thormas

1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm thinking that you didn't get as much "guilt" or false guilt as many people have and did. 

or a capacity to understand human limits and forgive they who know not what they do..........

4 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I used to work with people who were abused as children. Some of these people have stated quite plainly that they have had to find and have found a positive understanding of God and a feeling of God's presence within them and in their live, all on their own.

And how did they get that off the wind or from people like you (Christ-bearers) or others before you who helped in that positive understanding - sometimes just by your presence (which also carried a greater Presence)?

You and others like you presented a new and different community - you were community also.

Most hermits were first 'of the world' so bring something with them to their cave to think on.

14 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Is not just Paul. It's the whole bible in it's entirety, starting with Genesis chapter one. How can the sky be a "dome" of water? How can plants exist on this earth without the sun being first in the sky? The thing is that the bible has some good ideas and insights and some bad ideas and un-insights, and everything in between. People have to look at the quality of the individual ideas, and not just by into the writing or the book as a whole.

Spong has talked about guilt trips, particularly religious guilt trips, and how the church(s) have used this to control people False guilt is worse. If a person is truly guilty of something they can do something about it. They can make amends, apologize, and try to make things better. If it's false guilt and one is just labeled with it, there's nothing one can do, they just have to live with it and feel awful and broken every moment of their lives.

However, many (most I would think) PCs don't accept the Bible as fundamentalists or traditionalist do: we do not take it all literally, we refer to biblical scholars to provide their expertise to help us get a better read and we take it as the words of men speaking about their 'experience' of God. Some (many/ most?) of the issues you raise about Genesis are no longer a concern for many moderns.

Sure there were guilt trips but many giving us guilt experienced it themselves. I long ago learned not to be that upset with nuns, priests (I was raised Catholic), religious teachers, etc. as they did the best they could at that time in the history of man. Even with some guilt I never felt separated from God: I guess there was enough that enabled us to relate to God.

36 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I personally find it amazing, the way you write and often look at things, that you haven't experienced this yourself. That you haven't felt God inside you, haven't experienced Es Grace and Presence. This without anything intermediary, other people, books, teachers, art, landscapes, what have you.

I never said I didn't.

I am just discussing how I have come to believe (after years of reading, teaching, lectures, discussions, reflection, etc.) God 'operates' in the world.

God does not come, God cannot 'get to us' unless he is borne/embodied by others (and creation). Thus we carry an awesome responsibility to Love and Call others to Life.

Actually I think a great deal of that is going on in PC circles (see Spong's old site) and not just the role of men but the issues of being white. And I'm fine with it and have no problem voicing my disagreement if appropriate.

13 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

John Shelby Spong has gone so far to say that the 12 apostles were not just the 12. That there was a greater group of both women and men who were his closest followers and apostles. The 12 (& they are not the same in all the gospels),were singled out to replace the 12 tribes of Israel in Jewish spiritual ideology and religious thinking.

Agreed.

Agreed, thus the need for education and not just preaching. However, the point remains that they are wrong. 

I get that but 'many' PCs are familiar with Spong, accept/agree with much he has said and some have read scholars on Paul and know a great deal about the real Paul.

43 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

What seems to come up and be stated is that some of Paul's ideas were good, some of Paul's ideas were not so good, and some of Paul's ideas are just plain awful. This is true whether they are pseudo-Pauline ideas or Pauline ideas. Whether the ideas are about humanity, women, slavery, the divine right of kings and government, or how God is described and depicted and what ideas God approves of and condones. People have these issues with Paul and with the bible itself

This is a longer discussion but I suggest that many/most of the real Paul is very good albeit influenced by his time and religion as he interprets Jesus through a particular lens.

Pseudo Paul is not Paul and shouldn't be ascribe to Paul by those who know the difference.

43 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I totally disagree with you that "a God who has 1-on1 contact is more theistic than non-theistic."

Well, we disagree. Spong has moved very far from a theistic God but I would have to go back and check if he comments about 1-on-1 contact. 

It is that theistic God in the sky who intercedes or 'breaks in' to our natural world and those actions are called miracles. If you consider the development of ordinary human beings, I'm simply saying that 1-on-1 contact is such an in-breaking, a miracle .........and that seems at odds with a much broader, un-theistic, notion of God.

