thormas

Well, as discussed before, some of us have more faith in free choice. We have been here so no desire to go over it once again - just presenting another view. Peace, joy, contentment are tied to (the continuing quest for) understanding (for me).

Ok, but even the 'if one' seems too all encompassing. Also, I don't know what you mean by many "(having) their faith in their faith/beliefs." Some people don't consider their faith a mere system or something that pertains to a corporate message. I too am all for people believing what they will. And the answer to your question would be yes - but mine is a rather progressive, panentheistic (non-religious) understanding of Christianity.

I accept that it is not for you but you are only one 'non-religious' person. So these people are non-religious and it is for them (also). It may or may not speak to them but it doesn't speak to you, who self-defines as an agnostic. I get that.

You mistaken faith for faith in a 'system' and then you disrespect someone's (everyone's religious) faith when you have no knowledge of the individuals and no grasp of their understanding for their faith?? Interesting evolving(?) journey!

I didn't and don't find it misleading. It is a presentation of Jesus for the non-religious or the post-religious (among others).

Some believe there is not just one person who (you could have met and) could be a great spouse or partner. However, many people make a choice, putting all their energies into and building a life with one (among the many). Could there be another? Sure, I allow for that. But the one we choose (and who chooses us, if we are lucky) is 'the one' who, if we are smart and do the work, can help us to have a good life and be a good, perhaps even a better person: our best self. So too, many (including me) believe there are different faiths (including no religious faith) that could offer great insights and guidance in life. So, indeed, why not progressive Tao, Buddhism and others; could there be another faith expression for many of us? Sure, I allow for that. So why (progressive) Christianity? For me, it is the one I first met, the one I got to know and even struggle with; it is the one I decided to put my energy into and build a life with. In both cases, my choice of one (over the others) can be right just as another's choice of a different partner and a different faith expression can be right for them. I can appreciate the beauty and wisdom of others but I made a choice (it resonates and enriches) and that is where my energy and my life are to be found.

I don't think it was power especially if we consider that the miracles might be mirroring 'miraculous' events of the prophets in the OT and therefore question their historicity. So seems one can wonder if Jesus had (miraculous) power. I think they followed because he seems to have been a charismatic teacher and an apocalyptic prophet - the latter spoke to the hopes and expectations of many people in his day. Not sure what you mean by dialing up - if it were not for the Bible or what became the canon, no one would have known about him. And the Church, although I think they made and continue to make many mistakes, was the vehicle, early on, by which the canon, the stories were made known. For some it is probably dogmatism but not for all - including one suspects most PCs.

Titles are often at the direction of the publishing houses so they sell. But first they have to catch your attention - seem this one did and does that for many (even you bought the book)..

No, whereas you said, "...it was for Christians who had lost their faith (religion) and were looking for something familiar" I said it was also for Christians who moved from the traditional religious understanding and thus were made to feel or felt as if they were 'non-religious.' So their faith wasn't lost and they weren't seeking the familiar - they were open to a new approach even if, unfamiliar, as much of Spong was when it was written.

I think Spong's major audience are Christians (traditionalist to Progressive) and ex-Christians. But not sure it is following Jesus in a non religious way - rather a presentation of Jesus for the (newly) non-religious (again, see above). So not irrelevant for most of his audience or those drawn to such books.

I have and think it was solid but don't, at this point, remember the details - although at some point I can check as it is on my bookshelf. The 'traditional' religious Christian is a theist still influenced by or accepting, even in some vague way, a three tiered universe, or at least a God (male deity) who resides in his heaven. In addition, many traditional, theistic Christians accept the bible literally (completely or in parts) and many of the doctrines built on this view. Spong moves away from theism and from biblical literalism - both of which, once rejected, seem to many, to mean they are non-religious - as traditionally understood. It might not persuade you or every non-religious person but it has done so for many. Being, One, Love, as non-traditionally understood, are part of the language and understanding of many 'non-religious believers.'

Spong's writes for those who have lost faith and those who accept modern insights and have questions/concerns about Christian doctrines, dogma and Biblical analysis yet still believe there is something more to the human experience (i.e. divinity). So, those who don't feel comfortable or, better, are not satisfied with traditional understandings and are not simply tied to the familiar but to new takes or insights offered by Spong (and others).

Pence is scary in his own right: with his fear of being with another woman alone - even if it is business or political (a bit insulting to women)?? Then there is his ultra right Christianity and what it means for women, immigrants and the LGBTQ community. It would be nice if both were voted out.

Yes to the first (and an Experienced politician over a business person). As to the second: once elected, one should be President for all, unlike Trump who is President for 35%.

