minsocal

Agreed. I've posted this definition before: "Progressive Christianity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Progressive Christianity has a long history in American politics. It focuses on the biblical injunctions that God's people live correctly, that they promote social justice and act to fight poverty, racism, and other forms of injustice. There are also some groups that take an inclusive approach to all life, human and non-human and place a positive value on the earth, as God's creation. Progressive Christians see themselves acting in the public sphere. A priority of justice and care for the down-trodden are present from before Christianity. These are carried on carrying through the early church, the monastic movement, the ministry of healing, the Catholic and Protestant churches, to the Progressive Movement in the 19th century United States of America and the Social Gospel. Since the 1900s progressive Christianity was influential in determining what constitutes the values by which a good society is run. It stressed fairness, justice, responsibility, and compassion, and condemns the forms of governance that wage unjust war, rely on corruption for continued power, deprive the poor of facilities, or exclude particular racial or sexual groups from fair participation in national liberties. Progressive Christianity was most influential in the US mainline churches. It has also been an important influence on student activism globally. Progressive Christians have been active in the ecumenical movement, for example the World Student Christian Federation and the World Council of Churches internationally, and at the national level through groups such as the National Council of Churches in the USA and Australian Student Christian Movement." I apologize for the repetition ... but this has meant a great deal to me in my lifetime and, in in the last three or four years it has again become a central focus of my life. minsocal

One of the definitions of tolerance speaks to the conscious refusal to negate "the other" while retaining the reciprocal right to speak out and not be negated by the actions of others. In other words, negation generally leads to more negation. Less often, respect will be reciprocated with respect. The difference between the two can be overcome, and this seems to be the challenge. minsocal

I haven't read Searle. Jung isn't necessarily as mystical as some think. He was still a psychoanalyst. Freud was quite concrete in his theory of the mind, having trained to be a neurologist. To Freud the unconscious was in the brain and while I don't know that he wrote about the collective unconsciousness, I would think he would see that as a biologically shared "background" much as evolutionary psychologists do. One can interpret Jung as deviating far from that, but I don't know that he did. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jung made it very clear that his concept of the collective unconscious was based in the physical workings of the brain and acknowledged that the collective unconscious is a product of evolution. When Jung broke with psychoanalysis (and Freud) it was over the ethical implications of their different views of the unconscious. Freud's view of the unconscious evolved into a very pessimistic and deterministic one where "the unconscious" is the repository of repressed (personal) experiences. Jung believed that the collective unconscious is objective and not personal. Freud did not address the possibility of an objective and collective unconsious until after Jung entered into this area. Why is this an ethical problem? As Jung pointed out the last time he and Freud met in person, the biological variations expressed in unique individual human beings will be different from person to person, and it would be unethical to favor one over the other. Psychology, Jung said, "would have to wait for a theory that did justice" to all possible outcomes. Jung was also a close friend and collaborator with Wolfgang Pauli who is considered by many to be one of the founders of quantum theory. Jung and Pauli worked together on the theory of synchronicity or the "acausal connecting principle". What Pauli and Jung were hoping to show was that, at the quantum level, the phenomenon of "non-locality" could be used to show that "everything is connected" (in very simplistic terms). If consciousness is in some way related to quantum theory, and there is a non-local connection "with everything", then (in principle) Jung thought he might have "saved the soul" from destruction by scientific materialism. In fact, religious leaders in Jung's home country, on the occasion of his 70th birthday, awarded him a special recognition for having done just that. minsocal

Count me in. I love the theological/philosophical discussions, but sometimes they stop short of the ethical considerations and actions that they were intended to support. I sometimes wonder if we as a society are slowly losing our passion for justice? Or perhaps the the word "enthusiam" (en + theos) is more appropriate than passion? minsocal

My reading of the Old Testament leads me to conclude that the emergence of the "peaceful approaches to life" began in Old Testament times, primarily with the writings of the prophets. The historian Will Durant provides a reasonable argument for this hypothesis as does the psychologist Julian Jaynes (to mention only a few outside of the usual theological/historical debates). minsocal

