thormas

Although I recognize this, for me there is only Power which is a grace that em-powers humanity. Yet I am still, with Jesus, compelled to say, "Abba" (in a non theistic way) to that Power. Not sure I totally follow but (if I do) I don't see thinking as pernicious. Rather it is the attempt to respond and articulate that response to Reality-as-Is, so that we might better respond. It is what we do. It is self-consciousness. Also, well said Burl.

In a more modern theology, grace is understood as the self-giving of Reality-as-Is to humanity. Such grace/giving is always incarnational and is revelation (understood as the self-revealing or the self-giving of Reality). This too is a non-theistic understanding of grace. And, as in Merton, the soul is found and lost (but found) in the movement, from acting in conjuction with grace, being in grace, to acting spontaneously from grace. Yes, I agree! "Reality is a given, always ever present" and one cannot earn grace (no one merits it), it can only be realized, accepted and (as with any gift) used. In this case, grace in made flesh in man if man truly accepts the ever present Reality that 'summons' him. Again, one can't merit grace, grace is not a reward (just like love should never be a reward but a gift); grace, like love is gift. Like all gifts, it must be used. For example, if one gifts or graces you with a lollipop, the only way to use it is to suck it :+} So too, if Reality gift/graces humanity with itSelf, man, if accepting, must use it: become Reality. "Grace is present......as the enlightened state is to be realised/acknowledged/seen...........not achieved/attained/earned." Yes, with caveats: it is never just a state but a (the only) way to be and although not earned, acknowledged and actualized in/by man. I think we 'realize' by doing. Just like when you realize the curly haired girl (or straight hair, or long, or short) loves you, the realization 'pushes' you to do and, actually to be. And, it is in the non-ending doing that the realization is enhanced and the self is lost and found.

Thanks, but no thanks. I like the intellectual exploration, I like the service but, for the Christian, for me, the human is empowered in God. As Gregory Baum said, "God is what happens to man on the way to becoming human."

However Jen, there are those who remain 'rooted' and for them (and others), love is more than a vague ideal. So too, they realize that each generation must take its turn to nurture and care for what has been given to them and they see that for many of their fellows, what springs from the root, no longer provides shade, nor do they eat its fruit. So, they attempt to cut away what has withered, to prune where necessary and, hopefully, allow the tree of life to once again nourish the lives of those in the present generation. Gabriel Moran once wrote that revelation must have one food firmly planted in the Bible (the NT), which is the root as the other foot steps into the future. The back food supports and guides but the other foot, stepping into 'now,' allows the word to be hear by each new generation (in their words, within their world view) so there is always a 'Present Revelation.' Revelation is not facts or information handed down by the ancients in sacred books; revelation is always self-revelation, God's giving of himSelf so each generation might respond and live in relationship with the Sacred / with Love. The NT is the story of those who went before, who experienced the self-giving Love in the man Jesus; it is our beginning, our roots, but it means nothing unless, guided by it, we have our own present story of living in relation to the Sacred. I see this thread as one venue to do that and the words God, Jesus and Christianity still speak to me and, with some watering and careful pruning, open dialogue with a new generation so the vine does not wither. Plus, I like what Chesterton wrote that the Christian is sure (in faith) of the ground on which he walks, so how can one fear a dialogue with God's children?

Although I understand PC moving from or broadening the term God to Sacred, Oneness and Unity to be more inclusive, it still seems to posit something 'more' that the profane, the many and the separateness that we experience in life; PC seems to posit there is other than what is or a transcendent possibility/reality to be gained or lived. The terms PC has moved to are also terms traditionally associated with 'God.' Be that as it may, some continue to use the word God because it is the instantly recognizable term of religion and they then make efforts to broaden that term beyond a theistic understanding. I don't believe the orphaning is inevitable - or we should take pains to make sure it isn't. I believe care can be taken (as it would be for anyone you truly care about) to be respectful to a more 'conventional' Christianity while at the same time broadening that theistic understanding to (hopefully) a richer appreciation of divinity and humanity. I realize of course that, no matter how careful or thoughtful, not all will agree with such a broadening.

