JosephM

There is a movement that exists that specifically refers to themselves as "Christian Atheists" Wiki defines Christian atheism as .... " an ideology in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed." Progressive Christianity in my best understanding makes no distinction in defining God that would eliminate such a conclusion that an atheist cannot be Christian . As noted in the 8 points there is an emphasis on the importance of the way we behave as the fullest expression of our beliefs rather than what we say we believe or how we define a God beyond human description. Having said all that the word atheist seems to me to have slightly different meanings to different people but i personally see no problem in an atheists rejection of traditional organized religious Christian definitions of God yet holding to the moral TEACHINGS OF JESUS and still considering oneself Christian. Joseph PS Perhaps you might find this previous thread interesting that was started by an atheist member here.at Progressive christianity

The importance of the search for meaning and purpose , seems to me, is given by the degree of importance the individual places on it. To some it has no importance. To others it may be their only perceived reason for living. In my view, the world itself does not really care whether the search is important to you or not as long as you are not a threat to the society you live in or the well being of the world as it exists at that point in time. Just my 2 cents on your OP question. Joseph

Eclectic , It seems to me you will fit right in here with many other like minded individuals. Welcome to the forum. Joseph

Rom, Eastern, western. ? Its an experience, not a belief.

Rom, Perhaps it would be better if you asked a specific question so i would know exactly what you are looking for? If you are asking how i have come to these conclusions, i can only say by a number of subjective experiences. The second statement of the three i made in your quote is actually not in my experience a completely accurate statement but if i were to put the point questioned in the title into words as i have done, it seems to me to be more accurate in its expression than the other way around. Joseph

If you mean sense of "self" , my story of who i might think i am, i would agree. Yet the "Self", who I am in reality is never lost nor indeed can be. Also I would say it may be more accurate to say that evolution is the result of Mind rather than Mind the result of evolution as you have questioned in the title this thread. To me, Mind and No-Mind are one and the same. They can only be differentiated as long as one resides in "self" (the story). Joseph

Welcome Jen, If you are looking for a progressive church in your area perhaps you can go to our main site HERE and click on "search the directory" and then check the appropriate boxes for where and what you are looking. ie church, organization, group, etc. Joseph

Jen, Perhaps you have misunderstood my words? PC as Fred points out is a path not a dogma or doctrine. While I choose to believe in a historical Jesus, others may not. PC does not define the path as a set of required beliefs for the individual. JESUS has not been demoted and relationship with God/The Divine remains key to the path. Joseph

Hi Jen, Perhaps Norm and Rom should not be posting in this area. They should re-read the guidelines and if they would not self label themselves as a progressive Christian in general agreement with the 8 points, stay in the other areas. That is one issue to be resolved. The other issue, concerns you and it seems that you were more than happy to dialog with both and even allow the change in subject to Hillel and respond with them as long as they seemed to agree with you. When views differed, it appeared from your words (honest as they seem to be) you disagreed but entered some very unnessary and unconstructive dialog to good discussion in that post. You were in my opinion condescending which was not necessary and your OP nor this area is not limited to people who describe themselves as non-theist (Spong describes himself as such) nor is there a requirement to believe in a historical Jesus to be a progressive Christian or post in your thread. If you want to know exactly what other statements in Post #25 that i feel are not conducive to constructive dialog for this area i will be happy to dialogue with you by PM. JosephM (as Moderator)

Hi Rom, All viewpoints are welcome and acceptable in this forum area if within the confines of the guidelines stated at the top of the thread topics list for this forum area. So there are indeed some qualifications to post in this one safe area but everyone qualifying may express their own viewpoint and it certainly need not be in agreement with the opening or any participating poster. This one particular forum area is a safe place for freedom of PC expression but challenges are better served in the debate and dialog sections for those wishing more to challenge or engagement rather than just expression and questions. As one will note from examination of that post in question, it received a poor peer rating (-1) so far, by a member and i (in my personal opinion as a member) would personally agree rightfully so for the seemingly questionable tone in which it was written. As moderator, I would encourage members when reading a post that they feel is not conducive to constructive discussion for this area or any area for that matter to vote a post down as was done or.... if it seems of exceptional value to them to vote it up. I say this hoping that members will use their option for a negative rating sparingly and with some restraint and be more loose with positive ratings. Just a clarification after reading your concerned and worthwhile comment, Joseph (as Moderator)

