thormas

We agree: that take or any take on "God" as a genocidal killer is "clearly mistaken."

Well, at least we have agreed that the viewpoints that I am presenting are historical and, therefore, not merely subjective. Thanks for that clarification. Also, no one is expecting mankind to adopt anything (which smacks of the adoptionist controversies of an earlier age); the idea is to be as God is (but I'm sure you know that). You seem to be circling back to what you said earlier (about circles, oddly) rather than contributing something, anything.......new. But, heh, welcome back!

So, too, human is "more like a VERB

Ah, I did so miss your attempt at humor.............thanks.

Actually I am reflecting on a centuries long perspective - so not merely 'what I see.'

precisely

Well two things: if we are talking about an evolution in understanding, then it follows this would entail changes in understanding (so we would expect some inconsistency). Second, the very idea of the constancy of God's love is part and parcel of Abraham and his decedents being 'chosen' by God, as are the many 'acts' of God throughout what is called salvation history until the fulfillment of that covenant in Jesus as Messiah, at least in the Jewish followers of Jesus who were also the 'first' generation of Christians (so we also have consistency). Actually it probably has. Many point to the OT and Paul (thus the NT) for 'evidence' that God is against LBGTQ people. And we could of course also go back and see that the 'culture outside of our religion' was also (first?) influenced and determined by religious belief. Evolution in religious understanding and evolution in human consciousness - not merely relative, but it does take time to get to the (absolute) truth.

see above

Actually, no: first,, your statement ignores the evolution of religious thinking; second, your statement ignores that the Bible is human insight, not divine revelation; and, third, your statement (once again) ignores the 'new covenant' that is presented in the NT (the fullness of the God who is Love 'revealed' in Jesus). As I said, the God 'presented in Jewish history and lived (fully) in Jesus. I recognize that your statement supports your present (not former) belief, however it ignores the historical record. Just out of curiosity, which process philosopher or philosophers are you referring to? Regardless, for the Christian, 'fully human' is easily defined: it is seen in the Christ. Here is man who embodies Love (i.e. God, divinity) in his actions, in his life, in his flesh. As we are called to do and be the same. Fully humans is an 'ideal' to be realized and it has been realized in Jesus (and others in history). I'm fine with the use of the word ideal, if it please you, but I prefer a 'reality' (even a possibility) to be actualized. Many times, such humans are obvious and known by their love. While some, probably like many of our Mothers, simply lived and were the embodiment of love that empowered us and our world to be. As mentioned, it seems obvious, that all of us don't become 'fully human' and that is where I mentioned different takes on when/how this occurs if it is not accomplished in this (one) lifetime. Love is not some general notion, actually it is specific and known when it is given (and sadly when it is not). I am simply saying that one, like a Hitler, has failed as a truly human being and this is recognized in our description of him. If by traits you mean behavior some of which is self-centered - of course that is part of us. What I'm saying it is not the best part or if that part dominates both we and the world are less. It is love that needs to be the distinguishing quality (i.e. trait) that belongs to the person and thus the world. Nobody said Hitler was not a human (i.e. species); it was simply said he lacked what makes us Truly Human or if you prefer Humane (having compassion or what I have called compassionate concern or love). And, in real ways, Hitler and others are recognized as being 'less' and the names (Monster, inhuman, animal, savage, etc.) given to them are 'evidence' of this recognition and their reality. A trait is a distinguishing quality or characteristic; such traits define the person. People don't use these names because merely because they don't like something that is merely displayed or a particular behavior; they use them because they best describe and name - what the person is. A person who is rude might be obnoxious, a teenager who mocks and bullies others is harmful - are you seriously saying Hitler was just an obnoxious guy who caused harm? He destroyed the world for untold millions! In any world, in any time Hitler would be a Monster and recognized as such, especially if you were one of the ones whose family, friends, world and self were being ravaged by such a human (species). All is not relative.

To clarify, in the sentence, "They are simply wrong and have not yet seen it" the they are those who hate or discriminate against those who are LBGTQ.

