JosephM

Activity here has been slow and i know some are on vacation but i would think many are glued to their seats watching the Olympics. My family certainly is. It simply is amazing to watch committed and dedicated highly focused athletes give it their all and continue to break new records. Joseph

Welcome Ray of Light, ( i hope i got my spanish right. ) Your beliefs that you will not waiver on are fine with me. They are not typical of those expressed here but since you try to keep an open mind and have no problem with those who believe differently, i think you will be well accepted here. We are all on an individual journey of life and each is for now moving at their own pace. I welcome your contributions here and hope you find conversations mutually beneficial. El Amor en Cristo, Joseph

To All, In case some of you noticed, your account was not really suspended. There was a small glitch this morning at 9:00AM EST that put our board offline with an "Acess has been suspended "message. It was corrected but was down for 2 1/2 hours and now things appear to be back to normal. Joseph

Amazing what focus and perseverance can do for one in spite of handicaps. . Joseph

Rom, Perhaps unconscious is not a state at all but rather is the illusion you refer to in another post while being conscious is the natural state? Joseph

I would like to summarize the whole question of this topic started by Norm for those who may doubt the possibility that an Atheist could be a Christian by making a statement and asking a question. First, i as many others here seem not to disagree in principle that the central theme of Jesus's teaching was indeed Love of God and Others from which springs such other things as he taught such as mercy, forgiveness, kindness, peace, joy, etc.... Second I think those who self-identify as Christian seeking an answer would be wise to ask them themselves as Pete has asked in one of his posts.... And i would ask..... Is God really a concept or more a living reality? Each of us are free to decide for his/her self. Thanks Norm for asking the question. The discussion imo has been enlightening to say the least. Joseph

i think one could say being conscious is a state rather than thinking "am i conscious now" i agree that talking about the experience is a step away from the experience and i would also add that thinking about the experience is also a step away. Perhaps it is necessary in practice to ask oneself questions for focus but it seems to me abiding more in the 'feeling' without the words or thinking is closer. just my 2 cents. Joseph

The latest on the perpetrator.... HERE

I don't really think anyone here is really rebuking you for " saying that I think Jesus' teaching on loving God and loving others is central to Christianity" nor do i believe that anyone here believes that it is not central to Christianity. (They are free to correct me if i am wrong.) Joseph

Bill, I think it would be a good idea if you read Wiki and a few UU church sites a little more carefully.. While they are inclusive of all religions, (pluralistic as is Progressive Christianity) including atheists there is still approximately 20% who identify as Christians within many UU churches. Individuals may or may not self-identify as Christians or subscribe to Christian beliefs in a UU church same as here on this PC site. While the UU has expanded beyond the traditional Christian understanding i believe it would be unfair to label their church for them. In fact some UU churches still identify themselves as Christian Churches. In UU churches there are mention of God, Jesus, Buddha and other teachers. One week might be a lesson from Hinduism another week a Christian message etc. The reason i know this is my brother is a member and actually is allowed to participate in the way of sermons and he uses the teachings of Jesus and others quite regularly. Secondly, if one truly loves others then in essence one is loving God. Isn't it harder to love your brother that you can see than to love God which you cannot see? Who among us can define God accurately other than sensing God's presence in another or oneself? Does the three letters of the word God speak louder than love? You yourself have said God is Love. if this is true than anyone who knows Love, even if the word God is never spoken knows God, Yes? Joseph

Interesting questions Bill but personally i am not interested in spending my lifetime researching and second guessing possible corrupted writings and trying to figure out exactly what Jesus believed. All i know is i read some of Jesus reported teachings, put them into practice and had some life changing experiences as a result. Through certain teachings attributed to him, i found an approach to God through the Spirit of those teachings that touched me and initiated what i see as a transformation in my life story and the world. I am now not a follower of a man but of a way to experiencing God, ... and whether Jesus existed or not now to me is not all that important even though i believe he did. What is important to me is the profound effect his teaching (not all his reported teachings) had on my life. I feel as worthy of being called a Christian as any but if one thinks not, that is their business. I am content with or without the label and as Pete pointed out it is the same for me.... But i have no objection to anyone deciding for themself and i feel no need to challenge their own definition of the label. Joseph

Bill, i like your analogy Bill but i think you might be missing a point. An atheist in the way many here have responded seems to me not to deny Philadelphia exists but rather the organized religion traditional Christian definition of Philadelphia. Joseph PS Sorry Neon.. I see you answered Bill. i was posting at the same time.