I think I'm actually being a bit more 'radical' than you as as I'm agreeing about the ever-presence or immanence of God in creation and that his modus operandi is not 1-on-1s (which given the reposts of human beings are very limited, i.e. exclusive) but a continual active presence as the Word which speaks/calls through our words and the Spirit/Love who loves in and through our love - and these are universal, constant and necessary. Without God, we cannot grow to become fully Human: God is essential. And this Presence is for all, given to all and it does not depend on our religious beliefs: the Word always Calls, the Love always give the courage to (respond and) be. Sure it can be 'felt in our hearts, minds and souls' but that is because it is first given (Grace) in and through creation and most powerfully in and through human beings (the image). The contact is others and then, I agree, that one can feel or reflect on what is given and have a 'personal relationship' with God.

Given your analogy, I'm a person who says that food is given in and through creation and human effort first and only then can we receive it 1-on-1 (or curbside) from the market.

Took a brief look at Rayner and it sounds 'out there.' As an example Joseph of Arimathea is the uncle of Jesus? Yet some scholars question the very existence of this man. However I will look at him some more.

43 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

One thing that stands out for me is that the 'content' of what Jesus taught and preach is often very similar to the 'content' put forth in other traditions.

Not sure if this is surprising but it does not suggest world wide travel by Jesus to India, China or England. 

43 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Yeah, I think that Christ is different than the rest of us. How much and to what degrees is another question. I think that he was most probably the first person, the first human being, to become fully eternal. I think that he is the Christ, the savior of the whole world and humanity. Yeah this is different from the rest of us and from the Jews of his day.

Here again we differ (which obviously is fine) in that I think the real glory is that he is man, he is human just like we are but he is one who (again not alone but in his tradition and on the shoulders of those before him) opens himself to Abba and says, "your Way"  and he becomes the Image of the Father,, the image and likeness of Love, even unto death. And after his death, his earliest followers see him (not as God) but as one exalted by God to be Lord.

Only if he was like us 'in all ways' is he relevant: what he is, we are called to be.

I do agree he is different in 'degree' but not in kind. He is not God who became man but man who 'became God' because of the degree of his love.

The late Larry Hurtado (leading critical biblical scholar) wrote in his blog:

"Women, many women, were among Jesus’ followers, made substantial contributions (both in effort and finances) to his ministry, and continued to exercise important and leading roles in earliest Christian circles".

48 minutes ago, Burl said:

Listen to the black community.  They are fed up with white people patronizing them with what white Democrats think is best for Black people.

The entire black community? 

Seemingly many/most in that community see their best opportunity with matters that are of utmost concern to them with the Democratic Party..........certainly not our racist president and his white power supporters (not all but indeed enough) who is sending unidentified Feds into cities to harass mostly black citizens - when even the local, elected leaders see it as naked political ploy to his supporters.........including the racists. 

However I did enjoy your GOP line about patronization :+}

Welcome Tarquin.

27 minutes ago, Burl said:

Now that we can read Paul with greater accuracy past misinterpretations are of historical interest.

......and religious interests if one want to understand the rightful role of women in the thinking of perhaps the greatest theologian of Christianity (Paul).

8 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Jesus did something between the ages of 13 and 30. That's 17 years. It's also the years that most of us get what we call a higher education. Thinking of him just doing some kind of regular manual type work somehow doesn't quite fit, not that there's anything wrong with that kind of work.

Doesn't quite fit what, the careful research by scholars into life and education in 1st C Palestine or a more modern take on education, including higher education?

The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ by Nicolas Notovitch (1894) about Jesus in India during his teenage years was exposed as a fraud (Ehrman's blog).  

It is not that one has a PhD or something but whether they have the expertise and experience to know what they're talking about. One could have been impressed by the content of Notovitch's 'Unknown Life" but they would have been he victim of an elaborate hoax. The content was a false!

53 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Half the Christian world has "issues with Paul". Almost all Progressive Christians have "issues with Paul". Most Christian scholars, writers and speakers particularly inside Progressive Christianity have "issues with Paul". Are you trying to imply that there is something wrong with having "issues" with some of the things that Paul is reported to have written? One could say, and many people have, that there much more likely something wrong with someone who doesn't have problems or "issues" with some of the things Paul is ascribed to have written.