Agreed that 2k years ago, we might have thought differently but then again, as noted before, there was an evolution in religious understanding and in human consciousness/understanding. So it is merely subjective or a recognition of what is/should be in the treatment of others? Certainly not 2k years ago but now, some indeed would consider such lack of compassion for others to be a failure to be (for others). Finally, we both know that hating gays in no way is living the great commandments. They are simply wrong and have not yet seen it. If you thought they were right, you would be one of them.

Actually there is an incredible consistency in love and as for fully human, although Moses didn't use such words, the reality is captured in the covenant: this particular people, evidenced by keeping the commandments (love), were the people of God. Therefore one is of the people of God and shares the life of God, one is truly Human (on the way, albeit inconsistent at times) and embodies God, when one lives by the great commandments, when one.........loves.

Really not that difficult for the major religions that cover millions the world over. For the Christian, it was presented in Jewish history, lived in Jesus and stated in John: God is Love. Rather self explanatory for most but also 'defined' as compassionate care as evidenced in the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. Love, real love, is obvious and in spite of, for example, the husband who loves his wife by beating her, most know this is not love. So, for me, the terms are not loose at all and many of the answers to your questions are obvious. Process philosophy speaks of an inner 'thrust' to be, to be better, to be best - not in competition with another or to have power over others, but to fully be (actualization). It is not 'looking toward something more to be' - rather it is the recognition that one must do to truly be. To play off your words: we don't look outside of our humanity, we realize the fullness of our possibility. Again, on one hand, we are all simply human (in that we are not, be it our good eggs, our bad eggs or the in-between eggs, another species) but, on the other hand, (the fullness of) Human is realized and recognized by others as we move to self-less-ness. So, Hitler and the others are not seen as humans (in the latter sense) and this is acknowledged in our ordinary language: we call such people, Animals, Monsters, InHuman, etc. - in our ordinary, everyday language, we strip them of the term Human because of the greatness of their self-centeredness. Human is something to do (Love) and if it is not done, in some real, recognizable way, one is not..........Human; one is not love.

I would think that, to be for the rights of LBGTQ persons, is indeed a necessary stance for one who accepts and lives the two great commandments. One was in relationship with God by keeping these commandments; one is (in those moments) the 'likeness of God.' This is the Truly Human (truly Divine) act and attitude: Love. It seems obvious that you and Rom would disagree with any conservative religious stance or biblical interpretation that is used to 'justify' not taking this stance for LBGTQ individuals. Would your stance be merely your subjective take or is your taking that stance also a living statement that the other stance is wrong? So, to not show and live compassionate concern (i.e. love) for these people seems to be 'missing the mark' and a (temporary?) failure to self actualize (be the likeness of God, be Human).

Well, that's a relief. Again, from a religious POV, one is born in the image of God and 'called' (or his/her destiny is) to take on the likeness of God. One does this by doing what God does (and is): Love. So, to the degree that one lives a life of compassionate concern, to that degree one is (becoming) more, truly human. In a panentheistic, progressive perspective, that is humanization (becoming more or Truly human); the ancient Eastern tradition calls this divinization. Thus, in this perspective, one self-actualizes (Maslow) by embodying Love. As for measurement, we can probably say the same thing the Bible says of judgement: that is "God's" to do. However, it seems we can get some sense, especially in the extremes: say Hitler, a serial killer, etc vs. Mother Theresa, Jesus, Ghandi, Buddha and other lesser known people on the spectrum. In this perspective, Human is something to do and in the doing, be. I don't reject your notion (which would be a bit harsh) but I do disagree "that we are already fully human." It is interesting that you use the word mark. Sin is considered to be "missing the mark" with the mark being Human. So, to the degree that one is self-centered, to that degree they miss the mark. As they 'overcome' self-centeredness, they are (back) on the mark: being Human because they are love. As to when? Who knows. I suspect most of us don't become Fully Human (Love or Divinity residing in Humanity) in this lifetime. Theologians have different takes on how this is accomplished from, IMO, the ridiculous to the sublime. But that is a discussion for another time. Is it a journey? Of a sort, sure. Is it becoming a 'better version?' Sure, we could possibly use that language. Where we differ, is it is not merely subjective. Furthermore, for me, that is not all we have.

