thormas

I think the point is made: that if he were........... Acceptable in Greek/Roman culture but in the Jewish culture and the new, emerging culture based on Jesus, the Christ? Really? "Metoo"ism on Roman society? Say, what? Tribalism- okay but still seems not something we're born with, but introduced to by (one of) the community that we are part of and might identify with. So too imitation.

Yet the question remains: is this nature or nurture? Are we born with this sin (Augustine) or are we born into a world that is self-centered (or has many such influences)? So too, does a baby have an innate sense of morality or does one learn and develop this sense? Plus, if Spong (and others) is right about early man's survival 'instinct' is this mirrored in the earliest stages of development for each of us? I mean if is it 'loyalty' to people, that overwhelms the baby's sense of morality or is it, "Hey, that person is my sense of milk, food, comfort and safety (regardless if these thought are yet fully formed)." And if Grandma comes along and gives me (bribes me) with an ice cream cone, Yeah, I might forget my little sister for a few minutes or be angry if her cone looks better. But is the baby or young child still in 'survival mode' and still leaning to become a caring being? After all, baptism is simply (hopefully) an orientation in and by a community/family toward selflessness and away from self-centeredness. Finally, I always like what a friend of mine has said: "don't look at me at my weakest and most vulnerable, consider me and look for who I am when I am at my best." Shouldn't Yale know better than to pick on babies? :+{ Are racism and nationalism (and other isms) hard wired into us? I wouldn't bet the ranch on it. Many people, hopefully many of us, are not racists or nationalists precisely because we did not learn this while sitting on the knee of our mothers and fathers. Actually, hopefully, many of us learned the exact opposite. We are not born with dark tendencies, we learn them and mirror those who were important in our lives - or we learn love and develop loving tendencies in the same way. I too see sin as part of a useful story but it is not that people are fundamentally perverse. Paul knows the good but it is not always easy to do the good, plus who knows if Spong is right that Paul was a homosexual, he battled his own natural sexual orientation (and we all know what a strong drive that is) in a world, his world, in spite of his education, that condemned such orientation and the living of it. Sadly, if he lived now, if he were gay, he might have had an easier time doing the good. However, even if he was straight, most of us get the idea, the temptation to not do the good even though we know the good - doesn't mean we are perverse or loaded with dark tendencies that are part of our natural make up. It simple means we are still 'on the way' still becoming who we are born to be.

Perhaps, you can elaborate on Luther and salvation at some point and post in the future - could be of interest especially for those who are not Lutheran.

Hey, I want to vote Burl and FireDragon for BEST PICTURES on the site!

Gay is not merely 'the hot topic' and I agree it is barely mentioned in the bible - rather it is t-h-e big sin for many 'conservative Christians - and obviously much more so than adultery and fornication. I mean these last two seem to be given a complete pass by the Christian Right if it can MAGA :+} I have no problem saying adultery is sin (understood as self-centeredness) but it is, as most things, never simply black and white. For example, the man or woman whose spouse is sick to the point of never recovering, living in a state of semi or full unconsciousness is a bit easier to forgive than any of our president's dalliances. As for fornication, although the ideal might be sex within marriage, there are committed relationships outside of marriage, there are still homosexual relationships not blessed/recognized by the Catholic Church, there are the occasional senior citizens hooking up in the nursing home (although perhaps that is more a Hollywood flight of fancy), there are older folks living together but not married so they do not adversely impact their meager incomes and there are couples in love who have not yet married. Again, all are different in degree and kind that our president's flings. Christianity, in spite of and also because of the Bible, has always been hung up on gay sex.