The actual quote was not in the video but can be found HERE in the "about us" tab of our home site. No i don't think it is the intent to "get rid of anything that can't be explained by classical physics?" It seems to me PC wants to encourage us to be open and for change in our thinking as discovery unfolds. Much remains unexplainable at the present and i think Fred's makes a point not to over-literalize and distort the real mystery that the path seeks to illuminate. I like what Mike says in post #6 "Progressive Christianity to me is a path that embraces pluralism and gets away from systematized, exclusive absolutes, and where intellectual honesty is much more likely to be valued. This is, of course, a risky endeavor, because it opens us to uncharted terrain. There is much potential for tenderness, love, and meaning to be creatively discovered. That word, 'creative', is essential. Creativity - in practice, social realization, philosophy, theology, metaphysics, art, etc., - I think can truly develop into a unique hallmark feature of PC, because of PC's inclusiveness. Without that creativity, I think we risk superficiality, again, because of its inclusiveness -- it might become somewhat amorphous and ambiguous, lacking bite. " Joseph

FRED PLUMER on Progressive Christianity is an adapatable art form, not a rigid “explain-all” dogma that over-literalizes and distorts the grand mysteries it seeks to illuminate…

Trust, We are indeed curious creatures. You can continue to ask the question but it seems to me the question is still a conundrum. To me , the answer is unanswerable except to say... Evolution is as designed and the question i think we should focus on is... what can i, and what am i, willing to do to help the suffering of the world? This seems to me to be a more constructive question. Joseph Neon, You are not alone in your struggles. We each live with our own afflictions. Pain in some form is present in my life also but how can i suffer unless i am in non-acceptance of that which is. When i do not resist, suffering disappears and sometimes the affliction also. It seems to me there is no need to be embarrassed over that which we have no control. Joseph

Trust, To summarize a bit .................. The term 'natural evil' is being attributed by you to natural processes of nature. Since there is no moral agent, the "evil" thus identified is evil only from the perspective of those affected that perceive it as an affliction rather than just a natural disaster or cause. Examples include cancer, birth defects, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. Therefore the reality of such a term as 'natural evil' can only be in the mind of the afflicted and to the one who insists on labeling it so. To me and from reading the opinions/posts of some others here, it seems to many to have no reality of its own as "evil" You say you are simply trying to understand and say even with the partial answers you have received, the question still remains (in post #15) "Why is there no life without death". I would answer there is Life without death. Death is not the opposite of Life. If you want to talk opposites, the opposite of death would be birth. Life itself in my view has no opposite. You also say in post 15, "The suffering of others is too intense for me to be at peace with it." Why choose that? You can do what you can to help alevaite suffering in the world and still be at peace with nature. In post #16 you identify what you call 'natural evil' as a problem. It seems to me, it is only a problem to the one who chooses it to be a problem. Reality is what it is. I would say again, by all means, do what you can to allevaite suffering in the world but it seems to me there is no need to make a problem or "evil" of what is identified by you, as natural. Just some of my own observations, Joseph

It seems to me you second guess the mind of God asking why God would create the world as it is apparently designed. You seem to me to be doing this based on a human assumption that it is somehow a 'natural evil' because there is pain and your perception of suffering involved. You seem to equate the death of an animal by another as evil without knowing what is 'the greater good' or purpose. To me your question of why is flawed in that your initial assumption is that it is actually somehow evil. We can certainly talk about life and what is natural and pain and suffering and food involved in survival without putting a label of evil on it. Unless of course we know the mind of God in such things. Do we? And will calling such 'natural evil' make it so as if it is somehow a negative in God's eye? Do you also speak for the wolf and the lamb? Is what we imagine we would want if we were either one based on reality? Do you have experience as a wolf or a lamb or know their mind? Can a wolf be unethical? Just because you can think of a world without carnivores, does that make what is natural of the animal kingdom evil? Some some thoughts in regard to your responses, Joseph