There are many issues in life, LGBTQ being one of them - obviously this fact and how one decides on the issue, undermines nothing. Are you saying LBGTQ individuals should not have rights like other human beings merely because some people don't (yet) see and agree with those rights? How about the young earthers who don't believe in evolution or the age of the universe? Individuals who have problems with either issue would probably point to their religious beliefs and Biblical interpretation. Does the fact that they have an 'issue' with evolution undermine the argument of others who accept evolution and the age of the universe and either disregard the Bible and religious belief or hold different religious beliefs and biblical interpretations - that are not a problem for them on this issue (or the LBGTQ issue). I agree the many religious folks (especially on the very conservative side) have problems with LBGTQ individuals. Although, some religious (and non-religious) people have no problem at all. Seemingly, you believe those religious folks who have a major issue are wrong.

We disagree (what else is new, BTW welcome back) and it was beautifully coherent :+} In this day and age, the issue is obvious.

It was coherent, we simply disagree. The LBGT issue is in line with the rights of others (minorities, women, the disabled, etc.) ........so, it takes some time (and some longer than others) but we eventually get it and it is obvious that it's right.

I'm confused over your confusion. I simply used the word person to accommodate you as I thought you were more comfortable with it; it is not a term I use in this context (preferring human).

Most journeys are 'to' someplace. Therefore, we seem to agree that we (humans) are on such a journey, where we differ is 'to where' and how it is described. Many of us like nice little walks but even that has a destination: perhaps it is not a specific place but for many (most?), the destination or purpose is health, companionship and/or enjoyment. A journey suggests a destination or purpose, most/all(?) don't simple wander without purpose. I have always said it is about being a better person, I simply substitute human or even truly human for person. And, the designation better suggests someone has moved away from, improved on or overcome that which kept them from being the better person that are or can be.

I get your position. Of course, on one hand, we are human and can be nothing other, however, as Maslow speaks of self-actualization and as process philosophy speaks of 'becoming' so too, for some, these recognize the reality that human is something you must do and thereby become (in time). And, given history, some have failed miserably at the only thing they can be (become). Again, I fully recognize that some don't see this or seeing, don't so define it. "Doing better" is 'being' better. It is being something or, more of something, that you were before you 'did' better. You sIS, "Could you be a 'better' human? - I imagine we all can to different degrees." That is exactly it: it is a question of degree (as you have said); we can be "better humans." And, if it is truly becoming better, this is what I have called 'truly (i.e. fuller/fullest degree) human.'

Not sure what the difference is but my use of the word, 'Human' is more than species. Human or truly human is what we are called to be. Of course, this is a religious meaning and if one is not so inclined, they probably disagree. For me, we are not already fully human and self-centeredness is that which keeps us from that reality. You are right that self centeredness does not contribute to the well being of the troupe - and that is my point. Especially, when we look at others who do so contribute. The former are less; the latter are more (human). As you have shown, the well being of the troupe (and individuals) are negatively impacted; there is a brokenness and thus, the religious person, recognizes the need to overcome that which causes the problem, so that we (the individual and the troupe) can be whole (i.e. salvation/wholeness is needed/required. Or what you call "a better way." Yo

The understanding, which I agree with, is that self-centeredness 'breaks' us (so to speak); we are not able to become fully Human until it is overcome. Such overcoming is considered salvation (being made whole). We are not perfect humans: weaknesses and strengths are one thing but lives ruled by selfishness do not make for perfectly human beings. Of course, this again is a religious understanding but I doubt many (any?) would accept that we are perfect humans - given the ample evidence to the contrary. And all this can be affirmed and life lived (and enjoyed) simultaneously.