This gets interesting: do some PCs have issues with letters wrongly attributed to Paul or with Paul himself and his theology? Not sure it it is 'almost all' PCs - given pseudo Paul.

If the former then not only is it not Paul but their 'issue' is with the selection of the canon not Paul's insights.

32 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

It's my understanding that 1st Timothy is considered to be pseudo-Paul. I've also seen that some scholars attest that the verses in 1st Corinthians were copied and edited into the letter by later "editors", perhaps even being borrowed from 1st Timothy. 

If this is correct then "today his words are NOT being used to keep half the world's population and half the members of everyone's own family as chattel."

56 minutes ago, Burl said:

Not sure how much you aware of down there Paul but the Democratic party,  who were the Confederacy and fought civil rights for blacks tooth and nail into the 60’s,  are the white activists co-opting black concerns as they try to erase their racist roots.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article210593.html

You're simply trying too hard Burl.

This is 2020 and the D Party is not the confederacy, is not fighting civil rights - nor are they co-opting black concerns. The trumpster and some of his cult are a totally different story.

Welcome to 2020.

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

 

As said, "that's not what I liked about Burl's comment - sad or not was not important to me."  My comment was agreement that 'do no harm' was, as Burl said, "rock bottom humanist ethos."  

4 hours ago, JosephM said:

What i see as a great problem for many is that when ethnicity becomes more important than our humanity there becomes a strong inclination for the dichotomy of a them and an us.which seems to me to do nothing for peace as an individual or society.

It is the case that for many/most black men (especially) and women their ethnicity (the fact that they are African, black) has been made more important than a true recognition of their shared humanity........... by others. I suspect that many black Americans would be only too glad if their humanity (and in that their true equality as Americans, as citizens, as human beings) were truly recognized and valued by ALL - then they, then we all (of those who truly care) would have peace!

2 minutes ago, Burl said:

Example please.  Someone whose career has been destroyed because they did not line up with the Trimpeter’s virtue signaling.  Preferably an academic.

Please note the :+}

Although I would offer up Hannity and Tucker as those who bludgeon others in the name of their most high :+}

7 hours ago, JosephM said:

As to do with Cancel Culture as relates to "doing no harm". If a statue offend you, then ignore them. History is to be remembered , not forgotten. If we are to be harmed by statues that to me represent history but to you may represent something else..... then where do we draw the line?  Some people are sensitive and offended by the slightest thing. How do we identify doing harm to the other? and where do we draw the line over things that one needs to get over and things that do need to be changed? Exactly what does the statement in the other thread by Paul S. mean when he says "All power to you whatever that may be, as long as you cause no harm, in my opinion."  What about the lyrics " 'If I'm doing no harm, it shouldn't bother you'. Like wise, 'If you're doing no harm, it shouldn't bother me" that Ellen quoted and PaulS said "Sounds sound to me! "  How do you apply that to all this Cancel Culture thread? Is the defining of harm to others always opinion?

It is obvious that many black men and women (and numerous white men and women) find certain statues a celebration or commemoration and reminder of slavery and those long dead who fought to keep their ancestors slaves. In addition, as has been established, many of these statues were erected during the Jim Crow era.  Were they put up simply to 'remember history' or, given what Jim Crow was, did the statues make a further statement? Do they make that same statement (the wrong statement and one harmful to the country) today for some who march for white power and wear Nazi symbols? 

This is not a matter of over sensitivity or offense at 'the slightest thing' ....... such a comment in itself does harm. Such a statement is over simplistic. 

The statues 'do harm' to many of your (our) fellow citizens! Would it cause you equal or greater harm to allow these statues and the flag to be removed and placed in a museum of HISTORY?  

Whose harm is greater? Yet to do no harm is not enough for the Christian or for she who is enlightened - rather we are called to DO, to love, to have compassionate care for others. One would think that such history could be 'remembered' in a museum and our public areas could be free of such reminders that caused untold pain in the past and continues to cause pain today - and, sadly, inspire some to still look upon black men and women as lesser. 

I (one who has always been interested in the history of Civil War), like many others, have no problem going to a museum to admire and learn about great Art or going to a different kind of museum to study and learn about this period in our history.