Can evolution as designed by God with its infinite possibilities really be considered error whether in potential or growth? I think not in reality except in the conceptual and highly subjective mind of man who feels he/she must differentiate by arbitrarily choosing a point along a continuum where there is none. Where does that leave understanding? Joseph

Special essay moved to Member Weekly short sermons by JosephM as Moderator

It seems to me, there is something very profound pointed to in those statements. Joseph

George, When it comes to the thinking mind, it seems obvious to me we will never complete the building. (metaphorically speaking of course) It does seem to me that answers to questions only raise more questions. In my experience, one answers raises two or more questions so that theology would appear to me to never be complete and if we pretended it was, perhaps it would be because, as you raise the question, of a "mind closed to other possibilities". What i have found though is that in theology eventually one comes up against a stone wall so to speak whereby one can go no further. The answers are beyond our current human capabilities or limits and the questions cannot even be accurately asked. The only honest answer available, in my view, at that time is "I don't know". It seems to me that "I don't know" is not confusion unless it is followed by "but i should know" or "but i need to know". If one can let go of the 'but' and cease looking to thought, confusion disappears and if one can fully accept "I don't know" , one enters a state of peace and clarity that to me is closer to the answer you are seeking than any limiting thought. could ever do. In one sense it is like a giving up and realizing that there is nothing you can do or think that will get you any further. In my experience, it is at that point that one transcends thinking and enters a state where the answers need no words and all questions disappear. In essence we are not building a 'building', we are that building. And the construction is not with man's hands. Perhaps i have gone too far and no longer addressing your real question? Anyway in short, i don't think we, as in "i" ever will complete the reconstruction of a theology. If by stasis you mean it in a sense of a balance where we can go no further because all forces are equal, yes it is to me desirable but not in the sense of a closed mind but rather a mind that fully accepts "it doesn't know" and is then able to be transcended because thoughts and actions have reached their limits and conceptually there is no where to go with concepts. Joseph

Trust, Some people choose to use the terms 'natural evil' and 'moral evil' which differ from each other in that the term 'natural evil' is generally used where there is hurt or harm but no agent morally responsible. You have pointed out that the one is a precursor to the other and You ask... :"But why did God allow natural evil?" The question is a conundrum and so it evades resolution. The only thing i can say is because God did. Personally i, as others have indicated, do not recognize the natural as evil. Birth and death and suffering are part of the evolutionary process of life in this world. Asking .. Why did God allow it ?.. will not change reality. I agree with Dutch above.. "If you see evil don't look to find someone to blame, look forward to see what can be done to make things better" And i would add, if you cannot do anything to change it, it seems to me wise to be at peace with what is. joseph

Welcome LC, There are a number of other Canadian members here also. I hope you find this place a refreshing well to your soul. Joseph

Welcome Brian, Thanks for the brief introduction. Feel free to jump right in the conversations. joseph

Dutch, A question you might ask yourself is... Are the choices you now make a result of your independent 'free will' or a result of your modified conditioning influenced from counseling / the universe? Just a thought. Joseph

Rom, Perhaps what we perceive as cause is merely a precondition to an event. It would seem to me, even as a concept, to see cause involves the total knowledge of the whole and understanding true relationship of All That Is. Joseph

Perhaps belief in cause and effect is nothing more than support of an illusion? The illusion that there is a separate, self existent self. Cause is dualistic in that there is a this causing that. This of course implies there is a thinker, a doer behind actions along with creating the illusion of a separate doer with a myriad of self definitions. Perhaps the phenomena of life are not being caused by anyone or anything at all. Perhaps all events of life are impersonal, a autonomous interaction of all facets of the conditions of the universe. Perhaps they are just the impersonal consequences of conditioning and programming however disconcerting it may be. It seems to me that the thinking mind is not acting out of volitional choice. This is implying that nothing is really causing anything else but rather is the expression of its own self-existent essence. A part of All That Is with no individual parts or separateness or independence existence except as an illusion to the thinking mind. Just some musings to take, or not take seriously, Joseph