Since there appears more present that have spoken against guns or even just assault weapons especially in light of the Colorado incident..... i leave you with some words from Thomas Jefferson who might be considered a progressive Christian by some. Here is what he and other presidents and leaders had to say which i think is worth reading. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764). "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861 The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court There are many others worthy of mention. While i personally might prefer to be killed than to kill another even in self defense, i maintain the belief that men ought to be able to have both the effective means and right to resist and choose their own option even if that means there is a cost in lives from accidents. Such in my view is not limited to guns as i have said in the previous post. In summary, i see the problem deeper than any proposed assault ban resulting from the OP incident. That is all i have to say on the issue of this debate unless specifically addressed. All that i have said is my personal opinion only and not any part of a position by Progressive Christianity or this site management and i hope there is no animosity in the slightest from anything said.. Thanks for a civil discussion and Karen for bringing up the topic and moving it to this section. Joseph

Perhaps we agree more than you think? Yes, i agree with your statement but the same can be said of driving while texting on your phone.. The same can be said of alcohol or drugs in the hands of incompetents. The same can be said of autos in the hands of incompetents, knives, clubs, etc. Almost everything that exists has the potential for good or harm even in nature. That includes water, wind , fire, etc. We do agree that guns in the hands of incompetents can be dangerous. No disagreement there. So lets find a way not to ban phones or autos or guns or knives or alcohol but rather to reduce the accidents caused by carelessness or incompetence with their use. Yes that may be true but a kitchen knife or baseball bat or other instrument will kill his wife and lover just as dead in a crime of passion. Do we ban those also? There is no disagreement here also. Seriously disturbed people will not be stopped by a ban. Any teenager that can use the internet can create a dangerous bomb out of household materials that will inflict damage/death. Or there are other ways to inflict massive damage like poisoning water, etc etc. . Do we ban those materials? A deranged person at a fast food place can do a lot of damage fast with a little knowledge of the rosary pea. Do we try to ban that plant or eradicate it from the world? No disagreement here George. I'm not trying to make it a good guy, bad guy issue. As you admit, it involves more than guns so perhaps we should focus more on people, education , and enforcement than bans? Joseph

Norm, Its okay to think. and i respect your differing opinion and that of others here.. Here is an interesting comment from the white house... Obama " I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals --- that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense." Here is an interesting statement of Romney "I don't happen to believe that America needs new gun laws," "And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away," Romney added later. "It won't. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what's essential, to improve the lots of the American people." I agree with Obama but note he doesn't say that law abiding and qualifying Americans should be banned from owning AK47 weapons but rather they "don't belong in the hands of criminals and on the streets. Certainly he says they belong in the hands of soldiers on the battlefield but he is not talking about the US armed forces because every soldier knows t he Ak-47 is not a weapon issued by the US Armed Forces for its combat units. He says in his interviews that not enough has been done to reduce gun violence and to ensure that guns don't end up in the hands of criminals. I think we all agree to that. Criminals are the problem, not guns. And for political purposes i think he will support an assault weapon ban which doesn't take away from those already present but forbids further import such as the last ban, Romney seems to think that we have sufficient laws in place and i would partially agree that the real problem is more with enforcement of existing laws and keeping any weapon out of the hands of criminals or unbalanced individuals. They both have their points. America would be a difficult country for terrorists or gangs to take over because there are enough present law abiding citizens that have sufficient assault weapons to counter any attack. It may never happen but it is a real possibility in these turbulent times. The police force in America in my view does a reasonably good job of protecting us but the ultimate responsibility for any protection of life and family resides with the individual. Police can only do so much. I think each law abiding individual , educated in firearms and safety, who has passed a thorough background check has the right to own or choose not to own a weapon of sufficient capabilities to provide a defense within limits, against those who have firepower that a non assault type weapon might not be effective against. George, there may be a correlation as you mention but in my view using such only clouds the issue. Joseph

Karen, That's what is great about this country. We don't have to agree on everything to live peacefully together. I understand your and George's position Karen ... that there is no plausible legal or moral right in your opinion / view for people to own weapons that were listed as assault weapons for the purpose of the past ban. It has been presented to better minds than mine and the result to date is that it has been decided that there is both a plausible legal and moral right. I happen to agree. Perhaps as a result of some incidents or education or both, minds may be changed one way or the other. Or Perhaps not. it is not in my hands and if compelled, i will yield to a change but i am not convinced it will have better results. I concede that taking away guns in a country means less deaths by guns since that would make common sense as is evidenced by countries that have yet i am not convinced that they are better off for the loss of other rights that maintaining that position entails. Japan being an excellent example. Just the way i look at it, Joseph PS Nothing i have said is to discount the pain and suffering i am certain families and friends feel over the loss in Colorado. My sympathies go with them. I only hope that those who have the power to make a difference can dialog and find reasonable ways to get to people like the perpetrator in this case before incidents happen. It seems easy to point to the gun as a simple answer and just ban them but to me the problem is much deeper than that.