I never took it as befuddlement (but then again perhaps). Rather, I think, they began to move from God as object to be considered or worshipped to the 'experience' of the All. So, I agree, the concept, especially (for me) a theistic concept is (must be) abandoned because it is both distraction and inadequate in the face of the truth. What strikes me is that for Eckhart, in this sermon, there is truth (to be gained or lived) in which is (found) what he wants and wants what he is. He partakes of a tradition in Christianity that what one wants is God (again not theistically understood); what one want is IS and IS (is) what he is. Elsewhere, Eckhart writes that in God "there too the soul loses itself in wondrous enchantment." I agree that some people end up deleting God from their mind but continue to use the word (if that is what you mean), but others do the exact opposite: some delete (or change) the word "GOD" but not God.

tariki, what is the 'it' to which you refer? And lines around what? And what is your understanding of grace, where does it come from and how is it presented or given to us?

Perhaps I am misreading but what does this mean: "We are responsible when we don’t regard science as absolute truth." I don't know many (any) people who believe they have the absolute truth (okay there are some religious leaders and factions but I don't know them only of them). Certainly on this site, there are many times when people state that something is their opinion/belief but one simply can't "Know." Be that as it may you approach an interesting point when you stated that "those that are close to truth are compassionate to others." This seemingly asserts that there is 'truth' and it can be known in some way since being aligned with truth leads to compassion. The other point I wonder about and sometimes question is our relativity. I agree, on one hand, that we 'see' from our perspective which takes place in a particular time in history within a particular worldview (and then there are the circumstances of where one lives, upbringing, education and on and on). However, on the other hand, if we not only participate in but are being, I have always allowed that we can say something, in our particularity, about Being or Reality that is 'truth.' All here (or almost here) seem to accept that there is something more or a Reality of which we are a part. If this Reality is (in some way) what we are, I suspect we can know or be "...close to truth....(which) leads to compassion." Of course, this is still 'belief' because we can't get behind or on top of Reality (so to speak), but can it be known by doing even within the relative? This is meant merely as an early morning musing.

I like also like what Burl wrote. But science does have its limits beyond our imagination and capabilities.

Soma, the revolution has been going on in many Christian circles for decades ( I was first introduced to in in the early 70s) and many Christians, accepting the findings of science, don't expect it to "kiss the ring." Many also understand the limitations of science and that faith plays a role it can't fill. And, of course, Jesus never said he was a Christian. The faith in a Messiah/Christ who had actually arrived (at least according to the faith of this Jewish sect) did not yet exist. This Jewish sect (Christians), in seeking to understand their 'resurrection experience' began to preach the messenger: Jesus. I am glad you acknowledged that some of what we got from our leaders was "out of innocent ignorance." I, for one, don't ask anyone to "hold back" and believe that both some who identify and others who don't identify with Christianity have both challenged and helped and, at times, since we are all human, have not done this. I too find science can help but recognize there is also an intellectual element of Christianity (philosophy or theology) that discusses the 'things of that faith' and has enabled many to better understand the faith given to them as children.

Well, try it again and make the request that it stay in the safe zone. Hopefully after this discussion, future threads will not be moved from a safe zone if that is where a Member places it.

Burl, Perhaps the best idea is to, as before, begin a thread in the 'safe zone' of Progressive Christianity but, this time, request that it not be moved to the Dialogue & Debate section. If you want a thread in the 'safe zone' that should be respected.

Then again........................

depends on the group and the individual............

Burl, Much too harsh a judgment for me. I knew about this site from Spong's and thought I'd see what it had to offer. It seems that many here struggled or were even wounded by an older version of Christianity and are looking for and finding ways to what is of value to them. If one questions his/her former (or the older version of their) religion, that is fine as long as there is an openness, that just as they find answers in other faiths/philosophies/beliefs, that others can find answers in a more panentheistic (or theistic) understanding of Christianity. I have no problem writing about, explaining or debating my understanding with others, be it PC or PS. But just as I feel compelled to suggest that more care has to be taken on this site when discussing a more traditional Christianity, so too I would expect the same from the conventional, progressive or fundamentalist Christians toward others. I would like to hear more from the thinking Christians but they, like all of us, should expect to be pressed on their views. Even on Spong's new site (Spong no longer being active) I find too often that there is a depth missing to many of the essays and the dialogue/exchange of ideas is all but dead on what seems a mostly Progressive Christian site. I do like a Christianity that is able to explain itself in modern language and engage in dialogue with/in the modern world. If it came to the point that none would engage in a healthy dialogue with any definition of Christianity, then I would move on because I would be bored.

