October's Autumn

I think that part of the problem is that we, like the Greeks, want to compartmentalize and disect everything. What is spirit? What is soul? What is body? We want clear lines of deliniation and the scriptures (let alone medical science) just are not clear and concise on such subjects. As you've said, it is all conjecture.

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?

Which leads me to consider the merits of panentheism, that God is an all-pervasive spirit. That the God from which we came is the God into whom we return. (yes, I know my sentence structure sucks. but this is a forum, not a literary society, and I try to type like I speak.) If that is truly the case, then there may be no need (or even desire) for some sort of consciousness that *we* still exist. To say that we still exist implies that we are still something separated from God. There is God...and there is us.

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.

Creepy or not, there are enough older and far richer cultures that had formalized beliefs in such things for there to probably be a certain amount of truth to it all.

"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!

It is not that Jesus' blood means nothing to me. It does. It means that he would rather die loving, forgiving his enemies than to call down angels to slaughter them.

yes

  As the apostle John, one of Jesus' "inner circle", put it, "This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."

 

 

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.

If you have the time and desire, Autumn, I would love to hear more about this? What things really stand out as "eye-openers" from your trip and getting a better context? You can PM me on this if you'd rather not post it publically. 

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.

The third ('progressive'?) position suffers from having to face the original Pauline assertion - if Christ be not raised, is our hope in him in vain?  That is, if Christ is dead, why should I place my trust in him or his teachings?  I'm not saying that it can't answer this charge - but you will need an answer to give, because people are going to ask.

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).

Very possibly. I would be ecstatic if I could discover what that stepping point is.

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?

Do I know what happened? No, I don't. One of the reasons is that the Bible presents different accounts of what Jesus' resurrection was like. I don't think the events in the gospels surrounding Christ's resurrection can be literally reconciled with each other. They differ and even contradict one another. This throws a monkey-wrench into the whole scenario concerning *exactly* what happened.

 

The apostle Paul, with no account whatsoever of having been at Jesus' crucifixion or tomb, says that Jesus had a "spiritual body". Now, what to heck is that?

 

Greeks saw spirit and body as almost completely separate things. But Paul says that Jesus had (and we will have) a "spiritual body." I think, in studying Paul's writings that he believed Jesus changed from mortal to immortal, from man to God, at the resurrection. But, as Paul often does, he uses terms without explaining what they mean. Spiritual body? Interesting.

 

Those who claim that Jesus' body was flesh and blood after the resurrection have to wrestle with his ability to disguise it, to make it pass through walls, to transport it instanteously from location to location. Not to mention that Jesus said that flesh and blood could not inherit the kingdom of God (if taken literally).

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!

I am often told, "Would the disciples be willing to die for the sake of a lie?" Good question. I think it depends on what the disciples believed. Fundamentalist Muslims are more than willing to die in order to be assured of immediate passage into heaven, with 40 virgins hanging on one's arm. People are willing to die if they think their eternal destiny hangs precariously in the balance. And they are willing to kill for it too. Devotion to a "truth" does not guarantee it's truthfulness.

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?

Those who claim that Jesus' resurrection was entirely spiritual, well, there again, what does that mean? I have never met an entity of pure spirit so I cannot say what a spirit can and cannot do.

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

Maybe someday things will change. I hope so. But, for now, I would rather place my hope and trust in the good teachings of Jesus...

Amen!

  As the apostle John, one of Jesus' "inner circle", put it, "This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."

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

Ah, OK.  So, if I understand you, you believe that Jesus didn't come back to life, bodily or spiritually and is (still) dead and the apostles didn't have what some commentators call the "Easter Experience" but rather they (or the people who came after them and wrote the gospels) inserted the resurrection into the story of Jesus' life to fit the pre-existing notions of what a hero/leader should be.

yup. Not my theory, mind you. But it is hard to ignore the similarities of the stories...

I'm guessing that you would reject most of Paul's letters and John's gospel as being a distortion of Jesus' message and would look to a reconstructed Q and the Gospel of Thomas as being closest to the actual teachings of Jesus?

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!

Hi October's Autumn,

 

Is that essentially my position 3?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

William Sloan Coffin was one of the giants of our age and no small potatoes in the news for much of his career.  An excellent book to start with is Credo.

Thank you for the recommendation!

I find non liturgical worship too often bordering on putting on a show ...

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.

liturgy is a way to focus on the essentials, on the Word of God for the day. 

The problem is that when you take scripture out of context it loses its meaning which is often what happens in liturgy.

Liturgy is also dialogue, and involvement of the people in the worship experience.  And it speaks when our words cannot. 

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.

discussions seem devoid of any concept of liturgy, of Christian spirituality rooted in the liturgical riches of the Church, of what the call of the Gospel is, the call of the whole of the Scriptures, as opposed to the words of trendy current gurus and rock musicians

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