I don't believe it is made up in our heads. Rather I believe the Word, sounds in our words, calling us to life. This is not 'our' Word and it is not in our head (as if it is our creation): it (for lack of a better way to say it) comes from 'outside' us, and many times makes us uncomfortable, disturbs us and we resist it for it is not easy to be (come) Human. I'm not sure if we need what is typically referred to as information because in our ordinary friendships, love relationships and parenting relationships, we know 'instinctively' that it is the person giving her or himself that is the gift. So too, with an animal, where there is no information, the dog (for example) gives all he is. As does nature: I think through nature, the Word also calls and we can respond. I think the conscious information is when we reflect or what a community (the Jews, Christianity, Islam) reflects on its experience, on it s insights and 'captures' them. Actually, that is what we are now engaged in. I don't have your experience but I have always thought that it is individual and personal and while relationships may look different, the faith response to Love seemingly must be to love (not sure if there is much or any wiggle room theres). If faith means a particular religions expression or belief, I agree there is no 'exclusively true faith.' However, if faith is response to God, the only true faith (i.e. response) is love (actually a love response is the only true (and humanizing) response to friendship, love relationship and as a parent to a child. Given the normal understanding of the words, a human take on God cannot, by definition, be 100% true and still seems exclusive. A concern with 100% truth seems to suggest correct information or knowledge of God (in that none can be 100%). Truth is evident in our lived response; all who love, (don't have but) live Truth. Even with all our differences that you have listed, one necessity is shared, recognized and known: love gives life; we are drawn to it as the flower to the Sun, we thrive when it is given and we are lost when it is withheld. I guess, for the panentheist, energy is in God but God is not that energy; energy cannot be equated to God. However, even the way you phrase it, "God is present in energy" suggests that God is other than energy and thus 'in' it and not it. It is another discussion, but God is not best understood as the first cause but the ontological possibility that there is a cause, that there is (anything). But, the bigger question, for me, is how does energy redeem us, make us Human? I simply mean that if revelation is (as we seem to agree) the God giving himSelf, then he does not give more or less of himself to some. God given himSelf fully to all equally. The human response is different but that is not revelation, it is faith. My point is we cannot say that one is 100% true. How would such a claim even be measured? To say this one is 100% true is a statement of belief. And I didn't say not are true. For me, some Christian insights speak more powerfully to me than others; simply, they make sense or my response is, "well, of course, that makes sense." So, even in Christianity, there are insights and then, there are insights. I don't have time to research all religions and can't go back to my beginning and be born into different ones to try on. Christianity, or at least some of it, speaks to me but I fully recognize that the Buddhist, the Jew, the Muslim, etc, could (hopefully) make the same statements about their insights. And, I suspect the best of the insights of most religions are in agreement. And, some have 'abandoned' religion yet if they love, they know, what I call God. Nothing has proof: not Christianity, not a religion based on your imaginary friend or the religion of no religion. We're all in the same lifeboat. If he was not a 'mere man' then all based on him is for naught - for the simple reason that we, 'mere men and women' would be at a disadvantage: we who are 'mere' cannot magically be not mere! Even the NT describes him as 'growing in wisdom, faith and knowledge." So there is no perfect rather there seems to be a perfecting or a growing to 'perfection' (the perfecting of Humanity by Divinity/Love). And, if a model for us (as I think he is), that model is based on the greatness of his love. I guess God would no more magically transform us, than I, as a parent, would have transformed my daughter: life is a gift, the gift is your's to use (or not), it is your journey, it is your story to write and what loving father would not give that possibility to you? If we were magically transformed, our life would not be ours and, given what we have said revelation and faith are, there would be no self-giving of God in love to us and no need to love, to give ourselves. There would be no need for we would all be magically one; there would be no need for anything. Love is risk, creation is both God's gift and God's risk. The method or the way of salvation is not dependent on knowing Jesus, it is knowing and doing love. This way is 'seen' in and as Jesus for the Christian but the same way is seen differently by others. Somehow Jesus made salvation (wholeness or fulfillment of Human Beings) certain: indeed, it is certain because one like us, a mere man, did it. And thus it is certain: it can be done. To me that great glory is that a man, like other men, like us - in all ways- responded to God (faith), even at death's door, to Live and Be fully Human. He has done it, it is possible, it is certainly possible - now it is ours to do (speaking of Catholics, I still like the end of the mass, where basically they say (after hearing the Word, after being 'nourished' after sharing with their fellows) "now, you - go do it (Go Love and Serve) in the world." There is no hell because, as you said, the Father waits for all time until all the prodigals turn and have life. I agree there is much we don't know but the belief is that the same God who is immanent in humanity (as previously discussed with the example of the Mother), is immanent in all creation, calling it to fulfillment. To me this is not 'behind the scenes' it is 'in the midst' of man, of all creation. I don't believe that religion and science have to be opposed and I, also, have no problem with the concepts you listed. Jesus is not God (as traditionally presented); he is a 'mere man' (see above). He is an enlightened man and, Christians, can say, that he is enlightened (having heard the Word/the Wisdom that is God) and responded in and by his life as Love. Thus his wisdom is God and his love is God. Jesus: divinity in humanity; God in man; true man and true God; Son (1st born) of God. All the titles, properly understood, apply to the 'mere man' in whom 'we see God." Finally, we are fine and I enjoy expressive and personal. All is good, I enjoy the dialogue.

