JosephM

Paul, From your words....... Perhaps then that definition is not so far away from you. "Indescribable" seems to fit. Your life experiences/reality witnessed by your very being seems to me to be a convincing argument to also include the word "being". Perhaps the reason that you and so many say they struggle with the thought/understanding that "if there was a God then why wouldn't God reveal itself" is because they were defining God in limited terms or taught to expect something more profound other than reality itself and the subtle presence of 'being" (I am). It seems to me, it presents itself AT ALL TIMES but since we identify so heavily with mind and body, we act out of our diverse unconscious individual and group conditioning and fail to consciously realize that which is providing the very source for this reality in all its diversities. Perhaps in time as we focus more on that unconditioned, or state of heightened awareness of being, (which some might call true Love) whether through religious or other practice or worship, (we are absorbed by what we worship) that will be undone. In my opinion, our actions and thoughts will then arise from that conscious presence called God rather than the unconsciousness of an evolving mind that seems to me was created as an evolutionary tool to be used to experience the world but now is temporarily mistaken for SELF.identity. I think Christianity teachings by Paul speak of this as crucifying self, dying daily to the carnal mind, sacrificing the old creature for the new,. The real glory of the mystery in Christianity as Paul pointed out in Col 1:27 which is realizing this mystery which is "Christ in you your hope of glory" (glory=doxa in Greek which is the unspoken manifestation of God) or God's essence, presence, divine quality, splendor, etc. I do not believe he was speaking of something that waits for physical death. I think all religions basically, and evolution in general seek a transformation of the individual from the unconscious nature of the conditioned flesh with its attachments and desires to the attributes of that which is its source for development (God/Reality or the divine) which are often described in human terms as Profound Peace, Love or Compassion and Joy of being which have no opposites. Unfortunately many religions seem to have been infected to some degree with viruses by followers from their original teachings. However, it seems to me there are enough pointers still in place within them for a prudent individual to get the real message. Just my 2 cents Joseph

Defining God is something that most religions attempt to do. The definition or words used creates a rational for one to believe God exists, that for another enforces the certainty that God does not and yet another that takes the position of not knowing. It seems to me that this disparity is mostly a result of focusing on the teaching and definition of one's taught religion rather than a more comprehensive study of many including the practice and experiential knowledge gained in doing so. HERE is a site that quotes definition sources from 7 different religions and attempts to come to the following definition agreement that will be perhaps more in line with open dialog using more abstract words while avoiding limiting labels. "God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal all knowing source of all reality and being." From experience, who here can describe God in finite words?.how can anything become created except from the uncreated? who can deny existence itself?, and who can see the existence of anything without source? These are just questions one can ask oneself. yet the real answers lay not in words but in an individual experience or realization of ones own inner being and its connectedness from where it appears to arise from. Your definition of God? Your thoughts on what God is or could possibly be that speak to you ? Joseph

Zenagain, I think you will find this site is living proof that there are. There will not always be agreement but there certainly will be respect and an openness not often found elsewhere both with those who label themselves PC and those who consider themselves agnostic atheist or by any other religious label. This site is not about who is right or wrong but more on sharing and questioning so that individuals may gain a broader perspective and understanding of other viewpoints that may help to further their own journey among a world full of much uncertainty. Joseph

Doing the usual today being Easter and all ....... Two of my grandchildren who are 6 and 11 and have parts in their Baptist Church Easter program and invited the wife and i to attend their church Today. Of course i couldn't turn them down... The kids program is always fun and entertaining but afterwards the message remained the same. The following points are always emphatically made as true facts. Jesus died for your sins so you would not have to go to hell which is a real place to suffer eternally with no chance of reversal, He rose from the dead with positive undeniable proof and will reappear soon. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God and it is the duty of every Christian to go and spread this Gospel. There is of course nothing one can say in a few words that will undo such programmed teachings especially since believing such has indeed made a change and often for the better in the personal life of those who have accepted the message and attempt to live a better life by following the teaching in the Bible as they are taught. Yet the one thing i see that is at the heart or source of all of those emphatic beliefs in those points is the belief that the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God. Once that is ultimmately accepted as true the mind for most is pretty well at least temporarily locked out to any view that says differently I find there is no point in being angry with such people or their beliefs as it will change nothing and after all i am living proof myself that even that road in time, with an open mind and heart can be a stepping stone to a greater truth and deeper understanding of reality. joseph

