JosephM

II made changes to my post 1 minute before you posted. I guess you got a copy of what i first had written. That happens with longer edit times.

I would agree that love, compassion and other positive attributes can be learned just as fear, loathing, hate and the like can be learned. Yet i would contend that self in a sense is an illusion and that anatta, in Christ, or no self has a mind which is neither at the mercy of outside stimuli or its own moods. In that 'state' there seems to be no opposites to at least peace, and possibly joy and love, but being ineffable, words seem to fail to describe those moments. Joseph PS . I think this says it better from tariki post ...

Welcome Kah608, I think both Soma and Paul have posed valid possible answers to your question. Personally i take it in context of the complete Chapters to the point where it is recorded in John 17:20-21 ".Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: ....... " To me this makes it clear that if Jesus spoke all this he was speaking from that faith/oneness relationship. And further more praying that we could be one also even as he was one with God. The way is faith and oneness with God and it appears to me not limited to a single person or religion. It seems to me anyone on that path in the present moment relationship (at one) with God could say in that consciousness ... I am the way, truth and the light. But of course it can be easily misconstrued. Joseph

Paul, Lets not get lost for the trees in the forest. I think we have agreed with you that that regardless of religion or no religion, beliefs do not make one more right or more valid than another except in their own mind. From a subjective perspective, each has there own view of whats more valid and there is no real proving by your criteria of proof whose belief is objectively more valid. If you want to believe that people who kill other innocent people have a real relationship with God that is just as valid as people who experienced a oneness with all (God) where violence to the innocent is not even a possibility , that is fine with me. But i don't think you really believe that. If all your saying is that most believe their relationship with God is more valid than the other, whether Muslim or Christian then there is no disagreement. In a nutshell, i think that what Jen and i have been saying for the most part is that our experiences have shown us that when in a state of awareness (relationship) with God (not a belief system), violence among other things toward another is simply not present. Can we prove this unequivocally to you. I certainly can't. As i said before in half jest and will say again to anyone looking for evidence .... It is self-evident ...Go get your own PS Thanks for the discussion.

I don't disagree with that. It would seem that they feel and believe that way but i wouldn't agree that they are having a relationship with God. A relationship yes with their belief system. And they are certainly not alone in that.

Thats correct. You got my point.

That's correct. No connection there

Paul, I was referring to an experience similar to the description quote of Joseph campbell. In that state i testify yiou would not kill another. That state is connection to God or whatever word works for you

Its ok to differ. How can one know what the other is experiencing except to be One.

For your definition of faith ...yes

Paul, I get your point but i think you missed mine. Whose faith is more valid doesn't enter my picture. PS If you are looking for evidence from me....go get your own

My beliefs aren't real Paul, therefore they are no more valid than his. If faith is the same thing than i am telling you my faith isn't valid so i have no quarrel with the Muslim.

Paul, I have previously re-defined the word faith as distinct from belief. If there is a problem with my definition, lets scrap it. I am not saying the terrorist Muslim doesn't have belief that he feels is valid, I don't even believe my beliefs are valid so how could they be more valid than his? I am saying it seems obvious to me from my own experience that he is only consciously connected with his brain/physical mind. In other words he is 'unconscious' and acting from that 'unconsciousness'. I am also admitting most of the time i am also 'unconscious' and capable of the same if my experiences were the same as his/her. I am not questioning or comparing the others validity. He has his place in this world of form and he is doing the best he can for his circumstances. I am not judging him. Only saying he is acting out of 'unconsciousness'.

Of course he thinks his belief is valid. And you are right ...what i am saying cannot be proved. The experience is self-evident and one is free to examine their own mind and see it for what it is.(in a sense an illusion of separation) No book or belief system can give it to you. Its free by grace and all have it, howbeit, all are not aware.

Paul, Paul, It is not a question of they are wrong and i am right. It is not even a question of a real or genuine experience. I have nothing to prove. My experience includes the same capacity for what some refer to as evil or the acts of the terrorist. In my best estimation the act of this terrorist was more out of hate for gays . His justification was that he was doing gods will because of his belief. There was no conscious connection with God or the Universe or whatever because if there was it would be as Rom posted of Joseph Campbell where separation disappears and only unity prevails. There is no other to kill. There.... Love has no opposite at least in my limited experience. Joseph

