JosephM

Welcome to the forum Rhino, Thanks for sharing your personal plight. Just a quick response concerning your questions..... 1. To me the present is enough. I don't think fundamentals really know what the afterlife entails. They are just repeating what they have been taught. As is recorded Jesus said and i believe is true "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." 2. I believe i exist and was created as i am and that my creator accepts me as i am. If i am doing the best i can then why should i let guilt reign in my life and what do i have to fear from a loving God? You are here by the grace of God and you will continue in that grace. 3. No 4. No need to reconcile myself with anyone elses view. All we can do is operate in the light we have been given by God. Pray for Mark Driscol. He can't help himself and is at the present operating in the light that he is allowing which is clouded by the premises of man and the church system rather than the spirit of God that is in and through all. Joseph

Paul, Yes, marriage also from my perspective is a man made procedure. No argument from me. And you may not understand what the big deal is to change or as you say expand the legal definition (scope) of the word but it is important to so many other people here in the US, Otherwise there would not be such a bitter controversy and resistance that one sees in this country. I believe (may be wrong) homosexuals make up less than 5 % of the population and to me if there is a way to get them equal benefits without changing the definition of marriage or denying them a ceremony so as not to cause more bitterness and anger among heterosexuals who see it differently than you then that is the way i would choose to accomplish it. I do not think or suspect that changing that definition would be the end of this controversy here in the US and most likely would create greater controversy. Of course i do not know as that is only my thoughts on the matter. Joseph.

Paul said.... You are correct. it was not meant to fit that definition . That doesn't take anything away from it as it can be a union of mutual love. yes , I would accept a civil union or word other than marriage with a ceremony with the love of my life if my love was a male. It changes nothing in my eyes. I agree they should not be prevented but it doesn't have to use the same word that has in the US always meant between a man and a woman. I certainly am not saying that. I am saying marriage in the US has a meaning that includes between a man and a woman. Whats wrong with a different word to better communicate a relationship that is not exactly the same. I am not stuck on the word civil union. Pick something else. We use words like liberal or conservative and others to define and communicate. Whether one looks down or makes one unworthy of the other is purely a personal matter that is not solved by changing a definition (imo) We are all entitled to our opinion and i respect your right to vote to change the definition. Personally i would not..... and instead would have it handled differently as i outlined but either way i will go with the decision of the courts and offer no resistance to the outcome decided. No love is lost with me either way. Joseph

Literalists will have a hard time not only with John 1:9 but with Ephesians 4 where it says " And One is God The Father of all, and over all, and with all and in us all" (Aramaic Bible) One can pick and choose certain writings to make a case but only by ignoring others. it seems to me, translations from the original language and past meanings plus church interference makes a literalist view very problematic indeed. Therefore the answers given us as you point out Paul, have no other backing than the statements of men saying we just have to accept or have faith the Bible as God's literal words to us. Joseph PS I think the number one false premise of the church system that creates a foundation for that immovable position that makes it difficult for the individual to get past is the false premise that "the Bible is the Word of God" period.

Paul, I think Mr Gully's point is summarized in this one paragraph of his. " How do we know when the time has come to let go? Here's one way we know: when our holding on to something comes at someone else's expense, when our holding on to something diminishes another person. If someone else is suffering because we are holding on to a belief, custom or tradition, that means its time to let go of that belief, custom or tradition." His comparisons include slavery and when religions degrade people by making them evil, the killing of witches, etc. All of which i see are most valid points because there is no doubt they do harm, cause suffering, are hurtful and diminish / degrade people. The issue at the end concerning homosexuality he talks about how his marriage was the happiest day of his life and that disallowing it cheats homosexuals out of that day. Civil unions or domestic partners are becoming legal in states without redefining marriage. How that is cheating, causing suffering, is hurtful, demeaning or degrading is beyond me.. While i strongly agree making homosexuality evil by religion is a belief that needs to change (be let go) and i am against denying homosexual couples many of the benefits presently only offered to married couples, i see no need to redefine the meaning of a word when the word civil union or domestic partner will suffice. A civil union or using some other acceptable word is not a second class citizen. The word merely defines the union is not between a man and a woman. People will believe what they want and changing the meaning of the word marriage will not change peoples beliefs. it seems to me If a person thinks homosexuals are second class citizens or less, changing the definition of marriage will not change that but will only anger or be hurtful to those who see it differently. I think the real issue is equal treatment of homosexual couples rather than changing a time honored definition which need not be changed so as to do no harm to either side. Joseph

