our church takes somewhat conservative stances on this issue in its social statements.  However, ultimately the individual's moral agency on these matters is what counts.  Our social statements are meant to be persuasive, not coercive.  

I believe you simply don't understand the Lutheran way of doing things, so I give up debating this with you.  You seem to have a real problem with a non-legalistic approach to Christian ethics.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

 If the Church see or hears of one running a prostitution ring in town or turning tricks in the community room, apparently the Church, as it is in relationship with the individual, would make a judgment and 'say' something, probably even pass judgment and say this is not acceptable in our community or before God.

This is a pastoral issue and it's ultimately up to the congregation.  However, most of us would be reluctant to excommunicate or ostracize anyone merely because they don't live up to our ideals.   We would primarily be concerned about exploitation more than issues of moral impurity.  

Prostitution is legal in Germany, BTW, an historically Lutheran country, so this may not be an academic issue there at all.

55 minutes ago, thormas said:

Actually, I never said anything close to that. I am, and have been, trying to get some clarification and explanation of what you, a representative of Lutheranism, has been saying is Lutheran belief/practice. However, by your definition, it must be possible for some individual Lutherans to oppose love because you said,  "it's ultimately up to the individual ....... to judge matters of ethical importance." So, technically, one could judge matters and oppose love. Or, is it not up to the individual?

No, it is not that prostitution may not measure up to some people's ideals, it is that prostitution, the treatment, giving, selling, buying of another human being for one's self, knowing that other person is not valued in her/himself but as a thing to be used and is interchangeable with another 'thing'-  is not loving; it is ignoring both the commandments of loving God and loving the other, your neighbor, wherever, whoever, whenever they are. 

Don't conflate it by dodging to another topic, address it in itself. We have already said there are different reasons for both the prostitute and the client and those reasons differ greatly. However, we can still say the idea, the action, the concrete reality of prostitution is wrong. Can't you?  The reasons are one thing but although the reasons may mitigate blameworthiness, it does not change the reality that the concrete act of prostitution (as defined above) is................wrong; it is not an act of love, it is not an act of compassion concern for another human being. Do you think it is? Does Lutheranism think it is? Is it up to the individual? 

We all know some people marry for ignoble reasons and that some of those reasons are more ignoble than some reason for prostitution. That does not change the reality of prostitution. 

 

 

Who are we to judge? We are the ones who supposedly follow the Christ and make important to us what was important to him: Love - as expressed in the two great commandments, as portrayed in parables, as preached, as signified in his miracles, as lived in his life, as evident on his cross, as held up and lived by his first followers in the aftermath of the resurrection. 

Who are we? We are (to be) the ones in whom love becomes grounded: If love of neighbor is not embodied, not incarnated in us - how will love ever become "grounded in concrete relationships with others."  And what is to be done if another does not understand (or misunderstands) Love and does not live it with (concrete) others? Are we to do nothing? Did the man, Jesus, do nothing? 

Perhaps you did not read that essay by Pr. Ed Knudson, he made it clear that the Lutheran view of the individual conscience is not that it is autonomous, as in liberal accounts of ethics, but that it is in relationship with God and the Church.  Still, moral agency does rest with the individual, that's how it works.  We are all individually responsible as human beings before God for our lives.

The principal way love is expressed in the Lutheran tradition is in our sacramentalism and our Eucharistic spirituality.  This is how God shows love for us, by imparting to us grace through the power of the Word.   We ought to love each other as a result, but our standing before God is not dependent on our ability to love in kind, nor will we be able to perfectly actualize God's love in this life.

9 minutes ago, thormas said:

What does this even mean? Do you know? Why do you see a difference between divine 'command' and human compassion?

Again with the moralism and legalism, catch words - but no attempt to respond from the heart. There is no moralism or legalism in my words, nor is there anything but love grounded in relationships with others (if not concrete what are they?).

 

I have no issue with you or anyone not being, as you indicated earlier, a PhD in religion (there are probably none here) but I did expect someone who willingly came to this (or any such) site and presented opinion in a debate and dialogue section, to be able to elaborate on that opinion or belief to some degree and not simply trot out the same catch words again and again and again. 

 

Divine Command Theory is like what conservative Muslims, Orthodox Jews, or conservative Reformed Christians think of morality.   God just hands people a list of do's and don'ts and you'ld better conform to them.   No consideration is given to the concrete circumstances of individuals.   It's a kind of moral absolutism or fundamentalism.

Lutherans aren't opposed to  love.  I think you have misunderstood what I am saying if that is what you have taken away from our conversation.

Prostitution may not measure up to some peoples ideals but many people marry for more ignoble reasons than a prostitute has for selling her body.  So really, who are we to judge?

40 minutes ago, thormas said:

This is like dodge ball. 

That he accepted people is not the issue: that is accepted. That he called and admonished those people to repent, to not sin, to love (and was rather pissed at some people like the Scribes and Pharisees) is the point.

Isn't there a hierarchy is everyday human life? Or do you equate the child who copied homework to the man who rapes children? Is the teenage mother, with no high school education, abandoned by her christian family, the only support for her child who makes good money as an escort not different than the pimp who waits for teenagers getting off buses in NYC bus terminal, gets them hooked on drugs, rapes them and forces them into prostitution (sometimes beating, continually raping and even killing some of his workers)? Good god, there is a hierarchy that exists both in the world and within each of us: some sins are small, while others put us, put our humanity in mortal danger. And what is proper repentance? What are you talking about? Seemingly, Jesus recognized a 'hierarchy' in that he was much harder on the Scribes and Pharisees than on the tax collector, more demanding of the rich man than of the adulteress.