I would disagree that they are experiencing the presence of God. They are most likely experiencing the presence of hate, anger, pride and the like. This is a minority of Muslims. Their actions are motivated by that hate, fear, anger, guilt and pride. Yes they are passionate about their cause but the passion is misdirected by a belief (not faith) in falsehoods or lies. Paul, what i am saying is suicide bombers have a strong belief in a god that they have been taught the same as extremists of any religion that do such things. I am not comparing 1 religion to another concerning faith. Yes, i am saying they lack the connection because that connection is founded in Love for all rather than reward for self at the expense of others. Perhaps i am mistaken but that is my experience. Faith it seems to me is known by its fruits... being love, joy, patience, kindness, peace, tolerance and the like which are found.when we are conscious of that presence. Howbeit, most of my life is found in unconsciousness action.(programming) I could have been the suicide bomber or terrorist under the same conditions. I am no better than he/she. I agree they have passion and BELIEF in their god but as i said... that to me is not faith and others may disagree with my definition but to me, there is a distinction. The OT portrays a similar god but Jesus and experience seem to point elsewhere . Joseph

Paul, I have found the best definition of faith that matches my experience to be found in the book of Hebrews 11:1 in the NT KJV. In my view, faith is usually used synonymous with the word belief which to me is not the same thing. One can believe in a lie and be blinded by that belief. But faith doesn't require belief which is commonly just trust or acceptance that may be blind or just passed down from others. Whereas, faith is more of a knowing that comes with a conscious connection to the presence that is in and through all things. 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It is 'seeing' the actual substance, the evidence of that which can't yet be seen with the physical eyes. I think you are correct that these suicide bombers have stronger beliefs than most Christians. Many strong enough to sacrifice their lives for what they believe. (which is a programmed lie from recorded writings and others) .In my experience, many Christians are in the same boat as history, the OT and the dark ages have shown. I think religious belief without the connection is a counterfeit of what faith really is. It seems to me, when one experience the presence of God there is no belief (as in blind acceptance or trust based on others) required or even needed. It is self-evident. Most Christians may not share this view or definition but in my experience it is true. At least as true as i can presently put into words. Joseph

In fairness, when i read the post, i think Paul qualified it at the beginning as "a bit of a rant" out of frustration probably at something he read. And then he posed the rest of his statements as questions with a question mark showing he was open and looking for views or opinions from others on the issue wanting to see how others felt . He seems to be open and the rant seems more questioning of his own thoughts than the purpose of criticizing others. To me, his last statement closes the rant and expresses interest on how others see it. Seems to have made for an interesting discussion and some good points to ponder which we need more of here. Joseph

This weeks PC Weekly Recap

Derek, Enjoyed the read. What can i say that could add or subtract a thing from what you posted? It does seem to summarize the journey as best i can relate to. Correct beliefs, rites and rituals and even books have little meaning to me at this point. Yet there is no leading within me to to label such things as nonsense for its necessity was self-evident for me and i see as self-evident for others who require such until no longer required or seen as necessary. Merton asked "How many centuries will it take for people to discover this fact?" (That which we see as outward differences do not separate that which we share intimately in common) Perhaps the answer is "as long as it takes". Is that a problem? It seems to me, NOT. It kind of reminds me of a famous John F. Kennedy quote. "Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal." Of course i think Merton was referring to that which is more intimate and expressed in our compassion and actions. Joseph

HayleyMay, Some people use the 2 terms synonymously. Some have changed their self label to progressive from liberal because some mainline churches speak derogatory of liberal Christianity. There may be in some minds differences but personally, i don't like getting hung up on labels because i think individual beliefs are more complex than any single group of consonants and vowels can convey. Words of course have their usefulness but personally i prefer not to be boxed in by such.

HayleyMay, This Thread may be of helpful interest to you. What Progressive Christianity means to you. Also you may wish to review the 8 points of PC as that is what most PC's have in common and may give you a better insight into progressive Christianity. Joseph

HayleyMay, The best i can recall, i have not yet met one who identifies as a PC that said they hold that belief but there may be some. As far as being a "valid" belief meaning : having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent , i would view it as not valid. As far as valid meaning : acceptable or authoritative, if one considers the Bible as such (valid and authoritative), yes, in my view, it could then be considered valid if one holds that belief. That however is not a belief that i hold as reasonable under scrutiny. Joseph

Hi HayleyMay, Progressive Christians are not bound by dogma or doctrine. Since each is on an individual journey of discovery, as they question, study , reason and review their experiences in light of new knowledge, scientific and otherwise. You may find a variety of views that have probably been and may still be in flux and evolving over time. Speaking for myself, 1. I view Jesus as one of the great teachers of his time. I have no way of knowing but i believe from some of his reported teachings that were recorded in the Bible that he attained oneness or a unity connection with God which all can share in. 2. To me, heaven and hell are states of mind/spirit rather than physical places. If they were physical, they certainly wouldn't be eternal in my view. Demons? I don't know any. 3. I don't think about homosexuality. I know some homosexuals pretty well and they seem quite loving and caring individuals from my experience. I don't know why they are homosexuals or why i am not and i find no reason in me to judge them or myself in the matter. 4. No Joseph

Here is what Fred Plumer has to say about prayer within PC ..... Fred Plumer, President of ProgressiveChristianity.org, talks about the place of prayer within the progressive Christian movement.