thormas

You have missed the point that this statement is one of belief and as such is not a demonstrable object. Therefore, a statement that something IS not present and active in existence is also a non-demonstratable statement of belief. Rather simple actually! I have not read about remote viewing so that is not my issue. What is a stretch for me is that I present a belief and am open to the beliefs of others whereas you insist that all should abide by your belief. You can not demonstrate that 'something IS not present and Is not active in existence.' Actually, I said all participates in God (not that it is God). I appreciate the compliment but I am not God. I agree with Paul of the NT: we live, move and have being in God. I agree with philosophy that there is being (it is) and all that is..........is (thus being). Again, rather simple concepts. Not sure about you but who is pretending? But if something is pretend, then logically it is not and therefore does not participate in being. Again, simple. So can I (but then again perhaps we can't if we go back to all being illusion) but you cannot demonstrate your belief that there is no God; you cannot demonstrate that my belief that 'something IS present and active in existence' is not a true take on 'reality.' But if you have another word, suggest it. But hasn't science stated that black holes exist and have 'for quite a while?' When were they first demonstrated? Did they not exist before that? Actually I disagree and your (nasty) summary does not show the real progression of religious belief in humanity. I think it is fair to say that some people's take on God might reveal they think God is 'nasty' but I don't see nastiness in, for example, the God of Jesus. We can discuss particulars later. I for one never thought of the God of Jesus as "vengeful, jealous, harmful and just plain nasty to humankind." Actually, just and always the opposite. And, in your references to the OT you rely on a literal reading whereas many believe this is not the way to read the OT. As for 'getting to God as caring and concerned' I learned it as a child and now as an adult that is what much of progressive christianity is or should be about. The evolution of religious thought continues. Exactly, love builds life. Put love in and life is enhanced; remove or fail to 'inject' love and life is diminished. Love is the be the 'be all and end all of life.' This is the Reality that is there to be discovered, yet it not always discovered, recognized or evident given humanity's will to power. Human beings have created realities where (their) power is the be all and end all, where the other is to be used, abused and discarded - but as we have both recognized, this is a false; it is not real! It is not truth (and men create a god in their image to justify their actions). We seemingly agree to this point on love. the only difference is that I 'name' the love given by one human being to another, "God" - I agree with John in the NT that, indeed, "God is love." And humanity is the essential co-creator: it is only when divinity is incarnated in humanity that humanity is healed, made whole and life enhanced; it is only when men and women embody/live love that Life happens. This is the Oneness that impacts the here and now. I understand the history of religion but, as a progressive, as a panentheism, I have moved beyond any notions of nasty, vengeful gods, or theistic concepts of god. Simply, such notions they are wrong. The love we give one to another, the compassion concern that is essential to the world is the giving of 'more' than we are and 'more' than we have to give. We give "God." All of us need love to be able to love, none can stand, none can thrive without It. Yet none own what they give for they too stand in need of if from others. The mother gives love to her child even in the midst of her own tragedy (say the death of her own mother) and she must turn to others for sustaining love, to be upheld, to be strengthened, to be healed. She gives more than she has even as she needs to receive the same gift from other human beings. We give more than we have, we give more than we are - yet we are essential - it is we who give God. The important thing is to love. I actually don't care if another calls love by the same name as I do. I don't actually care if another disagrees that when we love, we give more than we have. Again, what really matters is that they love; all else will be sorted out in eternity. p.s. I think it is good that many are moving (or refuting) certain notions or beliefs about God but I wonder if a better take on what is meant by "God" is not urgently necessary in the world. Because we are demonstrably not progressing towards more peace, rather we seem to be returning to tribalism and many long for the 'strong man' to save the day, to save them. Perhaps if they Loved, they world save themselves and the world.

