thormas

Welcome Scott.

Scott, I have never had such a 'moment' with God and actually have no idea what that means. However, your question is part of theodicy. I don't believe that God intervenes but I do believe that God is Present and, in and through man, can make a difference in creation (i.e. in a material way). One of the best book on this subject, a subject that has interested me for years is one I just discovered in 2017 and it is perhaps the best: Wendy Farley's Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion, A Contemporary Theodicy. Very reasonable price on Amazon. Try it.

Welcome!

I am interested in the major thought and the summary simply not 80 pages at this time. And yet no summary of your background here. I believe Spong on Paul's homosexuality (which was discussed here a few months ago) is an interesting opinion but it is just that. Also the 'mess' might have been avoided if Origin's view won out over Augustine's - but it's never too late. And, again with the warning? Really? As for "truths and facts easily proven in just a few pages" - I'm sure that will be met with the appropriate response from a number of the contributors on this site :+}. I feel like with all continued warnings and now befuddled Doctors of Divinity , we have entered another movie genre: the scary, horror flick. Will there be ambulances standing by? OMG, horror movies indeedI: with Matthew, there is now destruction and evildoers. However, your use of the text sounds like an interpretation 'bound by tradition.' Incoming, cogweb alert! I suggest the emphasis in the Matthew text is not information about God but living the the will of God, which is quite simply to love.

I thought that might be the case on authorship. And while I appreciate the warning - that your insights could be 'shocking,' even too much for the 'tradition bound' believer, and actually leave some feeling queasy (really?) - you must know you are writing on a Progressive Christian site that has many participants who question traditional theism, who have the requisite fortitude for exploring many areas of traditional Christianity and whose discussions/topics, having gone far beyond traditional beliefs and formulations, might be 'shocking' or incredibly offensive to other, including more conservative, Christians. So, simply there is no need for any warning, although it was nicely melodramatic. If you have read a number of the threads on this site you should know we don't always agree but I don't believe anyone has ever warned the others that they might be shocked and unable to hear what another has to say. Your 'warnings' also serve to set up a situation whereby any who (might) disagree with you are too 'tradition bound' to be able to handle your 'insights' successfully. But I have seen this movie when someone says that others just 'can't handle the truth." Yet it turned out to only be a truth, not The Truth. But you don't leave it there: you actually bring in a neuroscientist to inform all they might have 'cobweb' that “filter(s) incoming stimuli....distort(s) the cognitive landscape..." and sends us careening into a black hole that prevents us from hearing your truth? I don't know you, you are new to the site (BTW, welcome) but I prefer to not download something from someone I know nothing about - at this time, thus the request for a summary and citation of the author(s). No one on this thread is in 'fear and trembling' so you don't have to set conditions for why people might disagree with you that thereby insulate you from such possible disagreement, just, in the words of the aforementioned movie, "show us the money" and let us decide if we buy what you are selling. So, let's start anew. I will read your summary but I don't have the time to read 80 pages - like many here I already have a number of books I'm reading, others set to go and still others pre-ordered (specifically new books by Spong, Ehrman {who is most definitely not tradition bound) and Wright). I would also like to know who you have read on Paul and, while appreciating your privacy, what are your credentials? You don't have to hold a PhD but, since you have suggested some authority, expertise, or extraordinary new insight on Paul, I for one would like to know something of your background and reading. Many of us have shared some pieces of similar information with others on this site already. Just as an aside, I would like to know how you balance your 'beliefs' with normal church which has to have some/many (?) tradition bound worshippers. Thanks, thor

I assumed there was an author for the download and the summation you gave. No? Burl asked for a summary, you gave it: who are you summarizing? Is it one or multiple authors? And, simply who are they?

Who wrote the article you summarized.

Interesting to not that Ehrman on his blog today is dealing with this subject.

At first glance you have selected Borg out of all the others presented. I thank you for the summary and will read it over a glass of red.

You asked, "Why is there no academic scrutiny of Paul, to Jesus?" Simply, there is and these (see above) are (just some of the) authors who have done this. What is the conclusion (can't download your link) and who specifically doesn't reach this conclusion (assuming it is a valid one to reach)?