Mow, I agree. In my experience, if Jesus indeed said that, i believe he meant that no one comes to the Father except by the same spirit that was in him. I believe he was speaking as Christ and not as Jesus the man. Christ is the anointing or "a smearing together with God" which is necessary to communicate or be in conscious connection (oneness or realizatiion) with God. That connection or what Christians label as manifested in Jesus, the man, as Christ, is the spirit in which all men have their being . Different religions use different words but to me it is just different labels pointing to that experience which is really beyond mere words. Essentially John 1:9 says Christ is "the true light that lighted every man that comes into the world". So in a sense, there can be no separation except in ones mind because that light is the very source or essence in which we have our being. (all men/women without exception) However, it seems obvious to me that all have not come to the realization that that presence is always present within and is what sustains them. Joseph

Mow, To me "The Word" means "principle" such as in vital principle or animating force. "the Living water" is that same principle and is in my view synonymous with the word "Christ" in that it is in essence as " being smeared together with God" or in a sense being One with. Joseph

Paul, To me, many important things are confirmed with my own experience. Things like in John 14 thru John 17 where among other things Jesus says, I and my Father are One. and then he prays that we may be one even as he is One. and such pointers as i am in the Father and the Father in me. (said not for his own benefit) And various other statements such as I pray not that you should take them out of the world but to keep them from the evil one. ( this negates the literal great catching away myth) and hints at a different understanding. Those who experience the oneness are in the world but in a sense not of the world. We were not meant to be snatched away but rather to inhabit the earth. And this is life eternal that they might know thee (God) through Christ.which was exemplified in Jesus. (and others of course) And much much more. It would take volumes to explain but is not complicated. joseph

Hi Mow, Good to hear from you again after so long a time. Hoping all is well with you. Personally as a PC i lean toward the Gospel of John but with a different slant/understanding or interpretation than most may have come to from reading. Joseph

That didn't work either. Try this here by clicking -------------------> HERE Joseph

Bearpawss, To me, the redeeming is not in the restoration of the gamblers money that was lost or even in the destruction of the cardshark. None of which is really necessary for our growth. Rather the redemption seems to me to be born in the suffering as a result of our actions and the acknowledgement of our poor choices that led to the suffering and a change in our thinking that transforms our lives through acceptance and wiser actions in the future. Just some thoughts on your previous post, Joseph..

Its interesting that this book was written before 1900 when it was quite unpopular to oppose or criticize the church system. Thomas Paine 100 years earlier than this similarly criticized the Bible as God's Word which reflected on the church system with his book "The Age of Reason" for which he was imprisoned a number of years. it is also interesting that still much of the church system takes exception to the title of Tolstoy's work because other than in the KJV the kingdom is said to be among or in the midst of rather than within each person. Here is the voice of Jesus.org compelling argument against using the word within which they think drastically changes the meaning but i personally do not buy into it. I glanced through the essay and from reading think Leo Tolstoy was definitely a progressive of his time. Joseph

Alamar, Good to hear from you again. Your definition of God and the words of Bishop Spong make good sense to me . Thanks for sharing and bringing us back down to the pew level. joseph

Rom, Its seems to me that even if there were an objective truth, it could only be subjectively experienced. Perhaps it does not matter.... yet the incessant curiosity and desire of the mind to name, label and conceptualize as if it (the thinking mind) can know truth..... by doing so makes discussing such .... a perceived necessity. Perhaps it is a self perpetuating prison and to free oneself one needs to surrender such opinions and viewpoints of the mind rather than chasing them. Joseph

Rom, We all as humans view things subjectively. Is there any other way for a sentient being to view them? I am saying what use is it to argue that ones viewpoint is justifiably dualistic or monistic? To reside in ones being and to know one's Self one loses all notions of either unity or duality. Not familiar with Rex Weyler. Whether John 10:30 is in the Jesus sayings or not certainly doesn't matter to me but it seems in my experience to be a valid Christian saying. Joseph

