JosephM

"Going to the Elvis impersonator semi-finals in Memphis..."

 

does this mean you're one of the contestants?

 

sounds like fun.

Thank ya, thank ya very much!

No, first time for me. Wasn't a real Elvis fan in the 60's. Went more with Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin type singing to name a couple back then. At least i could understand their words... Have the same problem with some modern music...

Best of luck with the move Dutch and i assume you are happy to put everything behind you. I'll be heading to Memphis for a week or so this Monday. Heat here has been blistering. Hoping Memphis is an improvement but will take whatever is. Going to the Elvis impersonator semi-finals with RV friends. Never been to Memphis. Got to check out their barbecue.

Joseph

Greeting ParSal,

Good to have you here and thanks for your story.

From our experience and science we see that there is indeed life and death all around us. In a sense most would say death is the opposite of Life. But i would say death is the opposite of birth only because Life itself is One and has no such opposite. While we see the changing of life forms all around us ever evolving, there is evidence to support the destruction of life but perhaps it is only a change of form. Some forms are dense enough to be visible while others are invisible. Then there is the formless also that cannot be described in the words or terms of form.

As Mike, i believe pointed out, most all religions postulate the transformation of identity. In Christianity, we die to self yet become alive in Christ. These are only words but there is a realization that they point to. That is part of the journey each one of us as separate makes. But the real question is... Are we really separate identities or are we in the formless One Whole without division? The world of form clearly seems to say we are separate individuals but a deeper search subjectively reveals that in essence we are formless and One.

As long as one strongly identifies with form, there will be a fear of death and an attachment to form. That self shall surely die because that is the nature of form and creation (birth and death). This is quite natural and normal and a cause for alarm only to him/her which thinks and identifies with that which is created and dies. In my view, that which sustains and is the essence of this life cannot die because it was not created and in it you move and have your real being.

I think Sri Ramana Maharshi said it well when he said....

All religions postulate the three fundamentals, the world, the soul, and God, but it is only the one Reality that manifests Itself as these three. One can say, 'The three are really three' only so long as the ego lasts. Therefore, to inhere in one's own Being, where the 'I', or ego, is dead, is the perfect State.

Just a view to consider and find peace in,

Joseph

PS Your wife is alive in this present moment and this present moment is all we have. Enjoy it fully.

Good question Karen,

The women one that is. When i attended church on a most regular basis (three times a week and more) i found that there were always more women than men at the extra activities especially prayer meetings. At the prayer meetings i almost felt out of place at times. I wonder if that was just common to churches i attended or if others had experienced it the other way around?

On this board, you are correct it seems to be dominated by men. I hope that will change and as Admin will be addressing that issue. I would be interested in the reasoning of others why.

As far as current events, i am made aware of them more than i prefer. Too much negativity seems to be reported in the news. They all have a different level of importance to different people with no one standing out to me. There are many problems in the world today and i do what i can where i can have an effect according to the power that is placed in my hands to do so. However, i cannot allow what i have no control over to change to trouble my heart. Therefore i remain a bit detached. For this, i have been labeled at times apathetic or indifferent. This is mainly because of my words. In reality, my actions leave me with a clear conscience and no regrets.

Soma, have a great time with your kids.

Joseph

Ada,

Thanks so much for sharing and keeping it to the topic being discussed. Your view was most interesting and complete to read and i personally see nothing that deserves "attacking". Thanks again for sharing and your civil participation in this thread and in this community.

Love in Christ,

Joseph

This thread on the afterlife has pretty well run its course and is now off thread. The language is getting borderline personal with assertions and accusations of "faulty grammar" and "premises" among other things. I have allowed it to continue up to now so that participants that wished to continue to engage each other on the subject could in a respectful manner. But it is clear to me that all concerning this topic that can be said by the individuals has been said and points made so that participants can as AITNOP said, agree to disagree without further assertions or accusations that one is wrong. Opinions and views are opinions and views. It need go no further so I am asking current participants that wish to, to make no more than one last post as a summary and to keep it respectful of opposing views.