However, Jesus didn't come for the world, to either praise or condemn it. He was a Jew who came for Jews with the specific intention to preach the coming Kingdom. He was not presenting a perfect walk to God, he was calling on God's chosen people, already in covenant with God, to prepare for the Kingdom: as this was expected in the lifetime of his followers; there was no time to perfect anything. Jesus was wrong, the Kingdom did not come and the communities that followed him had to adjust and, thereafter, it is perfectly valid for the Christian community, which is now in it for the long haul, to talk of the 'Christ' of their community and the (his) Way to walk before God. Exactly, that's why I distinguished between 'judgment' or the condemnation of others that is motivated by self (centeredness) and judgment rendered for others, on behalf of others, that points to the possibility of 'new life' or the inherent danger if one doesn't seize the opportunity. I think Jesus 'judged' this way in his words and actions and condemned the judgment of the Pharisees and Scribes which condemn the other but did not offer life. Seemingly, many Christians make the opposite mistake by reading the gospels as a unit and combining the stories to create a fifth or their own gospel (as in the birth stories at Christmas). I agree, it is best to have a fuller take on a particular gospel but there is nothing wrong, within that, of selecting particular texts to make a point (carefully). Plus, the gospels themselves are predetermined opinions or beliefs and support for these beliefs are sought in the OT and presented by the careful arrangement or rearrangement of the deeds and words of Jesus. Nothing wrong with that but it should also be okay if we do the same with our beliefs or ideas (again carefully). Dictionaries are obviously helpful but we have also been talking about the inadequacy of words and the need to stretch words in order to better 'speak' of a reality that is too rich to be captured by words. Such a word is judgment and another is incarnation. Many scoff at and dismiss the notion of incarnation in the 21st C. I do not accept the understanding as it is commonly presented (God down to man) but understood in a new way, it holds interesting possibilities. The dictionary definition (a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit) can be helpful but on its own, doesn't get us very far. Even Spong's idea of God as a verb, a noun (defined as a word used to identify any of a class of people, places, or things) as a verb (defined as word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence) opens up new possibilities, new insights and new understandings. Sometimes, we have to go for it, as long as it is sincere and with great care. As Uncle Ben said to Spider Man, "with great power comes great responsibility."

I don't know if PC is a failed movement nor do I know how to judge this. If some have been 'freed' from some of the restraints of their former faith expression and rather than 'leave' Christianity have found new ways to think through much of what it has to offer, that is a success. I have no problem with the 8 Points but do find it 'entertaining' when some (the revised Spong site included) define themselves as Atheist Christians or otherwise remove God, (seemingly) without an appreciation of the importance of God for Jesus or what God means. I am intrigued by the centuries old acceptance of GBLT in Christianity or perhaps 'safe harbor' is not the same as acceptance and support. Was that formalized or simply practiced by some members? In Catholicism, I always found interesting the 'acceptance' of the homosexual person while at the same time the institution being against any expression of an intimate loving homosexual relationship: "Hey you're gay, we accept you, you just can't actually love your partner, and, oh, BTW, we don't approve of gay marriage." Love that kind of acceptance?? Homosexuality had been (and remains?) a focus because it has been considered sin. My faith is best expressed in Christianity but I recognize there is both wisdom and 'reconciliation with the Divine' in other religions and in everyday lives outside of any religion. Good point!

Something, such as the Torah, that is not to be taken literally, can be both correct (as you indicated) and, also, point beyond the subjective and limited to Truth. Most serious biblical scholars acknowledge that Jesus, an Apocalyptic Prophet, was preaching the Kingdom: his focus was not on the broader, societal perspective - it was solely on the coming Kingdom of the Father (the kingdoms of men would pass away). Jesus fully expected the world (of suffering and injustice) as we know it to end in the lifetime of his followers; his words didn't point to an acceptance of suffering (now and in the future) because there would be no suffering. When that did not come to pass, Christianity had to pivot (which seemingly was valid) and it is here that it gets complicated. I agree with the idea of turning the other cheek and forgiveness for many of the slights of the world that we all encounter in our lives. However, suffering and pain are not merely to be accepted. As the co-creators, we (should) seek to enhance life, to relieve suffering and pain and, where not possible, seek to comfort those who suffer. And where, suffering is caused by the evil that men and women do, we (should and do) seek to put an end to those actions and stop those who cause evil and suffering in the world. Many/most who suffer illness, for example, don't wish it upon others (especially after their experiencing the physical suffering and mental anguish that comes with disease, illness and horrific accidents). And many who suffer at the hands of others cry out for justice and relief, as they should and 'pray' that this injustice and suffering ends (as it should). It seems, even in war, the primary motivation is to stop the pain and suffering and to deal with those who perpetrated it. Retaliation, is not the main thought of those who suffer greatly at the hands of others; their main thought is relief and justice. Retaliation, as it is commonly understood, is typically desired by those who suffer slights to their ego and 'hate the other' for their own sake. Jesus never lost sight of the point of his life: the announcing and living out of the Kingdom. Being human, I suspect he didn't welcome the suffering, pain and death but accepted it as a consequence of living in the Truth. He would not stray from his (or God's) course, no matter the cost. This, however, is not primarily (or even) a statement of the acceptance of suffering, it is, rather, a statement of Loving, no matter the consequences. There is some pain we 'accept' (sickness, disease, accidents), yet, at the same time, do not accept as we fight against it, we fight to recover (and most of us do try to actively avoid such suffering) and we are aided in this by the human community that is closest to us. And there comes a time when we have to accept that there is no recovery. There is other pain and suffering we do not and should not ever accept: that which is caused by others because of their lack of love from bullying and racism to war, rape and murder. We still wait for the Kingdom of God (on earth) yet the timing of its completion is unknown (even to the man Jesus), so, as it's co-creators, we continually try to establish it and this means discerning the suffering that must be accepted and that suffering which is not acceptable. Bart Ehrman in his book, 'God's Problem' did a study of the Bible and showed there were, I believe, at least 7 or 8 different reasons the various books gave for why there was suffering in the world, so it would be interesting to see what is reflected. But that is for another time.