Actually, I believe what we experience in everyday life is real, thus I call it reality. You know, the same usage and meaning if one talks about reality TV (but without the scripts). From there, it is a decision if one accept only what is apparent or allows that there is something 'more' at play. So, no, not certainty at least not in a gathering of evidence kind of way, but, if certain at all, only the 'certainty' (and hope) of faith. But, in part, you are correct, we cannot know 'God' in himself, only what we 'believe' to be the human experience of the 'more' (that some of us call God) that is present and indeed active in existence. So, given the above, I believe that all reality is or participates in the Reality called God (i.e. panentheism). I don't break it into bits (which seems an interesting approach) no more that I break my life into bits. Seemingly neither of us can 'substantiate' our take on reality: you think I inflate it, I think you deflate it. Thus it is, as has been said a few times before, belief (one way or the other). It's been a bit since I have thought about the history of religion but belief in gods (and eventually God) seems to include the gods that help humanity (and are loved) and the ones that hurt humanity (and are not loved but feared, even hated, secretly of course). And then there is the continuing evolution of religious thought which ultimately gets to God as caring and concerned and on the side of humanity. Along with this there is typically an ethic of behavior based on this belief that mirrors what is believed about God. Help looks and feels like help whereas oppression and repression are not experienced as helpful or healthy or life affirming. Therefore, most would say your reality (the God you help by oppressing people and who supports racism) is at odds not only with religious belief but with the experience of what is actually helpful in human life. Therefore, most would probably suggest you are not reflecting or grasping Reality (as it is) but, rather, your reality is a wounded, distortion of your ego (not you, of course, but the hypothetical one who believes oppression helps God). And you are the proof in the pudding as you have said these beliefs are not reality; you recognize that they are at odds with what is. You think we call reality or Reality (the Really Real) God because we want to, whereas I say we call it that because we recognized that realities (or better fantasies as you have described above and agreed are not reality) are our creation but there is Reality that is 'there' to be discovered and lived by men and women. There is no 'proof' but there is the reality that if we actually replaced the oppression and repression of others with compassionate concern (love), we would then see which is actually helpful and builds a truly human life and world. On that the jury is in, the people have spoken and the world longs for more 'sweet love.'

Well, it seems apparent there is 'reality' and concerning that reality, people have different takes: for some it is just what is and the matter is closed, for others the reality is or indicates something more and some call that God. So, it can also be said that just because somebody believes in something or feels something is not true (i.e. that reality is God or simply that God is) does not mean that it is not real or, indeed, true. History has indeed demonstrated numerous times how the 'unexplained' has been attributed to a god or gods, only for further developments to later reveal a very non God-like explanation - yet history has never demonstrated (and never will) that there is not (or is) something beyond the god/gods explanations that Is the reality, properly called God.

The subject and the study is of no real interest to me but what did catch my eye is Paul's comment, "If it cannot be demonstrated then it how can one say it exists? .... It's a little bit like some people's arguments for different Gods and religions - they know it to be true so it must be." I side with Joseph along the lines of a general argument. "Whether or not science can explain a phenomenon doesn't change its reality..........." Also, it doesn't seem that people are arguing about different gods but simply trying to say something about the reality called God.

This is an interesting one. I take objective to either mean obvious and verifiable by evidence or 'a universal truth.' So, I don't think of moral and religious documents as objective that can be proven scientifically but I do allow that there might be or they might contain universal truths that are recognized as not merely created by the individual but having a 'reality' of their own and thus able to be discovered by men and women (as some have and 'documented'). Seemingly, on this site, we have discussed some things* that seem to be recognized across religions and even by non-religious (I won't go into detail because I lack the time to research the many posts). So too, even something as 'simple' as the 10 Commandments seem to have a reality that is discoverable and recognized by men and women (beyond Judaism and Christianity): that it is not right to steal, lie, kill, covet the possessions or spouse of another, etc. For one who says these things are perfectly okay and just a matter of opinion, many would state they are wrong and either don't recognize such truth or lack the ability to live it (a bit controversial, I know). A further elaboration would be that they simply have not (yet) or are unable to recognize such universal truths. Some of the things* we have discussed include oneness and love and, similarly, one could argue that these touch on universal (and objective - in that they are not merely the whim of the individual) truths, that are there to be recognized.

If theism means or suggest a separate world in which God dwells and from which he intervenes in ours, then I am not a theist. If God is conceived of as a being, albeit a Supreme Being then I am not a theist. If theism is panentheism (the world in God, ala Paul) then I'm all in. In such a view God is not necessary for salvation, God is necessary for man to become Human (thus he becomes Whole or is Healed or ...........is 'Saved"). God is not 'a being' but Being in whom we live, move and have our being. For me, for many, traditional theism is too small, too limited to embrace the Reality that is God.