"Progressive Christianity is an open, intelligent, and collaborative approach to the Christian tradition and the life and teachings of Jesus that creates a pathway into an authentic and relevant religious experience." Quote from ProgressiveChristianity.org

jorgenjl. Thanks for the clarification. Personally, i have no problem with all that because to me, no reconciliation is necessary nor do i think possible without uncertainty remaining in the background of ones mind. i do not take the Bible as written by God or literal or completely accurate in all regards. Apologetics will obviously have an answer to explain away inconsistencies but to me there is too many to even bother and it really doesn't matter to my personal spiritual walk. In spite of inconsistencies and internal problems i find the Bible does contain many valuable insights into man and his characterization of God along his journey and in the New Testament especially , some deep insight into discovering God for oneself. You say "There are so many permutations of possibilities that I don't know where to start.". To me that is a good point to begin.... with a "I don't know" and i might add .... one may never know the answers to those questions. Just how important are they to your quest for God? Will we find God in a book? Joseph

Neon, I'm not suggesting anything concerning gay marriage nor do i consider myself anti-gay, I am only suggesting that it is societies role (right and authority) to determine this issue and suggesting that regardless of the outcome one side or the other will in my opinion feel discriminated against. So as to avoid being misinterpreted, I have no further thoughts or responses than already posted on the subject of your thread and have nothing to add to this conversation. Thanks for the opportunity to respond with my thoughts, Joseph

Sorry for your mis-understanding Neon, I do not find your use of the word anti-gay personally objectionable nor offensive in the least. It was just expressing my personal opinion that it seems to me to be an unfair or inaccurate description as relates to ones opinion on the issue of whether one considers the US sanctioned definition of marriage limited to a man and a woman. I believe anyone's differences of opinions on such an issue as individuals do not automatically make us "anti-gay" but you are certainly entitled to believe differently. I do not agree with all that Christianity teaches but it seems to me it would be unfair or inaccurate of me to label them anti-Christian just because of any differences in opinions. On your second point, i am speaking here as a member and have no intentions as a moderator of restricting your personal opinions or locking this thread and on the contrary welcome your posts. Also i believe you will find all views whether conservative, liberal or fundamental are welcome on this site in this forum area regardless of this being labeled a progressive Christianity site as long as they are within the forum guidelines of etiquette and respectful behavior. it is my experience that Progressive Christianity here does not dictate agreement or ones beliefs to be construed as conservative or liberal and is more focused on sharing and encouraging each individual's search for truth at whatever point they are presently in their journey. I hope you will not let any perceived differences we might have come between us. Joseph

Perhaps there are no extremists and i am in error? Societies have always including ours not only had the right but do discriminate against certain classes of people. It is the natural role of societal government. We discriminate against the rich by higher tax brackets. We discriminate on age by having a driving age , a drinking age. by determining sentences for what society determines criminal behavior, etc etc. Society has the authority and right to determine such including what they will recognize under the definition of marriage. That is historical fact and not my opinion. Whether it is right or wrong one can make up their own mind. Joseph

Welcome Bill, Sounds like you are well read on Christian theology and i look forward to your written contributions to the forum. There are indeed compelling facets of Christianity that speak well as we delve deeper into study and gain perspectives that seem to be lacking in what many consider conventional/traditional /fundamental Christianity. Perhaps Christianity 2000 years ago spoken in different languages and times is quite unfamiliar with a lot of the current presentations of such? The past is sometimes difficult to resurrect without distortions but fortunately spiritual knowledge is not confined to any one book or person and it seems to me that insight can be gleaned from everything in and around us. Joseph

It seems to me unfair or inaccurate to automatically classify any individual/s or group as "anti-gay" because they may not be in support of recognizing marriage as other than between a man and a woman. But that is just my personal opinion. As far as any strong points for or against the US recognizing marriage to other than a man and a woman, i think it is a matter of personal opinion for many that will be presented and hopefully be made clearer in this case before the Supreme Court in a civilized fashion . I think society has a right to determine which way it wants to go on the definition of marriage issue and hopefully it can be done without name calling or labeling offensively those who may see the issue at hand differently. From my readings, there seems to be extremists on both sides of the issue and my hope is that calmer heads will prevail. Joseph