Apologies for the delay,life took over. Revelation and Grace: Revelation is not information, there is no content, instruction or knowledge; revelation is the self-revealing or self-giving of God himSelf. God does not give information; he is what he gives. So too, grace (gift) is not some form of knowledge, any more than human love or friendship is some form of knowledge; it is the giving of self to the other. In love or friendship, the gift the other gives is, first and foremost, his or herself; it is not knowing about, it is knowing. So too, God (see below on ‘content’). Sin: If John is correct when he says that God is Love, then sin, separation from God; sin is separation from Love. Sin is the opposite of Love: it is selfishness or self-centeredness, whereas Love is self-less-ness. Moreover, there is only one sin, the original and ever present sin: selfishness: I lie for me, I steal for me, I covet for me, I dishonor others for me and on and on. God: is necessary for the humanization of man; Love is what makes us truly human. To love is to embody (to incarnate, to make flesh, to give Love a ‘place’to reside) God. Man becomes Human when he does as God does (love) and is what God is (Love). The humanization of man is what the Eastern expression calls the deification of man. And because we sin, this humanization is also salvation: sin, self-centeredness, is overcome/replaced by Love; man is at-one with God. Faith:is the human response to God: (think friendship) God gives himself and if we respond, we give ourselves. Faith is not belief in this or that, faith responds; it is lived. Therefore, it matters not what religion or if man follows any religion, it matters not what he calls God or if he says there is no God: if one loves, they are one with/of God. God is the 'one contact' and the 'defining similarity among humans' is response: love, compassionate concern for others. Revelation:In a love relationship or friendship, we speak and thereby reveal ourselves. And in any real relationship, our words call, challenge, encourage, and even judge the other (and their words do the same) to be more, to become more. Take a Mother with her child: she is constantly speaking to the child: her words call the child to consciousness; the child develops language and a mental life. The child grows as a being because she hears and responds. The words of the Mother can be rather simple: “No!”or “Hot!”which can save the child from being burned by the stove; “Look both ways.” is always helpful and sometimes a lifesaver; “Don’t hit your brother.” is an oldie but goodie; as is, “Be nice to the new student in your class.” Sometimes, even a ‘look’ can speak volumes. The Mother gives herself in and through her words. Her words inform but hers are living words: they call, challenge, encourage, and judge the child and they require/demand a response: if you hear and respond, there is life (sometimes literally); if you don’t, there is a loss, even a loss of self (sometimes literally). But the Mother gives even more: sometimes it is hard to not hit your brother back (really hard depending on the brother), sometimes you don’t want to be nice to the new kid, sometimes it’s hard to accept responsibility, hard to say you’re sorry, hard to be truthful, to not lie – but if you can find the courage to respond to the challenge/call of life, then in that moment, in all the moments of life, we become a bit more as a human being. The Mother does not just utter cold words or give instruction to the child: The Mother gives love and love gives courage, the courage to respond and grow into life. The first, only and essential gift is the Mother giving herself to the child; her words call, challenge, encourage, judge and her love empowers the child to respond. The words (and love) of the Mother are living words: they give life. Yet the Mother does not ‘own’ what she gives because she too needs to receive such words of life and encouragement from others in order to be able to continually respond to life and grow as a being. None of us own what we give and we give more than we have (the Mother, exhausted and sick, can barely care for herself but she still