I'll go with the politician over the businessman - even though the former was deficient at times - at least he read, listened, spoke (well) and took his constitutional duties seriously. GB America - right!

Okay for neither and on the media there is slanting on the left and right and blurring over reporting and opinion. The danger posed by Trump is that he, seemingly and believably, attacks to cover his ass and his attacks on the 4th estate, the court, the DOJ, the FBI, the intelligence agencies and entire peoples and continents undermines confidence in the USA and its government and its moral appeal (in spite of mistakes). You think interference in our elections, in our country is doing us a favor? And if it was true? Yet their information was one sided. Now if it were for both? No, even them it should not be accepted or tolerated or allowed to go unpunished. The doctor didn't order Trump and no one wants that pill - unless it's Trump taking viagra before dropping his pants for a spanking. Groan - our President.

Yet, seemingly, the majority which has long left the flat earth and slavery behind still believes in spirituality (and the bending and twisting has brought many to newer understandings or beliefs). And to play off Leo, something is not necessarily wrong because the majority share it - nor do we 'know' if spirituality is wrong (especially since it is not a singular thing but has different facets). But this is an argument with no possible right or wrong because we are dealing with belief. I can't comment further on the Trumpeter because he is beyond all understanding and I suspect even mystifies God. However just because some are fanatical doesn't mean all are and, in and of itself, does not establish the truth or falsity of the belief in spirituality. I guess one could have imagined that nothing would come from the preaching about a crucified carpenter from Nazareth.........but?? So we don't and can't know what future others will think about 21C takes on spirituality or what their spirituality, if any, will be.

Not sure it's a minority and it is doubtful if they think in terms of the 'strings being pulled behind the scenes' although it is a nice attempt to color and thus sway the argument. Further, the question could also be reversed and it could be asked why is a (real) minority of the human species so afraid (meant to color the argument) to allow there is something more to existence than the strings they pull which go nowhere? Is it tied to an inability to trust, to risk, to imagine - an insecurity born of living in fear (to which they reverted) until they first learned to walk upright? Some believe there is evolution towards God, others away from God, others without a concept of God and still others with a more enlightened concept of God - all is a matter of belief.

Ontogeny

Just a question or, perhaps, an observation: how can there be a 'predefined future potential' if a species adapts and develops (only) in response to its environment, i.e. by interacting with/responding to developments within the rest of creation? If that environment changes, then what a species interacts with changes and, therefore, how that species adapts and develops will (might) change. Its future potential, or one of its future potentials, is no longer possible (or perhaps even desirable) given the 'changed' present. Then again it's genetic predefinition might not enable it to adapt and thus extinction, while others have a greater genetic predisposition to adapt and survive. Now I have a headache and will go rest :+}

From the Christian perspective, or perhaps from my Christian perspective, we are not evolving towards God for that would suggest natural (perhaps inevitable?) process. Rather I believe that we can actualize our 'best//true' self or we move toward deification (only) if we incarnate God/Love. In the Christian perspective, the 'evolution of man' is first an action of God.

I'll just play a bit longer as I hate to do politics on such a site. Moses could be said to have been weak - but then again. Peter also had his strengths and weaknesses - as did David. But with Trump one suspects that God has left, if not the building, at least this vessel: the Light is off and no One is home. Trump's biblical education was definitely lacking when he cited his favorite passage: 'Two Cor.' Then again, hard to have any real education if you never ........read. As for praying, perhaps at some obviously public, religious events but he is/was a 'reality' star. As for public praise - he seems to have a problem understanding the 2nd part of the two great commandments and it will probably be a highlight reel upon meeting God at the pearly gates when the Lord begins to say: "when I was a Mexican, when I was a woman, when I was your daughter, when I was a faithful public servant working for the FBI............." and the Donald says, "when Lord, when did I bully you, when did I grope you........when did I yell to lock you up.....when, when, when? And, by the way Lord, Two Corinthians is my favorite." Trump can have no gods before him since he thinks he walks on water :+} Moses had abilities, Peter had game, David had skills ..............Trump not so much. However there is noting to worry about: Trump would never let anyone doubt that his power and image is anything less than god's and we know from experience that if God ever tried to send a messenger to enlighten the president, Donald would simply dismiss that 'fake' messenger or a 'fake' god and tell us all about it when he tweets on the can in the early morning hours...........Typical day in the life!

None The Sacred would like to part his hair and allow us to escape to freedom.

Welcome Tom and don't worry about labels. But social justice and friends you love, including among those of us who are marginalized - not bad at all. Stick around start a conversation or join in on one that might be of interest. Sometimes we burn ourselves out after an extended back and forth but eventually we get back to it. Thormas