Jorgenjl, Progressive Christianity itself as it exists here makes no claims concerning the Documentary Hypothesis or any reconciliation of perceived differences from the recorded sayings of Jesus. However since you seem interested in opinions or thoughts of members of this community concerning the topic, which includes a diversity of belief labels , i am moving this thread from the Progressive Christianity area to to the Debate and Dialog section. Also it would be appreciated and helpful to members if you would take the time to briefly introduce and share a bit about yourself in the introduction area since this is your first post. Welcome and Thanks, JosephM (as Moderator)

A Washington Post poll concerning the issue asked the question.... "Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married ?" The results showed 58% said legal and 36% said illegal. But i think the results may be flawed by the question. Perhaps the question should be.... " Do you think the United States should recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman or between two people regardless of their physical gender? " The first question forces the respondent to choose between illegal or legal while the second addresses the real question which is the recognition of marriage by the government as other than between a man and a woman. Sometimes changing the wording of a question can alter the results substantially. I have no opinion on what the results of the Supreme court might be at the present time but in the past... The Supreme Court wrote this memorable passage explaining the authority the Constitution grants Congress to define marriage, even for incoming states: [C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885). Anyway, i think there are strong points made on both sides of the issue and i leave predictions on the present outcome in June to those so inclined. Joseph

Zenagain, You are not alone in your path and i would encourage you to continue with your writings, if not for others then for your own sake. Those who become progressive in their thinking usually find much rejection even from their family and close friends. it is a sometimes difficult journey into what seems like no mans land but it is certainly not so. Why? Because many have passed that way before you and encountered like resistance. I myself have published 2 books that were instrumental in getting me no longer invited to minister in the conventional Christian church system and i found while the writings were intended to provide some assistance to others, the benefit was mostly to my own journey and sanity. Follow through with your innermost intentions as it seems form your introduction that it comes from a kind and kindred spirit. Welcome to the community, Joseph

Amy, Thanks for sharing your honest feelings. I think what you are saying in a sense Paul is recorded saying...... that it is time to move on from the "milk" to the "meat". Unfortunately, it seems to me, the ego does need separation to exist and therefore feeds on such causes that may have the appearance of compassion and love yet as you say may actually divide by making an us and a them. That is certainly food for thought. May we all come to see the subtle devices of that in us all that serve to separate under the pretense of love or compassion. For it is in the recognition of it that the light of consciousness is able to illuminate and transmute that subtle darkness into true unity. Joseph

Dave, I don't know if we have any practicing Muslims in this community yet or any who have practiced the religion. However, i would be interested in your take on "What differences there are between how Christians view adherence to laws regarding morality and how the muslims view adherence to their "Sharia" (sp?) law?" Also i would be interested in hearing a little bit about yourself that you would be willing to share in the introductions area. Thanks, Joseph

I was reading an article...... that essentially said ... "If you're looking for a mood shift on a cranky day, try holding the door open for a stranger, popping a coin in an expiring parking meter, or just being, well, nice to someone else." Supposely, a New York University study has found that performing "small acts of kindness" can make you happy - and not just in the moment - but a big enough dose to inspire a happiness high for months. Joseph

Thanks for the introduction Sharon, I think many here share your liberal thinking and the freedom that it entails as you say "provided no one else is harmed in the process." Joseph

Thanks Sharon, for sharing your perspective on the thread question. Also welcome to the community. Joseph

Pink smoke protest at the Vatican calls for women priests. Comments? http://www.euronews.com/2013/03/12/pink-smoke-protest-at-the-vatican-calls-for-women-priests/

Resurrected thread for those who have not yet responded to "What one thing do you feel has helped you the most to progress in your journey?

I would define spiritual as 'being conscious' of ones 'being' or existence or presence rather than the unconscious acting out of our conditioning/programming or thought patterns. The first being of the nature of the spirit and the second being of the nature of the flesh. Joseph

Hal, Thanks for the review. What you have shared seems to be founded in wisdom. Thanks again, Joseph

Welcome Kathy, You are in good company here. Some here have also have been excommunicated from their respective churches. Joseph