October's Autumn

And like Greeks see the body as corrupt and the soul/spirit as pure. I disagree with that viewpoint. I think they are all one in the same. What people might consider soul I think of as personality. It is brain chemicals/functioning, ultimately. If some one gets a nasty bump on the head their personality will change. (I remember years ago the story of Barbara Mandell who was in an accident and apparently went from a very nice, even tempered person to a B****). Of course in most people personality is stable. But you give them the right drugs or that nasty bump and you see a whole different person. Same is true for someone with dementia. My grandfather went from a sweet old man with an awesome sense of humor to a a violent, vile, person and back. I simple bladder infection was the cause. Kind of makes ya think... huh?

I guess I look at it this way. If we return to God in some form after we die then we do. If we don't we don't. But all the contemplating it isn't going to change what is. I like to focus more on the here and now and what I can do change what I know does exist -- ie poverty, injustice. I attended Synagogue for a while and talked to the Rabbi about this very topic. He basically said he doesn't know if there is such a thing as Heaven (in the sense of life after death) but that he does know what is now and in Judaism that is what is important. God will take care of life after death (or not) it isn't our job to be concerned about it. (That is more or less a quote). I took great comfort in his words, still do. (She says as she returns to her Final Project due in a matter of days).

"Sorry OA, but the end is the beginning and the beginning is the end." actually, it is a spiral, not a cycle. "That's where spiritual beliefs come from. It's been that way for thousands of years, and that, together with observance of this universal phemomenon in all of nature is where all religions came from in the dim past; not from contemporary, nihilistic viewpoints that only, in the end, engender and promote fear and loathing." Quite the opposite, acutally. It is when I came to realize that death is in fact the end for me that the fear disappeared. "I respect your right to think what you think and believe what you believe, but there are likely more believers that would disagree with your viewpoint than agree with it." You don't appear to or you'd let it go instead of continually responding in the manner you do. I wasn't aware that we were voting on this. I'm not concerned about what the majority of "believers" think. I think for myself. "Find and read the book I mentioned above. You might surprise yourself." Been there, done that. I'm no more interested in going back to a pie-in-the-sky theology than I am in thinking God hates women.

"older and richer cultures" does not make it so. I'll stick to death is the end, thanks

I prefer the ancient Hebrew idea that we live on by those who remember us. The idea of a disembodied soul/spirit is creepy, to me.

Just watched Brokeback Mountain Geesh, made me almost cry. I guess I wasn't expecting that...

I think it depends on the person. I went to m-w.com and Webster defines progressive as the following: Main Entry: 1pro·gres·sive Pronunciation: pr&-'gre-siv Function: adjective b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities or as a noun Main Entry: 2progressive Function: noun b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action liberal is defined as the following: Main Entry: 1lib·er·al Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l Function: adjective 5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms Main Entry: 2liberal Function: noun : a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways When I first heard "progressive" as in a progressive Christian I took it to mean just another word for liberal. Since a lot of conservatives use "liberal" as a "4 letter word" I suspect some decided to change labels. It also throws some off I also think those who are turned off the label of liberal might be more comfortable using progressive. Personally I differentiate liberal from progressive this way: Liberal pertains primiarly to how unimportant doctrine/dogma is to a person in comparison to social action and justice. I usually see progressives as being the thinking part of any group on the spectrum. They are the ones in the conservative movement who started to ask the questions about women's ordination. They are the ones who decided it was okay to have a Sunday school in a church (A prof. told a story about a church that split over the issue). Progressives, in my mind, are the ones who are challenging the status quo and never quite settled into a system of belief. So, in my mind, you can be progressive and be a fundamentalist. You might not last long there if you start talking about what you are thinking... but that is a different story.

Des sums it up well.

My sister just came to visit from Baltimore! She discovered sudoku on the plane and my husband found a website with tons of puzzles at various levels. I'm totally addicted!

yes

I don't see how murdering someone or letting someone be murdered shows love. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Picture it this way... you're on trial, and you've been found guilty of a capital crime. Just before the judge pronounces your sentence, someone else steps forward and offers to pay the penalty in your place. That's exactly what God the Son did: paid the debt in your stead. That is how God shows love. Why demand death? God is the judge so if God demands a life than God is a murderer. Sorry, I know the song and dance already. The God I know does NOT demand blood. Believe what you choose to believe but the god you believe in is not the God I know nor a god I'd care to know. You forget that I was once in your shoes and I asked questions and when those questions were answered the answer was that God is not a murderer. I left the shoes you stand in and found something else, a God who loves. Not a god who kills.

Here are some questions to help: Can you be a fundamentalist or conservative and be progressive? What about Orthodox? Do you have to be a Christian or come out of a Christian background? What beliefs can you or can't you hold? This is intended more of a place for people to post their ideas, not for debate or really discussion -- ask questions to clairify others ideas but not challenge them. I think it will be interesting to see how we all approach the idea of being Progressive or why we call ourselves that.

okay... but I disagree I don't see soul separate from body.