JosephM (as Moderator)

Derek,

Similar to your Zen Koan, a man once told me it was more like "falling backwards off a log". To me this signified a 'letting go' rather than a climbing. More of a full trusting in the 'other power' without thought.

Just some tidbit stored in my memory department...

Joseph

TO:

My hope is everyone had a Merry Christmas as we look forward to the New Year.

-

 

Joseph,

I'm sorry Joseph but by saying Buddhism and other faiths were not as Davidk asserts, is about as specific as one could be in saying I'm wrong about them.

 

Does your equivocation as well as the unsupported accusation merit censure?

 

 

God's gracve to you all (y'all),

 

Davidk

Davidk,

Thanks for the well wishes.

My conclusion is not that you are wrong but rather that our experiences differ as i said in post 71 ..... " Therefore it seemed fruitless to continue dialoguing in what i also considered pure assertions and then statements even concerning Buddhism and other faiths that i have also studied and practiced to a degree and experienced that they were not as the assertions that were made."

This is clearly my personal experience and opinion and I have found it personally of no value to continue the dialog in this subject area with you. Whether you are right or wrong is for you to determine, my personal conclusion is only that my experience differs as does that of some others here that have practiced Buddhism and spoken and it seems to me you are not open in that area.

As far as censure goes, perhaps you can discuss that with the other moderator (Soma) in private and i will submit and abide by any of his decisions.

Peace and well wishes in Christ,

Joseph

Hi Dutch,

Good to hear from you again. Perhaps the quote is like works without faith?

Joseph

Kudos Ada,

Your writings spoke to me more than that one by Robert Frost.

Joseph

(snip)

Joseph,

I appreciate all of your study and experience. With your assertion that my statements were less than true, perhaps you could enlighten us of where I was wrong.

The quote you provided may leave you with a little disadvantage.

 

 

God's Grace to you,

David

Thank you David. My assertion is not that your statements are less than true but rather that my subjective experience has brought me to conclusions in opposition to your assertions and it is obvious , at least to me, that further dialog on this matter will benefit neither one of us. I would ditto Mike's last response to you as I think he has said it well.

Peace and Love to you my friend David,

Joseph

Hi Derek,

Thanks for your input. Mike and I had bowed out to allow davidk the last word as we both seem to have reached an impass in communications with David. Therefore it seemed fruitless to continue dialoguing in what i also considered pure assertions and then statements even concerning Buddhism and other faiths that i have also studied and practiced to a degree and experienced that they were not as the assertions that were made.

Anyway, Derek, I thought it good here to quote Eckhart Tolle even though i rarely quote anybody but myself and i thought you might appreciate this...

"How easy is it for people to become trapped in their conceptual prisons.

The human mind, in its desire to know, understand, and control, mistakes its opinions and viewpoints for the truth."

"But reality is one unified whole, in which all things are interwoven, where nothing exists in and by itself. Thinking fragments reality -- it cuts it up into conceptual bits and pieces"

I know the thinking mind is a useful tool. But is it not also a very limiting one when it takes over ones life completely as if it is who we are?

Love in Christ,

Joseph

Derek,

OK. That is more my style. Now that is one I can understand. It was not much applicable to my parents and myself ( I CAME HERE MESSED UP ALREADY )

However I can surely understand and relate to it and would prefer the last line to read "and start looking for your self"

Joseph

Dear Derek,

Well, I guess those two were my favorites. that is all i know....

Tried to read Robert Frost one time and gave up. Believe me I had trouble even understanding what i wrote...

And yes all is vanity .... i just make no pretense about it like you.

joseph

Derek,

Something later in life and more Zen- like .... copyrighted on back cover of book but printed here with permission of course.

Never really got into poetry perhaps because i could never really understand it at depth. But this is more simple minded....

Current Present Task

by Joseph Mattioli

OK Derek and Karen you romanticists... poetry it is. This and one other is all i got....