I'm not really a rules kind of guy but I vote for tariki, not because he is harmless but because I like his gentleness, wisdom and wit and he has provided insights that for me, speak of God in man. I would miss him in the debate sections and am really not comfortable, in the time of the Donald, with walling some of us off from others, regardless of the 'restrictions.' Let us instead just be careful that people break easily sometimes. Besides how many people without looking can recite the 8 points?

Well, that's a great example: a flat earth. But ok, not sure if anyone on the site holds to that but, if they did, I would first, simply suggest they look for pictures of planet earth from a spacecraft (not aliens but human astronauts). And then ask if it looked flat. I would also suggest a "round' trip flight to test their belief. So I haven't 'dismissed' them or their belief but I don't buy it either. The second one could suggest that the 'explanations' of God make no sense to many people with a 21st C worldview but the 'insight' that God is with them or they with him is accepted as timeless by many, even today. So, we have a starting point to explore. As for the 3rd, one could trot out some fossils after, gently, suggesting a viewing of Jurraic Park to give pause about the 6k years but we could probably discuss the floods - perhaps not global unless they were talking about a time longer than 6k years ago when there was a lot more water covering the earth. Then we could talk about God's supposed role in the flood and that begins to trip up many people: defending God's role in the deaths of all the people of the earth save for 1 family. As for literal interpretation of the Bible, one could, gently, point out the contradictions inherent in this method and/or show how a non-literal interpretation might speak to them more powerfully. So, I have said the same thing as you, a bit more carefully, and I am both questioning and saying a good deal. And Joseph's point was my point also.

The 1st part was Burl's comment about Good Friday, I thought. I'm fine on the 2nd as a possible separate thread.

Perhaps the thing is to try to remember there is some times a fine line between expressing one's view and another taking it as a personal attack on beliefs that are central to who they are as a person. This doesn't mean that one should not be free to express their beliefs, disagree with others and explain their opinions. This gets a bit hazardous on this site because it seems that some were Christians, have 'survived' and moved away from it and have strong opinions about that religion, while others are still Christian, and range from progressive to conventional, to armchair to fundamentalist and all points in between. As for Spong's thesis that theism is dead - that is also an opinion that is not shared by all. I am not a theist and haven't been since well before I discovered Spong but many Christians (and those of other faiths), including some here, would disagree with him. Plus he does seem to have a tendency to make it personal at times in some of his comments about Fundamentalists. Even the statement used above, if from Spong, states a certain view to be nonsensical and it is not far from there to suggest or assume that one who accepts that view is both wrong and nonsensical. Where I come from (NJ) those are fighting words :+} .... and on this site, they seem to cross a line. I personally don't care if one is or is not a Christian or what kind of Christian they are and I don't find anybody's views threatening but I think more care could be given to the the dismissal of the views of the more traditional Christians.

This is the continuation of the original thread moved here by Joseph. Correct? So, if correct, the first part can be continued here. As for the last sentence, that is definitely a new thread but it also seems like one that has been discussed.

My take was that Soma was not denying the past but as he later explained it is a decision, and I suspect an 'art,' to being present, which is always 'now.' Like there is an art to listening, to truly being there as opposed to being distracted by what you did or what you have to do - it is only being present that is acceptable to most wives/women. An interesting wisdom there. The present is always informed or formed by the past (at least in part) and by being present, one is, I believe, laying some of the groundwork for the future. Burl, I think the optimist, the hope filled and/or the lucky people "..... find their past a source of satisfaction and look to their future with hopeful anticipation" but perhaps not so much for victims of abuse, war, terror or who have been forced to struggle to just exist. If I have misinterpreted please let me know.