Well said. In a prior post I mentioned the work of John Searle. What intigues me about his theory of consciousness is that it's stongest thesis is a defense of "the collective unconscious" which he calls the Background. He cites Nietzsche as one of the first to really comprehend the implications of the Background and Jung also refers to Nietzsche in his discussions of his concept of the Collective Unconscious. Searle's work parallels Jung in several other notable respects. Both take an antimaterialist stance (which really irritates many of Searle's peers), both tend to believe that the mind-body problem is probably an illusion, and both emphasize that the capacity for self-deception is one of the nagging problems of consciousness. While Searle is an avowed atheist, he recently wrote that he had to admit to a nearly universal "urge to spirituality" that he is at a loss to explain. Underlying all of this is a bit of irony. Physicists, when discussing the 'physical' have no problem switching from discussions of 'matter' to discussions of 'energy'. Now, what exactly is 'energy'? Like the mind, you can't see it and there is, as yet, no universal theory that can fully explain either. Ahhh ... the fun of it all. minsocal

The approach taken by Penrose is closest to "Appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness, but this physical action cannot even be properly simulated computationally." He endorses this view in The Shadows of the Mind (p. 15). At the moment, this is the only book of his that I have in my library and I don't know if he has "changed his mind". (Ok, it's a bad pun). minsocal

"Sir, What is the secret of your success?" "Two words" "And, Sir, what are they?" "Right decisions." "And how do you make right decisions?" "One word." "And, What is that?" "Experience." "And how do you get Experience?" "Two words" "And, Sir, what are they?" "Wrong decisions."

(The hot dog vendor prepares the hot dog and gives it to the monk. The monk pays him and asks for the change. The hot dog vendor says: "Change comes from within".)

A monk was driving in India when suddenly a dog crosses the road. The car hit and killed the dog. The monk looked around and seeing a temple, went to knock on the door. A monk opened the door. The first monk said: "I'm terribly sorry, but my karma ran over your dogma." minsocal

Personally, when it comes to computers, I don't think we really have much to worry about. Some of the assumptions mentioned have not held up all that well in the last two decades. Is it really the case that a computer passing the Turing test is "conscious"? According to Roger Penrose, (and others) there are tasks that human consciousness can complete that no computer that passes the Turing test will ever be able to accomplish. John Searle notes that a "simulation of consciousness" is not consciousness. Is a simulation of a hurricane the same as the real thing? Others note that the computer is running a program that was created by human consciousness, not another machine, etc. You might also check out Searle's "Chinese Room Argument" (google it for all the pros and cons). A computer can "process/translate" English into Chinese according to a lookup table and never understand Chinese. minsocal

From Wikipedia.com "Progressivism is a political philosophy whose adherents promote public policies that they believe would lead to positive social change. As a broad characterization of political leanings, political progressivism mostly refers to social liberalism, social democracy, or green politics. Progressivism may also mean prefering moderate change, as opposed to minimal or maximum change. In this sense, it is contrasted with reactionary, conservative, as well as radical ideology. Progressive logic is the value logic that gives an underlying unity to this diversity of views." (and) "Progressive Christianity has a long history in American politics. It focuses on the biblical injunctions that God's people live correctly, that they promote social justice and act to fight poverty, racism, and other forms of injustice. There are also some groups that take an inclusive approach to all life, human and non-human and place a positive value on the earth, as God's creation. Progressive Christians see themselves acting in the public sphere." I grew up in Wisconsin in the 1950's in an environment that closely matched both definitions above. I'm in the "moderate change" category because larg scale change can lead to: (a) unintended consequences that may be hard to correct (such as creating new marginalized groups) and, ( a high level of change seems to be correlated with high levels of fear and anxiety. This can lead to reactions such as "returing to the past" where things are more comfortable, etc. It's one thing to be in a group that desires change and quite another to be in the group expected to change! minsocal

I'll be listening for the music when I get there.... maybe I could find Jerry Garcia and join in? minsocal

"I am lying at this moment." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And... "It's abnormal to be completely normal." minsocal :

Thank you Cynthia, I think these verses are a reminder that inclusive really means "all". While I truly enjoy all the debate and dialog, the questions and answers, I keep coming back to this message in it's various forms from time to time. For me, it brings with it a feeling of peace. (and thanks Altheia for the verses ... ) minsocal