As a 'Progressive Christian' I don't take the idea of a 2nd coming literally, in part, because it suggests a world of God and a world of man and it is necessary for God to intervene or come (back) again in order to finish things. For me this signals that God is missing from this world; he is viewing things from his world until all hell breaks loose and then he returns. 'Jesus revealed where God always was:" here, now in the everyday, ordinary events of human existence (thus there is no need to return). Plus, in my understanding, Jesus doesn't come again because, it is now our turn: we come to Jesus (and God) when God is All is all - when we have opened ourselves to Him. We are called to be Christ, when we become Love then Christ will have 'come again.'

However, abortion and infanticide are different. And, interesting that abortion was at one time permitted because the soul was not yet present.

Jack, Is this Exodus passage used as a defense against abortion by some Christians? When I first read your post, what came to mind was not a direct, intentional attack on the fetus but an attack/assault on a woman (whether the attacker knew or didn't know she was pregnant) that might result in a miscarriage. Thus they seem to be two different things. If so, it is not a direct statement on what we would call abortion (attack on the fetus not the mother). Just curious.

Fair enough. I think Spong's is more than secular humanism but he does move aways from traditional theism. I like John Macquarie's idea of Dialectical Theism which he prefers to panentheism (but it is similar). I have always liked the idea that the traditional theistic concept of God is too small for the Reality (so to speak) of God. I have just found that some traditional theistic or fundamentalistic ideas are too static for me but I agree with an 'active' God although not understood in traditional supernatural terms.

Actually, when I was asking about the alternates I was wondering about your take on PC as an alternative. I think there are a variety of beliefs on this site, so you should feel free to offer your perspective on PC

Interesting questions. I experience and think of myself (and all others) as mind and body (at least for now, in this 'stage' of being). I am influenced by society but not a blank slate to be filled, so not a product of society. I am not merely what my mind believes as I believe my mind meets reality. I tell a story that encompasses some of my experiences to 'define' myself.

Jack, Just out of curiosity: what do you mean by "the option that makes the most pragmatic sense" and in what way? what is your view of God that would go hand and hand with a practical fundamentalism? are you saying these (secular humanism and the others) are the only alternative to such fundamentalism? how about progressive Christianities?

Let us move on to the larger texts of the NT if you are so inclined or even the idea of culpability. Or, simply let us drop this topic and move to a new topic now or a bit later - as this discussion has run its course.

Of course people have different takes as do the gospel writers (previous post) - however you have been talking about an 'interpretation or a take' that posits a Jesus who approves the horrible actions of Christians in their history. This is an 'interpretation' that rationalizes or seeks blessings for bad acts; this Jesus is not found in the gospels. Even your areas of concern are easily answered by experts if one is serious and concerned enough to seek answers rather than excuses. However, now you admit it might indeed be a wrong interpretation (two steps forward)...........but it is irrelevant (four steps back). Of course it's not irrelevant: people have died because of these 'wrong interpretations' which have no basis in the text. We view things through our lens and if we want to talk culpability (a different subject) we can, but a Jesus who approves violence does not exist within the pages, regardless of the lens.

Not vague yet 'open to reading into the gospels what is not there.' As mentioned, certain verses and stories might need scholarly interpretation/assistance. If there is confusion, even questions like, "what the hell are these about?" - we go to the scholars, the professionals: the Temple acting out a parable, a highly symbolic act done in a very small section of a 25 football field sized Temple grounds that didn't even rise to the level of Jesus being arrested; the closet actually being a comment on public praying for show (ala the hypocrites, which still takes place today) vs. private or simply sincere prayer preached and practiced by Jesus himself; and so on. The stories, listed above, go to the essence of Jesus that is consistent throughout the gospels. Many people might also know the other stories, even have question about them, but they don't leap to your conclusion: a Jesus whose words and actions give approval for the harm done throughout Christian history. Most don't conclude, "Hey, Jesus cursed a fig tree and turned tables over in the Temple so I have the green light to attack and bomb a building in which abortions take place and if anybody is hurt - burned, blown up or killed, I'm still right with Jesus." Rather, most Christians, even with much smaller 'sins' would say, "I have failed to act as my Christ in the world." Such is not merely mis-interpretation: this is an inability to read what is 'there' or, if confused, a refusal to seek assistance in understanding passages that might not be readily understandable or, sadly, reading into the gospels for the justification they so need and desire. So, no one is discounting anything; there is no problem with acknowledging confusion over certain passages and all the stories play a part and do get to the essence of Jesus (simply as in all lives, some stories speak more powerfully or are simply more familiar and remembered). What is discounted are 'interpretations' that, in spite of all the gospel stories presented, settle on 1 or 2 for justification for their own bad actions.

