JosephM

Welcome RA, You are most welcome here to share in our community and make it yours also. We have no dogma or beliefs that you must accept to be a member. All that abide within our guidelines of etiquette and respectful behavior are welcome regardless of any self label or personal stated views . Hopefully you will find this site encouraging and helpful on your search for meaning and the questions of life you may be seeking. Joseph

Myron, When a member reaches 500 posts his/her category is changed to senior member and allocated posts increased from 12 to 24 posts in a 24 hour period along with some other perks. That is the change that affected you. The system will not allow it to be done on other than a group member level. That would require me to change it for everybody under 500 posts or make new member groups. It has never really been a major problem as none even average 1/3 of that limit and the reason for even having a limit is nothing personal at all but rather a protection feature for the forum. If 12 posts is too few perhaps on some occasions, we can reconsider that number being changed for all in the member group. I am on a trip right now and can re-discuss it with moderators when i get back. Last time it was discussed was when Angel Whispers complained and moderators agreed that 12 in a 24 hr period seemed reasonable. Incidentally, she was rather upset over it and left. My response to her. Nevertheless, we will reconsider raising that number when i return in a couple weeks if it is now perceived as a real problem by the moderating team. BTW, I show Steve at only 5 posts today and no record of hitting his limit in the past. Joseph

Wow. To me that is a rather tough question. I think it is at a different point for each person because it is a subjective issue. At one extreme some would prefer to be killed than kill another and at the other extreme some would prefer to kill or do violence to others without any rational provocation. Each has their own justification in their mind for such action. However, i think the middle of the road such as George has suggested is the most conducive approach to being practical and living in a more peaceful world. Joseph

Phil, Perhaps you will find a balance amid the freedom allowed here that suits you by sharing with and considering other perspectives . In my experience, each has to follow the leading that makes the most sense to them for now and hopefully we will all end up in a unity of Spirit. Joseph

As i have indicated elsewhere... To me, Progressive Christianity is not a religion but a dynamic and living way or path of relating to life and our relationship with God. A way whose foundation was introduced to me by the reported teachings of Jesus without the bonds of having to accept the formal dogma and doctrines of man disguised as the church system, holy books, laws or rituals. A path that allows for a diversity of writings, words, interpretations, logic, reasoning and changeable conclusions without rejection based on ones present personal interpretation. A spiritual journey or quest that retains the potential to be ever progressing in God on an individual basis all the while adhering to basic principles in line with the simplicity of the reported teachings of love and inclusiveness of but not limited to Jesus and expressed in general as the 8 points of PC. Basically it is more a way a life than a practice to me and more spontaneous but of course has elements that include volunteering, social actions, doing what i can for the environment and less fortunate and meditation in the form of watching the mind. Joseph

Hi Deb. Good to have you here. I'm sorry but frankly I can't answer such a question as you have posed. I simply do not know and don't know how I could do any better than just guess. And personally for myself, i find it best not to the do that. Perhaps the answer to such questions for me holds no curiosity. Perhaps someone else can take a shot at it. Again Welcome, Joseph

Hi Phil and a late welcome. I have no favorite "Atonement theory" as i never was one much for theories. In fact i attempt to avoid having much of a belief system. To me God is a living reality, the rest to me is just all filler. Again welcome and feel free to share your views. Joseph

Raven said.... i think IF you want to remain in her presence, it might be best to show compassion and love her in her ignorance. This is done by allowing your awareness to 'feel' any hurt and see it for what it is. (your ego response choice and her ignorance). You can only do something about yourself. IF you would rather not be around her when she is like that tell her politely why and depart. Live in wisdom and let others be them-self. In my experience, we cannot fix the problems of others, only ourselves. And sometimes in so doing, the other changes.. Your ears need not be garbage cans for others. Just my thoughts for consideration on the question, Joseph

To answer your real question.... What is my take on Christian don'ts? I agree with Dutch... no black and white lists. It is enough to walk in the light one has been given and do ones best not to judge or measure others or oneself. In my view, Love has no need of don't lists. . It acts from the view of the limitless whole and cannot be limited to a black and whites set of don't's Joseph