.........seems there are a few different interpretations that reflect the original text, perhaps for the same reason there are 4 original (actually more) gospels that 'reflect' the original Jesus.

op??

It seems that pre-Final judgment always calls for and allows time for change; it is always for man. Does Final judgment allow for change also and if it doesn't, is it not for man, not on his behalf? And did you mean to say that God is judged in relation to the covenant?

I disagree with this reading of the bible, specifically the NT. If judgment is understood as measuring others against one's or society's 'created' standard, Jesus, in contrast, is presented as speaking from his experience/insight of God. Within this 'perspective,' the Words of Jesus call others to Life and, when placed in the context of judgment, serve as an attempt to make others aware of what they are born to be (or in our present parlance, their potential) and the danger or loss that comes if one does not hear, change and realize this 'potential.' Furthermore, a similar call to life that is linked with leaving self(centeredness) behind transcends this particular culture and time and can be found in other cultures and times. So subjective truth can align with Truth. I would agree that a misunderstanding of judgment or forcing one's truth on others can (and has) lead to war and other atrocities. However, if we are looking at Jesus, there was no misunderstanding, no such judgment and no forced truth that dismissed others. Dismissal of other human beings only occurs when one person or a group measures others against a subjective, self-centered truth (which therefore is not truth). Jesus' Truth was (is) always for the other. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the history of Christianity (and other religions) which bastardized his Truth on far too many occasions (dismissal of another makes it easier to see him/her as a thing or an inconvenience and therefore easier to murder or commit other atrocities against them). To 'measure' another as failure or success is done on behalf of the measurer; to call the other to life, to encourage and support a sometimes painful opportunity or chance to change, to indicate the danger to self if life is ignored is a completely different reality. The former is measurement, the latter is judgment as lived by Jesus (and what should be lived by Christians).

Love is not limited to humans but humanity has been the topic under discussion and the one we know best. However, I do allow that humanity, seemingly the only self-conscious beings (although I am open to and excited about the grand possibilities of other such beings) seemingly has a different degree of participation in Consciousness and the 'potential' to be the likeness of God. I do like Paul's image of all of creation groaning for fulfillment. Obviously all that is, participates in Being but what this suggests about their 'destiny' I don't have a firm handle on (as none do since all is speculation/belief). Perhaps it is in the wording: for me, humanity does not fall away - rather it is Fulfilled in Divinity or we become Human by 'becoming' Divine: incarnation (not traditionally understood) is oneness. What that means for the entirety of the created order, I don't know but I believe it is not 'left behind' but also fulfilled. The analogy for me is human love (in spite of the flaws): there is fulfillment in such love, there is the two becoming one (in some real way), in losing self (with self-centeredness falling away) and fulfilling self in the other. Neither self or person 'falls away' yet there is oneness (as finite beings, so to speak). I am always struck with two thoughts when trying to 'figure' this out: first, that one is the loneliest number and second, that the (true) Lover does not want the Beloved to fall away but to be, to thrive, to live abundantly. So, for me, creation is 'real' - it is not merely the Absolute throwing itself out there to know itself, express itself or for some other reason and it is not merely the One doing whatever to still, merely, be One. Rather, it is the creating of the beloved, on behalf of the beloved: Love (especially 'Absolute Love') must always be given away, must always be gift, must always be about and for the Beloved so they (can) have life and have it in abundance. So too, (and obviously expressed from the human perspective), would the Lover ever want or desire the Beloved to 'fall away' or rather to Live and live Abundantly? I also always remember Alfred North Whitehead's concept of Beauty that the unity of the many is a higher Beauty than the unity of the one. So, we (seemingly) agree on the 'end' - we just think in different images.

You are changing the argument, you said it was restrictive and I disagreed - but I did not state we should confine ourselves to this source. And, actually, I don't. Actually humility is not all that strange and it does not preclude confident or lose sight of the infinite in creation. As indicated, I too admire and encourage the quest of science; the science and the religious thinkers I know don't settle but are wise enough to realize that they will never capture the Absolute.

