thormas

One sentence within a context ..............I referred to both :+}

Not the verse........... the interpretation :+} The rule does express an ethos, specifically the way to be in preparation for the coming Kingdom of God. Where I part company is your interpretation which, as I think Burl gets to, is, in places, the least not the most one can do. I get that you have put it in your words but the golden rule of Jesus isn't telling us to take a chill pill or that nobody has the answers. Actually, for Jesus, an apocalyptic prophet time is short: there is no time to chill and he is giving an (the) answer - additionally he has been arguing with others and he certainly thinks they are wrong and he has the answer). Jesus didn't 'get along' or 'respect the differences' he was hearing and seeing. Perhaps you should have stopped with love one another for this is the essence of the golden rule. The Golden Rule (do to others what you would have them do to you) is the same as the 2nd of the great commandments (thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself). I get that Ben sums it up for you, and I agree with part of what you 'hear" from Jesus - just not all of it. Ben's words might make people think they don't have to take action in a certain way but Jesus' words called for a very specific action: love, do .........and such action is seen in the stories about him: he doesn't chill, he doesn't just get along, he loves.

We disagree on one-to-one contact with God (although I do believe one can have a personal relationship with God) as I simply don't think God works that way or is exclusive if indeed the rain falls on all. And I do think one can 'know' God (depending on what is meant by know). As for the Bible, it depends on how one interprets it: for me the songs, hymns and many of the verses are not to be taken literally. I agree that Jesus 'knew' God, addressed God as Abba and spoke to God (prayer) but I also believe that Jesus stood on the shoulders of his fellow Jews (and his parents) and came to know God through them which resulted in a unique understanding/insight that the man Jesus developed or grew into. I don't accept that God miraculously came to Jesus in a way that was different than how he comes to us all. I do believe that Jesus was unique in his insights on what had already existed: the Jewish relationship/covenant with God and the Law. I think the contact is both: God in man. I think the only difference is due to luck/happenstance: the good or bad fortune of the parents/family/community you are born into and/or the good or bad fortune of others significant influences in/throughout one's life. Thus, we carry an awesome responsibility and we are essential, we are the co-creators and if we don't do it................? We are the 2nd coming and the (present) body of the Christ.

My take: My point was not left or right groups but group think as part of a church or religious organization and I was simply saying that it seems that many PCs are independent thinkers and don't get caught up in group think. With your example of women - again I get that in a traditional religious setting but I simply don't see that in progressive expressions of Christianity. I don't think that many progressives 'go along with what everyone else thinks and does' and, for some, that is why they have been attracted to PC.

In general or in these recent discussions?

My take: I understand someone who develops a 'personal relationships' with God just not one-on-one revelations with or contact from God. Humans do not 'replace' God/Christ, rather they are the means by which and through which God is present in the ordinary, everyday life of men and women. The point is simply that God's modus operandi is incarnation: he presents Himself 'in' the words of men and women and in the love that we give to others. Seemingly there is nothing 'within' - we cannot even develop language or become part of the world without first being addressed (called) by other human beings. Ideas don't/can't surface up 'within' without our first interacting in the world and with others.

Most are not talking about an older view of religion and church when there was group think. Seemingly many liberal and/or progressive Christians left group-think behind and are independent thinkers. Not sure what you mean by 'doing things differently' .............

...............still, Macqarrie's point was the difference takes on ecumenism and he was correct

Great point!

Wining? I took him as just explaining the difference between the US and England in its understanding of ecumenism (at the time he was speaking).

Was this not done?

I'm just not sure how that works. Silence I get but I just don't connect to the 'doors' you mentioned as (for me) it sounds too magical and too individual. In my understanding, God is always embodied in the human, in creation or, to reverse it, God is immanent in humanity/creation and this is his way to 'reach' us. I simply believe that God is always incarnate, his presence hidden, subtle so we are not overwhelmed. This also enables me to understand the role of Jesus: I accept him as a human being and in/through this human being, the Word (that is usually 'hidden' when uttered in the words of others) is 'shouted' in Jesus. I don't really buy into 'direct' communication with God - God is always mediated (acting through/in, not direct) in/through creation.

You lost me.............

I didn't enjoy that video at all. Macquarie and Hick are giants on the page but the videos are a struggle.

If I understand him correctly, I agree with Burl: do no harm is fine but the Golden Rule is proactive and calls for man/woman to do/to act, i.e. to love (compassionate concern/agape) one's neighbor. The Rule calls not first to do no harm but to first (and always) to love (and in that there is no harm).

A difference experience: I was a bit lucky in that I had very few "we said so" in life. Agreed, another time, another discussion.

I (just researched it a bit and I) like it: prevenient or enabling (empowering?) grace: God shows (gives) love to an individual at a certain point in his lifetime. For Gregory Baum in his book 'Man Becoming' God does this in the ordinary, everyday moment of life. God calls, challenges and judges us in and through the words spoken to us from the beginning and throughout life (by Mother, Father and others) and loves us in and through the love given/gifted by others which gives us the courage (empowers/enables us) to respond to the word and grow. Back in the early 80s I used Baum's book as the text for a high school senior's course called Christian Anthropology.

For me the responsibilities and obligations are one with a glad heart, open mind and happy spirit. In my understanding, Christian love is not done out of obligation - it is (becomes) a natural movement to be, to have compassion for others. If you're talking about the giving of love, there is no end: this is what one is and does, this is what God IS (and in this there is oneness).

I should be more clear in that (I believe) God persuades in the most subtle of ways through creation and specifically through humanity: we are 'called and encouraged' through and by other human beings (and through creation itself) 'to grow into ourselves' or to become 'fully Human.' This is even done when others are not consciously intending (or realizing they are doing) to do this. It is, if you will, 'natural' and the religious or spiritual person believes that there is 'more' going on than meets the eye: i.e. God.

I've run into that problem also when it credits someone else for a quote - glitch in the system? Don't know. I never think you are being foolish and I appreciate the reality of working something out. I have grown to like the word persuasive realizing that if 'God' persuades or calls it is we who have the choice to respond. I have also come to realize that true freedom isn't choosing this or that but in choosing 'correctly' one become truly free - in this case, free to be or become Human or a 'child of God.' Finally, the way I think of it: in all relationships, in all love, there are 'responsibilities' or simply there is always 'more' to do - but I never thought of them as strings or a hook. So too God (for me).

I mention Borg because many like him but I lean to the other two. Not familiar with the video.

I think there are a number of theologians/thinkers who have done a great job on that: John Hick, John Macquarie and, to a degree, Marcus Borg (to name a few).

I read Harold Kushner's 'Why Bad Things Happen to Good People' decades ago and I was not satisfied with his conclusion - that perhaps God is all good but not all powerful. Then I began to appreciate the difference between coercive and persuasive power and realized that, as you have said in your way, that God's power (which truly is power) is persuasive: it calls to us and 'depends' on us for a response.

I see that it can and has been a problem but it is what we do: we are transcendent beings who are always reaching and it is natural to try to understand why we are, what it is about and, of course, the question of the 'Creator.' The trick perhaps is to realize that our words are never conclusive, that we never fully capture 'truth.'

Nicely stated.