Wow, this is good for my procrastination habits! Eating with someone was and still is big deal in the middle east. You don't just eat with anyone! Doing so, you create a covenant with them to be "brothers." It is a matter of protection. Thus the big bruhaha when Jesus ate with Prostitutes, Publicans, etc. The whole thing with Jesus dipping his bread in the cup with Judas, also significant. Setting aside rather it happened, the author is conveying a special relationship between the two. Essentially Jesus is forgiving Judas for betraying him. In this culture there is a saying (?) or probably better a mindset: God is as God's people are doing. Basically you aren't defined by your beliefs and it isn't a matter of what you believe (resurrection, virgin birth, miracles, etc.) it is what you DO that matters. The emphais on doctrine is a Western one. In the semitic cultures is on action. I finally realized that God didn't care about what I believed, God cared about what I DID. Part of the reason I'm now a teacher. I saw things like millstones (huge and heavy). Also made sense of the "moving mountain with faith" thing. Herod literally moved a mountain top! I traveled with an archaelogist/minister who would show the places where Jesus likely was during certain sermons because of the landscape (likewhere Herod moved the mountain). I also so the beautiful poppies of the field (amazing!) that show up in the Gospels. I learned a lot about the women and their position in society. I got a feel for why Jesus would have had tons of women followers. I traveled with 25ish people. I was one of 6 females, the youngest female by 25 years, the youngest person by 10 years. Everytime we stopped at a sight our archaelogist would tell one of Jesus stories related to women. I went from feeling like God really didn't care about women to seeing God through Jesus and seeing how radical he was in his view. There is significance in the 12 year old girl who was raised from the dead (the age at which girls become women) and the woman who was bleeding for 12 years. The stories are written like that for a reason. Also, Jesus being willing to let the woman who was bleeding (and unclean) to touch him, calling her daughter. I wish I had taped recorded all the stories he told. The Samartin woman is another story of signficance. Jesus talking to a woman in public, and a Samartin, at that! But there was more to that one... it has been 11 years so it is kind of hard to remember them all. What I"ve was left with was a radically different view of who Jesus was. There is so much more to Jesus than a miraculous birth and death and resurrection of some kind. But we lose all this because we are so focused on death.

My first question to anything Pauline: is it genuine? After that take a good look at the culture. As my professor put it, life was short and miserable. If this is Pauline is he simply reflecting the feeling of the culture? What exactly does Paul mean? We know Paul expected Jesus to return before he would die and eventually realized that would not be the case. Does Paul mean: what's the point? When he is expecting the imminent return? That is my guess but I'm not an expert on Paul. There are a lot of questions that have to be asked. Many of which I personally cannot phathom at the moment. (I supposed to be doing school work). It also goes back to the place of scripture in one's mind. (Hence my love for Borg). Just because someone (Paul) said it doesn't make it true. I separate Pauline theology from Jesus. Paul created Christianity whereas Jesus was a Jew. Because I am no longer a fundamentalist/conservative I can freely admit to simply say I disagree with Paul or that Paul is wrong. (Whereas fundamentalist/conservatives claim to believe in all scripture but still pick and choose).

What I meant was that for those who don't want to dismiss resurrection completely, they go for a "spiritual" resurrection instead of no resurrection. Some will stay there others will come to the conclusion that there simply was no kind of resurrection. For a good read on style of writing look up books by Dennis MacDonald and Gregory Riley. If I recall correctly, they separately came to the conclusion that the gospels are written in the heroic style, hence a need for a virgin birth and resurrection.

I struggled for a long time to learn Hebrew and Greek. I could decode but never translate accurately (I could get the base words but not the endings). That is why I wondered what you thought of it if you had more experience. Maybe something similar could help me with Spanish!

Any more thoughts on it?

All good questions and comments. My experience when studying the bible is that many misconceptions come from a lack of understanding about the culture of the time. I wonder if we read more Greek Mythology if Paul's writings would make more sense. I went to Israel 11 years ago and found a lot of how I understood the bible was perverted because I read it with eyes from the 20th century instead of the 1st century. Same goes for what often happens in church on Sunday Mornings around the world! Good point, never thought of it like that before. But you are absolutely right. If anyone here has ever been severly depressed they know the feelings of hopelessness and helplessness. The ones that make you swear life has always been bad and always will be bad and there is nothing you can do about. Those beliefs lead people to suicide. They are dying for a truth that is not true, but a distortion. Sincerity of belief does not make something true. Is that a fair summary of your statement? I haven't investigated it but I suspect it is a stepping point between believing in a physical resurrection and no resurrection. It also explains why/how some can celebrate Easter whereas I spent Sunday morning in the Church Nursery holding a baby Amen!

I don't see how murdering someone or letting someone be murdered shows love.

yup. Not my theory, mind you. But it is hard to ignore the similarities of the stories... Wow, good question. Haven't gotten to thinking about that yet. I don't want to say yes because I have to take a closer look but saying no would be premature!

Nope. The reason the resurrection is added later to Mark and the other gospels is to fit the story frame of the hero stories. It would today be like using a fairy tale to tell the story of Jesus. It is a genre, not to be taken literally. The genre is the medium for the message -- Love God, love your neighbor as yourself.

The resurrection is a common theme in literature in that time period and a way of communicating to the people of time. It distracts from Jesus' message of love and action.

Thank you for the recommendation! I agree. Especially in the church I grew up in. In the name of the Holy Spirit men (literally) were seen as pious based on the show. It makes me shudder to remember. The problem is that when you take scripture out of context it loses its meaning which is often what happens in liturgy. But when it is scripted it loses honesty. People are just saying the words on the page. I often keep silent for all or part of the readings because it is not true for me. I don't know that others find it true or simply that they are going through a ritual.

Different people view liturgy differently. I find it boring and forced. Others find it rich in tradition and history. It is a matter of personal opinion/exprience. You'll find this board is fairly quiet. I've posted topics and/or responded to topics which never get any kind of response. It is nothing personal it just happens. I think you'll find shorter openers to draw more attention. I find reading on a computer screen difficuilt. I rarely take the time to go through a post of any great length. Your question was something about who was William sloan Coffin. I'd never heard of him until today. Flowperson posted a link to wikipedia which I skimmed. Now that I know of him I may decide to go and pick up a book. But the information has to be accessible. People don't "buy" what they don't understand. That is what advertising is all about