A Tree Like me (written 40years ago)

A tree that grows

beside the water

A tree whose branches

sweep majestically inside

is sadly led asunder

But time has come

It grips the earth

no longer filled with hunger

but only strength

to reach the sky

and shade the earth below

(snip)

 

If finally there is no heaven, then there is no distinction of consequence between cruelty and non-cruelty. So to be right would finally be just as meaningless as to be wrong. You can word it any way you like, but it would only be relative; morals as morals disappear. It wouldn't matter finally what you do; it would simply become the little guy against the big.

It would seem to me both reasonable and obvious that there are indeed consequences from what you refer to as cruelty and non-cruelty. It seems to me that One cannot be at internal peace and rest and do harm to another. In my experience, the two are spiritually not compatible. One who is at rest and peace inside has no desire to harm another as it in effect harming his/her own present well being. The one is a consequence of the other. Perhaps if one looks at internal peace and rest as heaven, then your statement, to me, has significance as long as it doesn't refer to a physical place called 'heaven' nor is limited to an afterlife.

Just a view to consider concerning your comment.

Joseph

Hi Adi and all,

I have included an official TCPC.org statement on the eight points by Bob Ryder, a former executive council member. As you may note the 8 points were written to avoid a dogmatic and literalistic understanding. In my opinion, when they are all taken together as a whole, Point 4 in general becomes clearer as any orientation that is not a 'matter of consent' would in my view, violate a general principle of other points. I would think there are probably rapists and other categories that presently exist in present day churches that the people are unaware of. But it seems to me, that once such behavior is exposed and deemed harmful or at risk to others, whether PC or otherwise, proper action will be taken to protect others. I do not personally believe that we need to break down point 4 into a more legal or dogmatic understanding in light of TCPC stated intentions and the 8 points as a whole. Where PC goes from here is in my view, any-body's guess. Fred Plumer, TCPC President calls this a "progressive experiment" in an article which can be found here.

As far as the original question goes that Bill posed and specifically mentioned in Post 1 being

1. Pedophiliacs?

2. Rapists?

3. Those who commit incest?

4. Sadomasicists?

I think it is presently generally accepted that those Bill mentioned above, if believed to endanger others by taking the 8 points as a whole, would not be welcomed in PC community. What the future will bring in change concerning that point is something that to me is best left, at least to me, to the future.

On the 8 Points

 

"From the beginning of TCPC, the intention of the '8 points' has been to present an inviting expression of a particular approach to the practice of Christianity. Our hope is that this series of ideas will be appealing especially to those who do not find a comfortable fit with traditional understandings of Christian faith, and result in thoughtful conversation on basic themes throughout the Progressive Christian network and beyond.

 

We will continue to present the original version along with other more recent versions for comparison in our various printed and electronic venues. As always, we want to avoid a dogmatic and literalistic understanding, including in our own written articulations of the faith.

 

You will no doubt find your own ways of articulating the nuances of Christianity expressed in the 8 Points. We encourage you to find creative ways to live out those expressions in your daily relationships and routines."

 

Bob Ryder, Former TCPC Executive Council member

Joseph

Joseph, don't thank me for raising the question after you have already decided, "I see no meaningful purpose for PC to be concerned with this until and unless it becomes an issue to do so."

Sorry if I have offended you Bill,

I haven't decided anything. I was just expressing my opinion as you can see if you will look at the entire sentence you took it from in post 5 here. And I stand by my statement of appreciation for you bringing up the issue not only for yourself but for the benefit of others who might have that in the back of their mind.

Love in Christ,

Joseph

Janet,

I think you make a good point that Jesus, from what we have read in the Bible, would have talked to anyone that was truely interested in the things of God. I think that says much. If they were interested in hearing and discussing such issues and questions which are raised here it would seem to me good and who are we to withhold what we are freely given.

Of course, continued fellowship with one who is not interested in love and respect for other humans would not be wise and i doubt that one who does harm to others would remain interested for long in such conversation as we have unless he/she had the desire to change. Besides, if their posts were of a lack of respect for others or hurtful or offensive nature, they would be appropriately excluded here as i would think they would also be excluded in other progressive church meetings. Perhaps each case is different and needs to be considered as it arises.

I think Mike also makes a good point with black-and-white viewpoints. "There is definitely more to life than what exists at either extreme". It seems to me enough to deal with one day at a time.