A little girl was talking to her teacher about whales. The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though it was a very large mammal its throat was very small. The little girl stated that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. Irritated, the teacher reiterated that a whale could not swallow a human; it was physically impossible. The little girl said, "when I get to heaven I will ask Jonah." The teacher asked, "what if Jonah went to hell?" The little girl replied, "then you ask him." minsocal

I like this comment very much. The word "trust" makes it easier to express myself. I can now say that "trust" is something i do (verb) in contrast to something I have (noun). When I use the word "belief" I take it in the sense of the correspondence theory of truth, meaning that it is my responsibilty to match (make sure that) there is a correspondence between what I hold to be a fact and what is a fact in the "real" world. This is in contrast to a "desire" where something in the "real" world must change to match my internal state. Out of this I could say that "I once longed to trust God, and now I do." (etc) minsocal

Joseph Campbell in The Power of Myth said "You see, religion is really a kind of second womb. It's designed to bring this extremely complicated thing, which is a human being, to maturity, which means to be self-motivating, self acting. But the idea of sin puts you in a servile condition throughout your life." minsocal

Ahhh ... 30 minutes! Now I understand. I'm relatively new here too. Welcome !

I agree with Borg. DiSanto & Steele in Guidebook to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance talk about Yin and Yang as being an "egalitatian dualism". They then add that this is in many ways similar to the Gestalt principle of figure-ground. Both are necessary and, with practice, one should be able to switch from one to the other. The philosopher John Searle makes this concept part of his theory of general consciousness, implying that all dualisms are in a sense an illusion. C. G. Jung reached a similar conclusion, stating that spirit and life are "two sides to the same coin" and, in the end, might turn out to "be one and the same thing." For Jung, all dualisms are complementary. minsocal

Speaking from my own experience as a gay male and UCC member I can say that Progressive Christians can, and often do, "walk their talk" when it comes to this issue of accepting and welcoming diversity in their communities. The church I attend has been "open and affirming" for about 12 years and has openly gay, lesbian, and transgender members. It is sometimes difficult to put this experience into words, but I will offer a few observations. First, I initially selected this church because of it's "OA" status. Any doubts I had were dispelled within minutes of walking into my first worship service and I became an active member four weeks later. Second, in this particular congregation, my status as a gay person has never made me self-conscious of my so-called status as a minority. The feeling of openess is almost as natural as breathing. Of course, experiences vary from congregation to congregation and all that I am saying here is that Progressive Christians certainly have the potential and the will to make the celebration of diversity a concrete reality. As to the movie ... it's a remarkable artistic achievement that transcends the "gay issue" ... well, that's my opinion anyway. minsocal

Sorry for the multple postings. I intended to edit the previous one but the option was somehow not available. I agree that we should not dependent on God. I think that the model of a well functioning adult relationship is helpful. The emphasis would then be on mutuality rather than dependence. This implies a complemetary relationship of autonomy and connectedness in the absense of tyranny. The "door metaphor" works well in this respect. I'm thinking of the kind of door on hinges that work in both directions and without locks. The door remains a boundary that functions out of respect and not brute force. minsocal

I'm wondering if the "door slammed in your face" might be a useful metaphor. I let my imagination wander on this and up came the question "Which door slammed?" Perhaps there are many doors. For me, I get the feeling that the door labeled "rational" closes quickly these days. I think I wore out the hinges. Lately things have gone smoother when I open the doors labeled "intuition" and "feeling". How many other doors are there? I have no idea. minsocal

Agreed. That was my point. It seems that there is a wide range of perspectives within denominations and that finding a good fit can indeed be frustrating.

What do I use as a replacement for attending the Kingdom Hall and the dogma I was taught there? I read ... A LOT. For the past few years, reading has been my "church." I read anything that touches my heart, brings me to "thin places" and closer to God. This includes philosophy, poetry, theology and science. I meditate. I garden. I sing. I pray. I talk to people on bulletin boards and with my husband. All that said, I'm seriously considering going back to church (probably a local Episcopal church), because Christianity is social, and I've been isolated for a long long time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In the category of "for what's it's worth" ... I isolated myself "for a long long time" (35 years) from church participation. I re-discovered a part of myself on returning. I was unsure at first, being an intuiting - introvert ... but it has slowly worked out for me