gets up in the middle of the night to be there for the child with night terrors). This description of our words and love matches the biblical description of the Word and the Spirit that is God. They are not merely similar, they are one: we give God in the ordinary, everyday moments of life. Or to reverse it, God gives Self: it is Love (i.e. God) that calls through the Mother and it is Love, in and through the Mother, that gives us the courage to respond to life, gives us the courage to be. This is grace (the gift freely given), this is revelation, this is incarnation; these (creating, calling, loving) are the modes or ways by which God is present and presents himSelf in and through creation. My concern, based on the experience of Christianity, is that revelation understood as content, information or instruction is some ‘thing’ to be coveted, worshipped and stored; it does not truly live. Too often we state that we believe this, that and something else about God because it has been ‘revealed’ to (and set down by) our spiritual ancestors (look at the booming business some have made based on the Book of Revelations). However, what is revealed is Person; what is given is the Living Word that calls us to life and the Courage to Live. Energy: I disagree that "God's energies can accurately be equated with the energy described in physics and cosmology." Simply, energy is something that happens in creation, in the universe, but God is the very possibility of such things, such happenings. God can no more be equated with energy that God can be equated with a rock. Insight: The quality and quantity of revelation is the same, however what may differ are the ‘insights’of different men and women who reflect on and try to say something of that which they believe (and, such insight and understanding ‘evolve’ as man grows in the world). If God is the revelation, then how we see that gift, talk about that gift, and celebrate that gift is ours; it is relative to where the gift 'finds us.' No religion is 100% true for the simple reason that revelation is not divinely delivered knowledge and it is through a glass darkly. Since none are at 100%, Aristotle’s law is not applicable. Paul: We can discuss Paul and how to take his conversion (at another time) but be it a blinding light on the road or a an 'Aha" moment from reading a book for another – it is the same (quality and quantity) God. Progressives: Not all progressives agree on everything (anything?). Jesus: I don't deny incarnation (see above), I just see it from the bottom up, not the top down (just as there is what is called a high and a low Christology). It is not that God incarnated and became flesh in Jesus: rather, the man Jesus incarnated or embodied God/Love in his flesh, in his life. I don’t think it is a mystery how Jesus made salvation (wholeness) possible: Jesus is the one (one of the ones?) who hears and responds fully to the Word/Love that is God; he is True Man (Truly Human) because he is True God (he does and is Love) - even unto death. As God (Word and Love) is incarnate in the Mother; Jesus is the 'fullness' of incarnation; what is subtle, even whispered, in the Mother, is straightforward and clearly heard in Jesus. He is the Word: that shouts from the Mount; that challenges at the Temple; that calls in the parables; that is placed high on the Hill for all to see. Thus to see the Christ is to know God. Finally, salvation is not a 'certainty' unless one responds to God: Jesus has done it, now it’s our turn. As for his impact: sin thrives! Where is the reversal? It waits on us. God: Behind the scenes sounds a little too, how did you put it? Airy-fairy. Panentheism:I am a strong panentheist: unlike pantheism, the universe is not any part of God. All that is has its being in God: "I AM' Is - therefore all may be or has its being. I have found it valuable to move away from a traditional theistic take on God. However I like Macquarie’s Dialectical Theism (panentheism by another name). Buddha:To call Jesus, Son of God (not the biblical understanding but the understanding that has developed in our history), while Buddha is only an enlightened man - is the issue.