Raven, Friends that continually say things to make themselves appear better than oneself in my view are not friends at all. Some people seem to me to chose to live under their own self made laws whether taken from the Bible or taught or made up. It is my experience that there is no Life in living by those laws. He/she that lives by the law shall surely die by the law. It is, in my experience, self judgement and only serves to end up bringing the one judging into self condemnation because it is impossible to live by the letter of any law made by mankind because of the nature of the flesh. The way i see it,..... To the one who esteems something to be sin, to that one it is sin. Joseph

George, It seems to me that it is inevitable that mankind will continue to develop technology including genetic engineering. It also seems to me it will not be stopped by raising the umbrella of any religious issues in opposition. To me, it is part of the evolution of humankind and even though it has the potentially for abuse, it will not be stopped because of the potential it has for what mankind deems as good.. Where will all this lead? . In my view it will lead both to to trial and error, mistakes and advancements which in the end is called progress. It is the nature of humans to do whatever in the name of progress and attempt to solve problems, be healthier, live longer , correct disorders and the like. I don't believe that any opposition by E. O. Wilson will change that course no more than opposition by traditional or fundamental taught Christians will halt the spiritual progression for Progressive Christians. Just my 2 cents on the issue. Joseph

Paul, Thanks for the clarification. i have found that those thing you mention (feeling more connected..etc) are indeed present (pre-conditions) with many people that appear happy to me. At the same time i think that community life back then was no utopia for happiness. War and disagreements with neighboring tribes and hardships caused by droughts and other disasters have always been present to my knowledge and lesss than ideal. These alone are able to create problems for many that are pre-conditions for unhappiness. In short, happiness as i see it has more to do with acceptance of what is rather than conditions surrounding us. That statement is just my own experience of course. Your romantic ideas of such a time is not alone. Perhaps we all imagine greener pastures or different circumstances will make us happier. However i have personally found living in the past, future or would be's or could be's is not the determining factor of my happiness. Joseph

Welcome Louise. Feel free to post your thoughts on Borg and Spong. Hope you get more comfortable with posting. We have quite a few fans of both Borg and Spong as you probably know from reading here. Does your husband Rob read posts on this site also? Joseph

Brent, You, in my opinion make a valid point/possibility. Yet frankly i am not impressed whether it is a hundred billion or 7 trillion. Those to me are irrelevant points and to consider that statement as a revelation to me is pointless. I have no use for that type information/detail in this life nor other information and claims i heard in that video. I find more relevancy in reading the opinions and views and insights of others here on more practical issues. Sorry, but like Derek and perhaps Myron, its just not what i am looking for but maybe others are interested in such claims.. Joseph

Paul, I think a man/woman can be about as happy as he/she will allow them-self to be whether it is present times, 500 years ago or longer. Are we better off now then in ancient times. From the perspective of the present, i certainly think so and have no desire to go back to primitive life and its lack of amenities. Once one tastes of present conveniences it is most difficult to desire to do without except possibly for a short time to gain a better appreciation for the present.. Don't you think so? Or would you personally like to give up what you have to try? Just curious, Joseph

Hi Phil and welcome since i haven't yet responded to your welcome thread. I would answer your question with a definite YES. While there is no doubt that our industrial growth and other factors concerning advancements in science and areas during the 20-21 th century have increased the capabilities to destroy ourselves, in my view, there has also been a notable increase in the level of consciousness among more and more individuals. I am not saying that we won't destroy ourselves. Frankly, i don't know nor am i aware of anyone else who does. Yet the direction and spiritual progress of the masses has in my experience improved in the area of empathy. If you listen and believe the news and television which is focused on the negative i think it would be hard to disagree with you. Yet if you look closely at our parents and parents parents and then our children and grandchildren i think you will see that we are clearly making progress in the empathy area. In my early days women, especially among my ethnic class were severely abused and others including law enforcement mostly looked the other way. it was the same for child abuse, homosexual abuse, black abuse and a host of other social issues. While it has not all gone away, i think we have made progress and empathy has increased in those areas in my personal experience. in my lifetime and childhood we had no empathy for blacks and wouldn't even allow them to use the same bathroom or drink from the same water fountain. And supposedly we were more Christian then, if one listens to the sermons of many present day fundamental preachers. I think not. Just one point of view to consider, Joseph