Well, there must be some scholarly works out there since you are able to raise this question. There are a number of books, by scholars, on Paul and they all seem to treat this subject. As a matter of fact, it has often been addressed by the question, 'did Paul create Christianity?' Check Amazon for Borg/Crosson, Ehrman, Dunn, Gerd Ludemann, NT Wright (available early 2018) and Paula Fredriksen (out late 2017)

A lot to unpack, so commenting on just a couple. I follow and largely agree with your 2nd paragraph but are you saying (or do you believe) the Higher Self or Spirit (of man) is hidden and needs to be made manifest or it must be 'created?' I lean toward the latter with the understanding that by 'incarnating' Love/God, man becomes the Likeness of God; man (literally?) becomes a New Creation. To possibly contradict myself, I also like Maslow's idea of self-actualization which seems to suggest there is something 'there' (already) to manifest. However to manifest is to make obvious so it could be making obvious what had to be uncovered (already there) or something becomes obvious when it is created?? Also, the programming can also be understood as the communal aspect of sin. There is individual sin but it always takes place and is 'influenced' by sin that is institutionalized and/or part of the culture into to which we are born. If true, how, for you, does one 'purify the negative programming?' Finally, I read the commandment differently: the neighbor is not part of self, he/she is not me, therefore love must go out of self (selflessness) to the other which (begins to) create a oneness. Thus there is a challenge and a need to be selfless: love of self and selfishness are two different realities. We are probably not far apart.

Gfacha, while, again, some of what you write is intriguing, I questions its practicality or need. We will never go back to anything close to pre-agrarian and pre-industrial societies. Plus, if Christianity is viable, and I believe it is, it should be able to reach us where we are. I value community over individual but believe it is possible to live this in our present circumstances. Not sure how we can say much 'from the eyes of God' but I hope that in addition to the whole, God 'is interested' in the individual: the actions of Jesus recorded in the NT might speak to how the whole should act but his actions and 'miracles' were focused on individual people. For me, 'we may be one' but it is timshel (thou mayest see Steinbeck's East of Eden): it is a decision that must be made, a way that 'may' be taken up. We may become one but it is the many who decides to 'love' - to treat all 'as does God,' to treat (and make) all as One. "Egoism and selfishness that are slowly destroying the common good" have been with us from the beginning; it is the 'original' and the only sin. It is not merely the present culture, it is all cultures. And deification is the overcoming of sin/selfishness by Love (God).

I'm not buying this one. Again needs further explanation. For me the idea of 'perceiving and being guided by the spiritual world speaks to 'another, supernatural' world - hence theism. Not something that speaks to modern man (or most of us). And Christians are not more special than the rest of the 'children of God.' And what do you understand by the Hoy Spirit? There is something to discernment but this needs further work, further explanation. For example, is there a literal Voice - if not what do you mean? One can imagine, just as in years past, people questioned their worthiness when prayers were not answered, so too if one doesn't hear the Voice, what does that say about them, how do they then look at themselves? Needs work. I am not really inspired by a world of mediums and psychics.

Maybe. I would appreciate it if you can explain further. I accept evolution but also recognize that, in Christianity, the Kingdom of God is not something 'natural' waiting to burst forth (although there might be something to this idea). Rather, it is 'called' forth and the 'evolution' of creation to Kingdom or deification, is because man/creation responds to God. Intriguing, nonetheless.

Ah, the eternal question of balancing the all powerful God with the all loving God.

this one paris nicely with the signed copy of the Bible

They keep getting better and better..........

You assume I missed your point - I believe I didn't. Even with the explanations you asked for - you don't assume something 'more' exists because you don't believe 'it' does.

Let me help you: Theism holds that God is not identical with creation and/or that creation does not become God. traditionally, many thought of transcendence as a spatial separation of God from man: God was in his supernatural world, man in his natural world and miracles were the primary means by which God entered into man's world. A more contemporary understanding of transcendence (God beyond, not identical with creation) is not that God is separate (spatial), but that God is 'more' than (non spatial) creation; God 'transcends' creation. traditionally, many accepted that God was (also) immanent: in/with creation. However, classical theism had an overemphasis on transcendence that seemed to overshadow the immanence of God. Not so in contemporary theology: immanence means that God, even though not identical with the world/creation, is present and active 'in' (and 'with') it. God is not only (or not at all) in the miraculous moments but in the 'ordinary, the everyday life of the world/man.' The God who transcends creation is in creation. Not my imagination my friend as I first learned the concept in college (70s) philosophy classes (metaphysics and ontology) and later (early 80s) in theology and it has been a constant, found in the works of many major theologians - up to and including today. I'll let you do your own research.

The explanations are not in my imagination and actually found in contemporary theology. I leave you to do the research and see for yourself. However you do seem to have a bubble fetish. Thanks for the offer but I don't indulge. You asked me to leave God out of it and give an explanation of 'love.' Then once your request is granted, you bring God back in and ask yet again about love. Yet you ignored the other explanation that you were after: immanence. Try combining the two but I'm not hopeful as it might take a bit of imagination:+}