George, As usual George there are always 2 sides to the story and the study. Here is one concerning your numbers. quoted. As you, with me also, no incidents have occurred with family or friends where a gun has been needed to be used to protect the family or self. Also i note that there has been no family and friends i know that have been accidentally killed by a gun in the home. Now if you read the paper, of course all known accidents will make front page news. On the other hand one may have to dig a bit but will find where a gun was used to protect a family or business HERE. It is a heated debate with closed minds on both sides. For me, I can only say i believe that banning guns here will not prevent criminals from obtaining and using them and that with proper background checks, training and education, each qualifying citizen has the right to have or not have a gun for personal protection. When they passed the concealed weapon carry law here in Kentucky, the anti gun enthusiasts said we would become like the wild west and killings would increase. There has been 216000 issued since 1996 and we are none the worse. Criminals ignore the law anyway and carried them prior to any permits and i have not seen any statistics where the concealed weapons permits have had an adverse effect. More states seem to be going that way and i am willing to comply with the majority rule. Joseph PS There as i said are always 2 sides to the issue . Here is an interesting article . on the Colorado case.

Yes i agree. That was not my intended point of mentioning automobiles. Good point. And with knifes, poison, clubs, and other things that can be used as weapons. As you i see nothing wrong with licensing guns and requiring background checks and gun education or demonstrated knowledge. All are now requirements here in Ky and in Florida for concealed carry. However i do differ that the individual has a right to many of the guns that were designated as assault rifles. But that is just my entitled opinion. If one has a right to defend their family or home against an individual or gang it seems to me you ought to have a right to own a weapon sufficiently capable of doing so which includes SOME of the assault weapons which were banned..There are other reasons i would quote but i would rather not argue the point especially in the cafe. Now for some Coffee, Joseph

Yes, i understand what you mean however in my experience, who I am in reality is not a thought, nor is it an experience that i can accurately put in words if you catch my drift. Therefor i have said i have no interpretation. Ego is fine with me Rom. I have no enemies. To call it a useful illusion is agreeable with me. To call it real is also agreeable with me. joseph

John, Welcome. There have been quite a few new members from the UK lately. I see you are a fan of John Shelby Spong. Hope you find this community of personal benefit to your journey. Again, welcome to the forum and thanks for the introduction. Joseph

It seems to me to keep things in perspective.... There is a far more dangerous weapon than the assault rifle that is responsible for over double the deaths caused by guns in the US. It is readily available to most all people and doesn't require a background check. Of course i am speaking of the automobile with over 30000 deaths a year in the US alone. Any deranged licensed or unlicensed person can drive it at high speed into a crowd and kill more than the 12 in the Colorado atrocity. One can hurl a fire bomb, or common explosives into a movie theater and also cause such atrocity. There are an abundance of ways to inflict death on groups of people that cannot be reasonably prevented at this time. I don't think (imo) failing to renew the ban on assault rifles would have prevented this incident though we have no way of knowing. I would also take exception to the words of G. Stone as far as rights and the purpose of gun ownership go. The NRA does say... weapons don't kill... people do.... and there is much truth to that. I certainly don't have the answers to preventing such atrocities but i am certain banning assault rifles or all guns for that matter will not solve the problem of killings whether of individuals or the masses. Keeping criminals off the street is a difficult and complicated job and i applaud those who are working to make the world safer by doing so. just my 2 cents from a different perspective. Joseph PS... From NPR In 2008...In a 5-4 vote , the U.S. Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms. The court said gun ownership is an individual right, not connected with military service, and that it can be regulated in some ways.

Sorry Rom, Didn't mean to evade the question. Just don't know exactly what you are looking for. I think you asked " Ok, when you say who I am in reality is never lost nor indeed can be. There are several ways of interpreting this. At one end we could have a traditional Christian soul and at the other more of an Eastern there never really a self in the first place. So in your own words what do you mean by this." In my mind there is no interpretation, it is an experience or state of being for lack of better words.. One cannot differentiate between the two (the self and who I am) because the two are in reality One. One can say the self is an illusion or one can say the self is real. It is of no use to argue as it makes no difference as the two can only exist as long as the ego exists. If one inheres in ones being where the ego is dead one loses all notions of oneself and the ego or of unity or duality for that matter. Joseph

Lwyrick, I have not read any books by Sam Shoemaker other than reading through the principles that are part of the 12 step program that he was instrumental in expressing. Joseph

Hi Nino and welcome, "Using the term to mean a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, not just a person affiliated and active with a particular christian community" seems to fit in line with our 8 points and you are indeed welcome to consider yourself a Christian here. As far as your question in the other thread... It doesn't seem to me that your analogy is really applicable. It seems to me too extreme. I don't think we can be positive about all the things written in the NT as being an accurate portrayal of what Jesus said. However there is enough said that the main thrust, imo, of what Jesus taught includes inclusion of all who do no harm, love, compassion for others and peace and using it as a guide in living. Doing so i believe will manifest the fruits of the spirit mentioned in Galatians. Dogma and doctrines to me are a product of the church system and do not define a Christian . Again welcome to the forum, Joseph

Really neat!