In my experience, it is there all along and has been but perhaps was not in conscious awareness because of judgments of self and others. Good point Brian, perhaps what some look at as 'free choice or will' is not free choice at all but an evolution of consciousness and conditioning. Therefore i have said in effect that though each action precedes an effect, you can do no other than that which conditioning allows until and unless the One (God) who is beyond conditioning surfaces. And in my experience, no man can come to the One unless the Spirit draws him. What then are we responsible for except to live and experience the myriad of options and consequences put before us until we come of knowledge and are complete in God.? Just some thoughts to consider., Joseph

Brain, You said in one of your posts "I think is safe to say that the nature of Unconditional Love is that it must, of necessity, give itself away freely without condition." Now, If God is unconditional Love and Unconditional Love is given away freely without condition, then how can it be a condition that we must accept or reject that love. It seems to me that it is present with acceptance or rejection. And in the fulness of times, who can ultimately resist God?. In my view, no one 'fully informed' could reject that love unless he/she had no 'free choice' but was rather a product of an evolutionary conditioning stage created by no less than that Love. And then they would not be as of yet in my view, 'fully informed'. Now to the eyes it may be certain that some die in rejection. Yet as to time, who can say with certainty even that this one life here to accept or reject that love and be 'fully informed' is all there is? Certainly not i. I would also suspect not the words of a book that was controlled by the very religious system you testify gave you the beliefs that were stripped away in a single weekend? These are just some thoughts for consideration because like you, i can only speak of my own subjective experience. To me, Sin and a man at the door knocking is a characterization created by religion and not God. To me, it is not possible to be separate from God by a door or even such a thing as sin unless one defines sin as ignorance which resides in every thinking mind and is but a veil to reality. Perhaps In Love is unconditional forgiveness for all and where that forgiveness resides in mankind, sin, guilt, the law and the like cannot cloud that reality in which death is not possible. Just my own musings to share, Joseph

Topic split off to Debate and Dialog by moderator JosephM This thread is limited to personal perspectives of "What is Progressive Christianity to You" as defined by the opening post.

A maple tree is planted in my back yard and here in the spring ten thousand seeds fall like whirly birds in the wind. Yet none of them will be allowed to take root. Each seed has its potential for a new tree yet the tree knows nothing of right and wrong and just goes about producing and releasing seed as it was designed. Perhaps we could learn something from a tree. Just musing, Joseph

Fatherman, Good to hear from you again. missed your perspectives. I think that God becomes human (so to speak) in each of us and not just Jesus. I also think we have always been reconciled with God but weren't aware of it so we invented blood sacrifices to do so, and when they became no longer a sufficient answer, we made up the cross story which is one way to attempt to permanently once and for all purge our conscience of the guilt that separated us in mind. And it does work to those who believe. However, it is my view that we were never in reality really separated. In my view, it is not possible. I believe there have been those who well before Jesus figured that out and were reconciled without any blood or human sacrifice or religion. Just my thoughts for consideration on the matter, Joseph

Well said Eric. Joseph

Paul, I think the point here is that IF one is cured of some disease or affliction and it is verified in some way, saying well that can't be true because there is no record of faith healers causing new arms to grow, in my view, in no way invalidates that there is no valid faith healing. The question of whether 'faith healers' have even prayed for arm amputees growing new arms after prayer, i am not aware of. Why God would give faith to an individual for one thing and not another IS a valid question for which i personally have no answer. But to me the argument does not invalidate 'faith healing'. Of course if one thinks it does, to me that is fine as i have no quarrel with those who choose to believe differently. I would just disagree. Just my own thoughts, Joseph