Again, I disagree on biblical judgment - as shown in the parables that we discussed. I take the broader understanding of judgment in that even when reading a book or watching a movie, you can hear/see something that causes you to look at yourself, your actions and consider them in this new light. Again, an opportunity is presented/realized and if you take it, it can make all the difference whereas if you don't, the danger is that you have lost the opportunity (at least in that moment and perhaps longer) and might be or do 'less' than you could. I don't understand judgment as negative but rather, life-giving. Choice is not preempted, possibilities are revealed and the choice is before us. The possibilities are presented to both the adulteress and the crowd and their choice is to be made, not only that day but in their futures. Not sure which Catholic tradition you refer to since there is more than one and understanding changes (plus I would think many Catholics, down through the ages, would understand judgment as condemnation). Further, I know that a fundamentalist or an atheist might have a different reading, nevertheless, it is always interesting to ask, since the gospel is 'good news' which news is better and goes to the healing (redemption) of those who receive that news. This understanding (of judgment) is not implied by but presented in the stories and there is or can be an "Aha" moment. You may of course distinguish what you will and I don't mind. The point was not to convert but to present and I know from teaching experiences, many/most 'get' this understanding when presented in that setting. p.s. your 'warning' is also a moment of chaos, presenting an opportunity and danger if the opportunity is ignored, The simple difference is either that, as we have discussed, I am stretching language or simply recognizing what judgment actually means. So, likewise, I hope you don't mind.

I will double check but I think I found it in Gregory Baum's Man Becoming. The difference is, I believe that judgment as you define it is understood as a condemnation and dismissal of the other (which I too disagree with since it is for self and against the other), whereas I am defining it in light of the Biblical Word: a two-edged sword that cuts into human experience and presents a moment of chaos: opportunity and danger. This is how I understand judgment. Given what you have said, you might take the mother's "No!" when her child reaches for the hot oven as warning whereas I take it as judgment. The child is stopped dead in their tracks and made (invited) to see, to consider and decide. This judgment is always for the other. In biblical understanding the Word of God is always redemptive, mean to heal or make whole the beloved, so too judgment. And man is meant to 'judge' the same way, lovingly. The possibility of misunderstanding: that's why in a teaching mode, more preparation and lead up is provided before a different take on judgment is presented.

Actually I think just the opposite. I think Christianity and those who have thought deeply on subjects important to them and it over the centuries have great insights into life, meaning, God and man. I also think there is a great wisdom in the reality of 'ordinary' human beings - and by that I mean those who merely live and have neither the time or interest in such discussions. I think it is important to look to and appreciate the lived experience of 'most humans.' I think there is a humility is most serious religious thinkers in that they know they can never definitively know and I extend that wisdom to the scientific quest.

Actually just saying we both have opinions and are trying to understand the other. I agree the speculation of science is fascinating but the answers, in my opinion, are beyond them. But me too on the brain hurting :+}

For me, we can only be human but this (potential) is only realized, made actual, when we become and do what "God" or Absolute Reality is. So, we can be so much more because we (can fully) participate in the Absolute. I don't think we see ourselves for what we can truly be, however, illusion, for me, means we are not (only) what we seem to be, we are more and yet to be. It is awareness that participation is Consciousness/Person/the Absolute is to be taken up: there is much to accomplish (to do and to be) and this can, in a finite way, heal what is wrong with the world and create Beauty. Agreed but it is more than matter, as we are also. Plus, I agree with Tillich (I believe it was him) that man leads creation to fulfillment. Plus, Hitler's potential is before him and his life story presents us with opportunity and danger (judgment): we are presented with an opportunity to know and not repeat his history or ignore it and make the world a more dangerous and a more desperate place for too many. Sorry about the number of responses, it was just easier and more efficient to do it this way today.

Not merely rational but sensible (and rooted in Jesus and Christianity) and actually it goes well beyond the laws of society and safety. What I said was more nuanced. Actually, we have two different points: first, none of us have the exact circumstances of another and second, my point was meant to balance yours and it does. I have neither dismissed his humanity or the possibility of others using or misusing power and the resulting suffering and evil unleashed on the world. And I agree with your "oh wait." Good one! Not our makeup; our actions. There is a fundamental difference in what we do: one does God/love and one does not. And, therefore, there is a fundamental difference is what we enable or empower the world to be. And, there is a fundamental difference is what we 'are' when we love (remember I am stretching the ordinary understanding of the word human). What I have been saying is that 'human' is not just our makeup, it is a way to be. Again, this does not suggest the potential to become (fully) human is over for Hitler, the child molester or the serial killer: it is always before them, always waiting to be actualized (by being love) and I suspect for all of us it takes more that a lifetime. To put it another way, I believe that Love 'waits for all time' until all become love (divinity dwelling in humanity), all become new men and women (sons an daughter of the first born Son who because of degree of his love became Human (because he embodied the Divine, the Absolute). Hitler is not an anomaly; he is not yet what he is called to be and has a road to travel as he must overcome a lifetime of selfishness to become a radically different and new man - like the Christ, the truly Human One. Perhaps it could be said of others, including our president that upon hearing the 'Judgment of Life' throughout his days, when presented with opportunity to be, he ignored it and danger (to himself and the world) was loosed upon the world. Although I still hope (pray?) for the day for him to be reborn and become what he is yet to be.