Actually, the essence (i.e. gist) of Jesus is not vague at all for most Christians or many other human beings. The paragraphs would capture the essence of Jesus; what they wouldn't contain is the interpretations of a Jesus, that you suggest are valid, whose actions and teachings provide approval for the harms you listed many posts ago. The Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, The Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, the healings and the Cross - are much more familiar than your fig tree, praying in the closet or even the Temple cleansing and - reveal the gist/essence of Jesus. Of course there are contradictory elements, including what Sanders calls pericopes that are placed in different places by the writers for theological purposes and of course there are writings that need further explanation, including the aid of scholarly research (like the fig tree, the closet, the family and the cleansing) but ...........the essence of Jesus is consistent throughout. Whether he is portrayed as the Beloved Son at his Baptism or this is pushed back to the eternal Word present before creation; whether he is the secretive Messiah of Mark, the new Moses of Matthew or the exalted Lord of John - the essence remains.

Exactly, it is the 'orthodox' version (for example differing from gnosticism or Marcionism versions on issues like secret knowledge or the Jews) but what is consistent in the versions of the 4 gospels is the gist (the essence of who Jesus is and what he does) and actually that same gist is present in some other gospels, for example, the sayings gospel of Thomas. There seem to be differences (again gnosticism) but there is also a consistency on the essence of Jesus. What I argue against is someone who 'sees' or creates a Jesus whose essence is so at odds with the NT gospel, that he supports, approves or justifies the 'sinful' actions of Christians. Merely because someone 'sees' this, it does not follow that ii is accurate. You seem to think it does and it is. and, as you have demonstrated, people have used their 'versions' to justify the harm they have done throughout the history of Christianity.

I know one 'element' of Christianity 'won out' and presented their version. But I also recognize that we are not dealing with 'history' in any traditional sense of the word.

I thought of Wiki andI will check on YouTube. And I appreciate the book recommendation.

History is written by the victors. it is a version of what occurred at a particular time, in a particular place, involving particular people.

I wasn't fully aware of the details, never concentrated on it. Is there a source/book you can recommend?

Paul, Hey, are you tampering with the gospel? Are you saying there is direct evidence of tampering in the Cleansing episode? On a quick read, he didn't whip anyone, he might have had a whip but.............. Most of the scholars suggest 'something happened' and don't go to tampering but theology. Exactly Paul, many Christian accept that every word in the gospel, in the Bible is God's - so we would never get by that to even present and explain the idea of the gist - but we are on a progressive site, so opportunities abound. However, whether one is relaxed or another up tight is opinion and prejudices the situation; the idea of gist comes from a leading biblical scholar. Not necessarily accurate and not necessarily inaccurate but again we are not talking history - then again, not even all the specifics of history are necessarily accurate. I consider a great many issues but I have never gotten to the point that nothing can be trusted. I suspect that most Christians (ranging from Fundamentalist to Progressive), if asked what was Jesus like, that is, what did he say or what does his life suggest, specifically, about how we should live in the world, would agree on the ..........gist.

From Ehrman's website: " It was very small time and at the time insignificant, a barely noticeable event that was full of symbolic importance for Jesus and his followers, but only a minor irritation to anyone who cared about the orderly functioning of the Temple and its cult."

So, I will have to check Sanders to see what parable he believes Jesus acts out. But it sure seems he didn't whip anyone as the Bible doesn't seem to shy away from the grotesque and gory. A scare tactic - I mean if you saw a guy with a whip coming at you - you'd run too. Hey, it worked :+}