Is it that 'we want' or that we recognize that there is a hierarchy of sin: that there are levels and depths of selfishness/sin in the world, in human beings? 

Not how your church does things? But it is you, representing your church, who has continually dismissed and disparaged other christian communities. Unless your church is free from sin, by your words, you judge the sins of other churches to be greater (higher on the hierarchy).

Even though I doubt this person is Lutheran (or even necessarily a Christian), I agree with him that Jesus is focusing ethics outside of divine command, and instead focusing on human-centered compassion.  My church would be in agreement on this point.  Moralism and legalism are insufficient as genuinely Christ-like ethics.  Loving actions are grounded in our concrete relationships with finite others. 

http://zimmer.fresnostate.edu/~afiala/documents/FialaGoodSam.pdf

14 minutes ago, thormas said:

Agreed.

And, as previously said, it seems obvious that Jesus knew that sin isn't just outward behaviors.

And, FD76, there is no serious biblical scholar who interprets "sin no more: as stay out of trouble"   - the latter is something your grandmother might have said to you as a little kid, the equivalent of "be a good boy." Jesus appears to be about something more. Actually, if Jesus expected the Kingdom to come 'soon' he might have been (probably was) calling for moral purity, properly understood (there was no time for anything else, no time could be wasted, one must repent, change, be different - because the Kingdom was to begin and one must chose a side).  Seemingly, moral purity was seen in this Beatitude: Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God.  This is not a 'law'  it is the way to be, it is the way of living.

You're mincing words: the 'ethic' of Jesus is the Way of God; it is was articulated in the two great commandments, the ethic was Love. Is this not the ethic - the way of being, living and behaving he articulated? This was was both more and less than what his opponents thought was important.

Are you actually suggesting that because Jesus didn't preach a lecture specifically on prostitution, that the commandment of Love doesn't cover it? If prostitution is the use of another human being, as a thing, for one's own pleasure (and allowing yourself to be used as a thing) - where is the love of neighbor, where is the love of God? And, as he didn't come to abolish the law, he accepted Jewish law and seemingly there was no need to hit every possible 'sin' because he knew he was talking to Jews: therefore he emphasizes the true heart of the law, or better, the true heart of God. As to sexual morality - see the above, isn't everything covered by the great commandments? Therefore the dictum: love........and do what you will (for what the one who loves wills - is love).

Prostitution is selling sex for money.  I was focusing on the prostitutes themselves, not the people that utilize their services.  There are many reasons why someone would turn to prostitution and it seems to me overly judgmental to say these people are excluded from God's kingdom, in the same way that saying just because somebody is a man married to another man, they are excluded as well.   I don't think that's the point of Jesus teaching, I think its abusive in fact and misses the humanistic emphasis on his ethic, which is that good ethics is determined within concrete human relationships with actual persons (the Levite and pharisees are on potentially good legal grounds, from a Jewish religious standpoint, to avoid the beaten man in the parable of the good Samaritan, to avoid becoming impure themselves, but Jesus condemns them anyways because of their lack of compassion).

1 hour ago, Burl said:

Mark 7:21-23 English Standard Version (ESV)

21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

Jesus did not 'hang out' with sinners because he thought sin was acceptable.  That is a very silly idea.

 

Jesus accepted people. 

Some Christians want to have hierarchies of sinners, or a certain invariant standard for who is and is not properly repentant, and that's just not how how my church generally does things.

6 minutes ago, Burl said:

Purity was the basis of Hebrew sacrficial worship, a practice in which Jesus participated.  Remember "I came not to change the law, but to fufill it"?  Remember Jesus preaching against adultery, divorce, prostitution and fornication?  

Morality is overstressed in many churches, but it was an essential part of Jesus' message.

The sacrificial role has been fulfilled in Christ.

When did Jesus actually preach against prostitution?  He speaks about sexual morality only in the vaguest terms.   And his preaching concerning divorce doesn't preclude it altogether as a realistic possibility.

If Jesus Christ was concerned about moral purity, he would not have hanged out with tax collectors and prostitutes.

On 8/6/2018 at 12:29 PM, Burl said:

We are to attempt to live as sinlessly as we can, and certainly not capitulate to narcissism and our animal desires.  The idea that God cannot abide if the level of impurity rises too high is a consistent theme.  Moral purity not everything, but it is the foundation on which our spiritual connection with God rests.

I really don't see Jesus articulating an ethic based on moral purity.  That was more what his opponents thought was important.

I don't think Jesus expects us to live a sinless life and that isn't what we understand the Christian life as primarily being about: moral purity. 

8 hours ago, Burl said:

Catholicism has the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) and penance where people can non-judgmentally discuss their own sins in person and complete confidence.  

Luther quibbled about if sin was forgiven with or without an ordained priest, and this valuable tradition was unfortunately relegated to superstition. 

Jesus forgave the adulteress, but he also admonished her to "go and sin no more".

Lutherans still practice private confession, though use  is much lower today (as it is among Catholics as well).  My pastor grew up in an LCMS church in rural New Jersey and people went to confession monthly.  Luther considered it a sacrament, though modern Lutherans differ on whether it is still considered one (some scholastics said since there is no "matter" in the rite, it cannot be a sacrament).

I believe the "go and sin no more" is often abused, especially by people that demand other people live according to their standards of biblical morality.  It's often a way of having the Law be the last word.  And, given our theology, it's a bit problematic to say "don't ever sin again" as an absolute requirement, because sin isn't just outward behaviors but permeates our being.  I've always simply understood this as Jesus saying "stay out of trouble" to the woman that was caught.