In reality, the first interaction is probably self-defense if they are trying to kill you or legal force if the cops are arresting them. Thereafter, we can talk of compassion when everybody is safe. And, as mentioned, I would expect the professionals to be professional but you can't fault people for condemning their actions and wanting them jailed or put in a hospital prison for 'as long as it takes' or forever, given the nature of their crime. And, as I have been saying, the initial reactions of people are telling in the recognition that these people have not acted human. I have no problem recognizing the sins of Christianity or other religious expressions. And Jesus was compassionate but you seemingly overlook that there is judgment given by him also (as defined above) and an ethic presented for those who follow him to love. His 'comments' to the Scribes and Pharisees was not too compassionate..............

Again, you misconstrue and misunderstand. I didn't say Jesus judged her; he judged the crowd and his word are also an occasion of judgment (opportunity and danger) for all who hear or read the story throughout time and to the far ends of the earth and back. Of course he saw her potential, her possibility; he presented her opportunity, "sin no more" and the danger is there also if she doesn't take the opportunity, if she continues to sin. Her potential lies in taking the opportunity to not sin. He did judge the crowd if you understand how I have defined judgment). The judgment of Jesus is for the other (i.e. love), the judgment of the crowd is for themselves, the judgment of the readers is TBD.

No, that's your point. Certainly we should not label and write others off (and, anticipating your response: I do not, if read carefully and an attempt is made to try to understand the position). However, the point of the story is in its very telling; the judgment is implicit in the very telling of the story: opportunity to 'see' and decide what should be done, what you should do - or danger, ignore and pass by all those who stand in need. Those who passed the man are the equivalent to those who have said, "she's just a girl" or "he's only an immigrant" or pretty much any similar statements that Trump has made in his life. They do not present opportunity and danger; they are not 'for' the other (as the Mother's "No!"): they are for the self, they condemn, ignoring both the actuality and the potentiality of the individual. I am against the death penalty for the simple reason that I believe we have to condemn the action, we also must deal with and even perhaps (initially) condemn the actor of the actions. But the opportunity should never be removed because, as stated, i believe the 'to be human' is still before all and it is possible, perhaps not always probable, but possible that any might 'turn' back and become truly human (loving). If we execute them, the opportunity, in this life, is over. I agree: Jesus effectively turned the common judgements of the time on their heads (as stated above).

Whether we added it or not is beside the point of the story, told by Jesus or, a story created by a Christian community to capture what they knew and believed about Jesus.

That is judgment: as previously stated it is a moment of chaos. Something is pointed out, for example in the story the 'righteous' passing man by and when this is presented there is danger that those who ear it will ignore it but there is also an opportunity, that eyes will be opened, ears will hear, behavior will change and all things become new again. This is metanoia! Here are other moments of judgment: when a kid is about to touch a hot stove and her mother yells, at the top of her lungs. "No!" or "we don't use that kind of language" or "don't hit your brother" or "don't gossip' and on and on. Each presents opportunity and danger as should be obvious in the 'judgment of the kid and the stove. Now, as should be universally obvious when a guy molests little kids, when a guy kills couples making out in a car, when Hitler decides to invade the lands of innocents or implement his Solution - sometimes the community or the global "No!" isn't enough. So people seek out and arrest the first guy, cops have a manhunt for the second guy and if he resists with deadly force, shoot him and people go to war and sacrifice themselves to stop the inhumanity of the third guy. Now, probably the first two are tried and go to jail (with or without psych help but they are removed so they can do no harm) and the third guy just needs to be stopped: tried in Nuremberg if caught alive (and imprisoned or executed) or hunted and stopped - however that might be so the loved ones of the ones pledged to stop him, have a chance to go home. The opportunity that you say is presented has a flip side: the danger is that the opportunity can be ignored. This is judgment. Present in this parable, present in the story of the woman about to be stoned, present in the Prodigal son, present in Jesus' dealing with people. I have read..........and also studied. p.s. I have decided to answer these in separate posts. And I am sensing some frustration and judgment on your part: "read the bible" and "source of undue suffering." Real nice.