Bill, thanks for raising the question for consideration as I think it might have been in the back of the mind of others also.

Joseph

Bill,

I think point 5 says a lot as regards to point 4 and to bre truthful I think it is good not to over-define principles. You ask....

"So what is to prevent PC's from "progressing" to where these other forms of sexual expression won't simply be seen and accepted as an "alternate lifestyle"?"

It seems to me that nothing prevents such a thing though it seems highly unlikely. All things seem to me to be subject to change. However, personally, i don't believe hypothetical questions such as this need to be addressed by Progressive Christianity at this time, nor does it , in my view, have a basis in current reality. While it may be interesting to discuss or think about, in my view only, i see no meaningful purpose for PC to be concerned with this until and unless it becomes an issue to do so.

Just my opinion,

Joseph

Bill,

In my view, I think all the points have to be considered as a whole. Obviously, if someone was currently practicing a sexual orintation that expressed behavior that did harm to others or was in principle in direct oppossition to the other 7 points, the answer would be no. Fellowship would definitely not be of mutual benefit.

Joseph

You can find some really progressive music here.

from the TCPC.org site and by possibly googling on that artist for other albums.

Joseph

(snip)

Nevertheless, I must witness to some stray thoughts that give me pause for thought, not least the lives I see around me (and back in linear time)that are the polar opposite of a "good innings". I believe all of us here share some sort of idea that "God" is "love", even that "justice" would play some part in the divine economy. No matter just what "mystical" ideas enfold me and guide me, the idea that the lives of some who suffer beyond my capacity to even understand are somehow just absorbed and that is the end of it..............well, as I say, I pause for thought.

 

I gave a few moments to the thread on this forum on the Trinity, and was taken by the second point....."It represents a continuum of relation and interdependence of the aspects of existence". Within Buddhism the word "non-duality" is used, and often understood to be the polar opposite of "duality" so that "reality" is then seen us some sort of undifferentiated glug! But Buddhist "non-duality" embraces "duality" and is certainly not seen as its opposite. In my own Pure Land symbolism, the undifferentiated aspect of "enlightenment" is represented by gold, and the individuality, or "suchness"/uniqueness of each, by the lotus flower. Visions of the Pure Land abound with pictures of an infinity of golden lotus flowers.....

 

There seems to me "room" in eternity for differentiation, not just a total absorption. "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard"

Tariki,

As always you raise thoughtful points. For how can we escape our thoughts when 'the lives of some around us who suffer beyond our capacity to even understand' when we are having "A GOOD INNING", as you say, when we all agree that God is Love? That is a thought that I would think has plagued many of us at some time. It would seem to me that this was the stimulus that created a myriad of myths concerning the afterlife that is still entertained by religions today.

Perhaps the real answer to these thoughts is found not in concepts or myths but grasped in a deeper understanding of Love, that polar opposites are indeed merely degrees on a continuum and in the acceptance of the temporal and ephemeral nature of life in this linear domain where 'this to will pass'. Or perhaps one may bypass all this intellectual stuff by identification through either self-enquiry or the practice of unconditional love to realize ones true nature.

I share your Buddhist embrace of "duality" and "non-duality" not being seen as opposites. To me, there can be no separation where unity exists and reality is indeed complete and without parts as is.

As to whether there is "room in eternity for differentiation not just a total absorption", it seems to me that whatever state it is, will be agreeable to all.

Love,

Joseph

I think Bill makes a good point,

It seems to me that if one lives mostly in the future or by future promises one will essentially die to the present. One will not recognize that which is 'at hand' now. It also seems to me that the good news Jesus proclaimed was also 'at hand' and not in the distant future except to those who placed their faith in the passed down beliefs of others of things they knew little about. In other words, though interesting, the aftelife, perhaps may be distracting to the present.

Now, having said that, I am of the persuasion that there is only Life eternal and therefore how could there really be anything after? It is always Now. Reincarnation is an interesting topic and in my view supported in part by both Jewish history and the NT but without personal subjective experience, it is just hearsay.

Just a view to consider,

Joseph