First, proper names are used merely for emphasis. This is not unusual, merely a preference, nor am I alone in this approach. I have at times used the lower case also. As for me dismissing you - merely look back where I have written in this section that both sides (which obviously includes my views) are beliefs or opinions and neither side can prove its case. I have not dismissed your’s or other views. Further, I said that I might have misread you with your use of the word fad for Christian belief in the afterlife. It seemed to be a dismissal of those opinions, almost as if they were unworthy of consideration. I disagreed with the characterization but again allowed I might have misunderstood. But now you seemed to confirm, saying that it is irrelevant if you dismissed them if you don't share them. There is a difference between not sharing certain beliefs of others and dismissing them. Just want to know the PC etiquette on this because in the past there have been a number of views that I and others don't share but didn't 'dismiss.' Belief in the afterlife has not been short lived or a craze both of which characterize fads (a fad might be the head-band I wore - only on occasion - while in college). Arguing is fine, passion is welcomed, recognizing that none of us 'knows' the answer is important, being careful with how one characterizes the views of other is, I thought, essential. Let me know if this still goes :+}

Perhaps I am misreading you but, on the face of it, I think such a description (as a fad) seemingly dismisses the beliefs of many others. The vision might differ as some who had accepted a three tiered universe would differ from those who accept a 21st C cosmology and process philosophy. However, they share an underlying Faith in God and the Hope (which encompasses an 'afterlife') that goes with that. I too like Eckhart's Thank you but but I never read him as dismissing the Fullness of life or the Continuation of Life (or after this life). Again, his vision differs from some who might expect gates, St. Peter and angels (and I too might differ with his vision that talks of souls) but after Eckhart said "we are fellow helpers of God, co-creators in everything we do," he continues "....then all work is divinely accomplished in God. And there too the soul loses itself in a wonderful enchantment." This sounds like the Beatific Vision or what some would call Heaven, others Oneness, Unity, Communion and on and on. It is also interesting to wonder if Eckhart's understanding of the soul losing itself in God is the total loss of the soul/self or how one might lose themselves (and find themselves) in their beloved. Eckhart seems to be the poster boy for a life deeply lived and one becoming their true or Real Self. I go back and forth between the upper and lower case with my own name.

Just don't think belief in an 'afterlife' can be written off as a fad. Nor, are all beliefs in the 'continuation of life beyond death' understood or accepted as mere aids or enticements to live a better life. For some, the enticement is the gratitude spoken of by Tariki, the 'use' of the gift that one has been given: Life. And they find that by living a certain way (Loving), that life is lived more deeply and one becomes (or is on the way to becoming) their true Self. I am fine with a belief in an independent “I” or “self” with the proviso that the true Self (or the Real) is found in moving away from self and becoming what Reality is (believed to be): Love. And this is part and parcel of the belief that as one becomes Real, not even death can undo Life. I get the idea of the cosmos (the Really Real or God) getting to know itself but I am drawn to the idea that the cosmos gives Life so beings can have it, share it and become it. In this I allow that the cosmos can 'learn' but it does so in relation with the other. This is the way we learn about ourselves. I did not have a child so I could know myself but so that she could have life, makes it hers and Live. And in this, the child does not become me, but becomes herself (hopefully her truest and Best self) and we have a relationship of two (and of course with others), not a mere exercise or indulgence of the one. I always go back to Alfred North Whitehead that the former, a relationship of the two, or the many in unity is a higher form of Beauty and more desirous that a unity of the one.

I will have to reread some things but I agree that the Jews believed in Sheol (and also still waited for the Apocalypse and the establishment of the Kingdom when things would change). The early Christians began to move away from Sheol because for them, the resurrection of Jesus was the beginning of all expected resurrections, the establishment of the Kingdom and a waiting place was no longer necessary. Christians believed that in baptism they were already 'experiencing eternal life' by accepting the Christ. I do agree that later Christianity saw the reward of heaven and the punishment of hell. Again, would have to double check but things changed drastically in the early Christian movement.