As to where to draw the line - how easy is this? If statues commemorate and celebrate those who committed treason against the United States or who committed genocide against a people - let's stop honoring them. We have enough genuine heroes and good men and women to celebrate who have made and still make this country a land and an idea where indeed 'all men are created equal."  Somethings, as we all should know, are worth changing, especially if the result is less harm and more compassion.  

'If I'm doing no harm, it shouldn't bother you'. Like wise, 'If you're doing no harm, it shouldn't bother me"....... the reality is that 'you' (generally speaking) are doing harm and it is not merely bothering people, it is causing harm - and also encouraging some present day idiots who desire a world long dead that should be remembered but never celebrated.

4 hours ago, Burl said:

Cancel Culture is bullying plain and simple.  

I know - the trumpeter's cult use it that way to bludgeon the opinions of others :+}

22 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Today his words are being used to keep half the world's population and half the members of everyone's own family as chattel. Luckily it's not succeeding in all groups and all populations.

Paul's words or pseudo-Paul? Scholars do not accept that all letters attributed to Paul were Paul's. Which specific letters are 'being used' in such a way?

1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

t's not "exclusive" if God does or will do this for anyone and everyone.

I disagree with you, it is not at all what people in PC call the "theistic" god. In fact it is quite the opposite and another thing entirely. It's a universal understanding of God that places Em everywhere and everywhere, including in our understandings and insight and in our inner minds.

Agreed then it is not exclusive, however I still don't buy one-on-one contact. However if God does it for Jesus (only) that would be exclusive.

The idea of a God who has 1-on1 contact is more theistic than non-theistic. 

1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

I think that some very good scholarship does support the idea that Christ may have had an education that stretched across the known world. Perhaps even further, after all he's Christ.

What scholarship?

1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

'm just stating that his education could have gone even further than that. 

I just haven't found critical scholars who buy into Jesus having the broad education that you suggest. And to say that "after all he's Christ" seems to suggest that he is different than the rest of us and different than the Jews of his day........and again seems like traditional theism (which is fine, I simply disagree with it and it seems to be at odds with PC).

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think you're still missing my point.  If you don't apply any context to Harper's verse then indeed one could hold the narrow view that it’s a bit sad because it says that the rock bottom humanist ethos is sufficient.  The context that I apply, doesn't say that to me (and possibly others).  The context you apply to the Golden Rule makes it say what it says to you.  All power to you whatever that may be, as long as you cause no harm, in my opinion.

I don't think I ever commented on it being sad and that's not what I liked about Burl's comment - sad or not was not important to me.

Just as you read Harper within a context so too do I read the Rule within a context that is presented in the gospels. 

I did not 'apply' a context to the Rule but rather accepted the context that is in the gospels and elaborated on by the best biblical scholars, to include Ehrman, Allison, Fredriksen, etc.

Causing no harm is a start but the Rule, i.e. actively doing to the other, is a much more.

My take is that if there is one-to-one contact from and between God a a particular human being - that is exclusive. Plus this seems to posit a concept of a traditional theistic God - something that progressives are discounting as they speak of the Real in different ways.

12 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I tend to like the idea that Jesus had an education, not only in Jewish circles but all over the known world. There have been some books on this subject in the past century. There's even a YouTube video that covers parts of this. There were many educational centers and religious/spiritual traditions existing at the time. They say that a sign of a good manager is that they are able to sort the wheat from the shaft so to speak, concerning good ideas and not so good ideas. I'm thinking with Jesus there might well have been more to it than that, but the concept still applies.

I think that I myself tend to believe in both. That he both had an education and as you say "stood on the shoulders" of others, as well as had something very special and insightful and directly God given to him.

I have heard both the world education take for Jesus and that he was an Essene however the best scholarship does not support either claim.

When I say he 'stood on the shoulders of others' I did not mean he did not receive an education that would have been typical for that time. 

13 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I think that this may well be the same as and pertain to the 2nd coming as well. Perhaps someday all people will "see it", but maybe not today, and maybe not totally in our lifetimes.

Agreed

10 hours ago, Burl said:

Gender equity was a distinguishing feature of the church.  Paul’s letter to the Romans was preached by Junia, not Paul.

When Constantine politicized the church things started going off-track.

I agree with the comments about Julia but do you think that things (for women) only fell apart with Constantine or did it begin earlier?