John asked... Does belief in God matter? It has been said that "The inspiration to evolve spiritually is already a manifestation of the presence of God within" Dr David Hawkins. I think the problem is in the word God. It conjures up conditioned meanings. Perhaps that is why Buddhists in general avoid the word yet they use more abstract words like Absolute Reality, the Unconditioned, the Unborn, etc. Progressive Christianity in the new 2011 version of the 8 points uses words like the Sacred, Unity and Oneness of all life. Others use words like "ground of being" Does belief in God as fundamental Christianity teaches matter? Perhaps not really but a belief in something greater or more than human existence can make a significant difference in the peace and joy of living ones life here. I believe we are absorbed into and our life transformed by that which we worship. If you belief in Unconditional Love then in essence you believe in God for even the Christian NT attests to God being Love. Believing in that one definition of God alone without even using the word God can make all the difference in the world in the quality of ones inner peace and life which is projected outwards. So yes, if you asked me... I would say believing in God does really matter or make a difference but it is more an experience than any man-made belief or concept of what God Is. Welcome to the community John, Joseph

Eric, It sseems to me easily rationalized by the dogmatic and full acceptance that the Bible is God's inerrant Word and the circular logic thereof whose words include that his ways and plan are beyond our reason, understanding and comprehension. In my view, a rational explanation and the acceptance that it is God's Word make rational thinking incompatible with that acceptance . Rational = Agreeable to reason. But whose reason.... isn't rational itself a subjective thing? And isn't it an individuals option to surrender their own reason to what they perceive as faith to the reason and words of a book? Just some thoughts concerning your post, Joseph

Perhaps we are saying the same thing? I said when the objective outlook is surrendered, one loses the notion of dualism. I added when that is done one loses all notions (Notions -A mental image or representation; an idea or conception) of both. Of course unity is apparent from the perspective of dualism but in my experience one does not hold onto either as a notion in that state. To me, Jesus was putting into words a mental image which is necessary in language to communicate however the experience itself only contains "I". (neither the notion of unity or dualism). It seems to me it is beyond description in words and i do not take exception to your words/interpretation looking at it subjectively.. Joseph

Eric, As one can see from the 8 points and your statements, you seem to be progressive in your Christian understanding and fit in quite well under the PC label. However, We here of course accept you as an individual whatever label you prefer to associate yourself with. Perhaps as you and some have mentioned in the past, the name here could be changed to more effectively reflect their perception of what this site represents. History here shows that the label as perceived by others is not important enough to change. Most here have come from a Christian background and their understanding of Jesus and his teaching have progressed to something that although it doesn't line up with fundamental interpretations, has as much right as any to retain the Christian label. After all, Christian merely means Christ-like or follower of the teachings of Jesus, To me, Christ (anointed) represents the smearing together of the individual with God so that there is only One. And it was Jesus's prayer in the Gospel of John that we might all be One even as he and the Father were One. Most all the dogma and doctrine of fundamental Christianity is, i believe (imo), just filler added in ignorance by men for their own reasons. Joseph

Hi Eric, Good to hear from you again. I think our words change as our understanding and experience grows. it seems to me at some point we see the failing of words but they are often needed to keep us moving along our journey. If yours are serving you well, i am fine with them. Joseph

Rom, Agreed. When the objective outlook is surrendered, one loses the notion of dualism but it seems to me also one loses all notions whether of unity or dualism.. Joseph

rstrats, Just what is the point you are trying to make here in this thread? No one here is disagreeing with you and i see you have posted the same question and comments on a number of different internet sites under the username rstrats.. Joseph

rstrats, I think ----> HERE is the explanation you are speaking of. Whether the Jews custom is to count that way, i do not know. Norm being Jewish has previously said in post #3 above the answer is No.... that is not a Jewish take on the issue. Perhaps posting the question on a Jewish site might confirm it to your satisfaction. It has been one point of contention between those who say the Bible has errors and those who say it doesn't. If that is the real issue it seems to me there are better examples than the 3 days and 3 nights issue. Joseph

Paul, Panentheism is a belief system. While the writing quoted contains many words similar to words i might use, my view is my own experience rather than a belief system. And i, at this point , am not willing to marry a label.or belief system Joseph

Yes, at least that would be my experience. When i am deeply aware of my root in being, i find separation from God (All That Is) an impossibility as "me" vanishes into "more" and no other is to be found as we are all One in essence. I think you will find most religions will also confirm that. Of course that doesn't make it true. In Christianity Eph 4:6 says "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. That which is in and through all cannot be "other". And as Jesus is recorded saying in the gospel of John "I and my father are One." In my view. he was speaking from pure being or one might say from "Spirit". Only in the conceptual mind is the appearance of both subject and object where separation can appear to exist.. Joseph