Kay

The Greek word "pistis" is a noun. It is usually translated as faith, something that is had.

The Greek word "pisteuo" is a verb, and is usually translated as believe. Another way to translate believe would be "to have faith in." It is an action.

The Greek word "gnosis" is a noun. It is usually translated as knowledge, something that is had.

The Greek word "Epiginosko" is a verb, and is usally translated as to know, to recognize, to perceive or to ascertain. It is an action.

Faith and belief are relatively interchangeable terms. Knowledge is a seperate term and pretty much stands alone. I'm not big on using the term "belief" when a more appropriate word would be "know," or vice versa.

The Shaking of the Foundations by Paul Tillich

All individualized consciousness are phenomena that come from the One. We refer to them as spirits because it is attached to an identity and is in a sense not physical but does manifest in the physical.

That reminds me of the qualified non-dualism of Ramanuja. Cool stuff.

Please, no. If anything in the traditional church is worth keeping, the potluck dinner surely is.

I also like the tradition of potluck.

You ain't ever had church potluck until you've had Mormon (LDS) pot luck. Green jello with pineapple, five different kinds of "ambrosia" (google it) and ham sandwiches on Rhodes bake and serve white rolls with mayonaise. Yummy.

(Yes, I was being sarcastic.)

1) How does this fit in with the idea of being "yeast"? Would we want a denomination where all the progressives gather, emptying their influence from the other denominations? Isn't better that we be scattered about, keeping other denominations from being dominated with theocrats to whom we've given a clear field?

That's a very good point about being the yeast (or new wine).

Kay, the only problem with that, imo, is that some of the stuff, has Jesus saying opposite things. For instance, Jesus says "Don't call me good. No one is good but God". Or he says "I am the way...", etc.

Are you saying that some of Jesus' words (as attributed to him in the gospels) contradict each other? If so, I don't necessarily disagree. I just choose to look at the contradiction and see if there is some paradoxical truth or tension going on (that might be considered contradiction at first glance).

And there are points, where Jesus seems a problematic figure, calling people snakes, etc.

(I can understand about frustration, but why would my frustration with bureaucracy which I face

everyday be somehow petty and sinful while Jesus' is noble and so forth??)

I don't think Jesus would have considered your frustration to be petty or sinful. Jesus got angry and frustrated at injustice and hypocrisy. Much of the "meek and mild" Jesus, imo, is our cultural bias being read into an Ancient Near East text. Plus I think many of Jesus sayings have been misuderstood. For example, the "turn the other cheek" situation. Have you ever read Tony Campolo's take on that? Very interesting.

I am still inclined to think that the best of what was said was really said or close enough anyway.

Certainly there is Truth there. To me that's enough. I don't think we are mostly getting exact quotes, even considering translations from various languages.

And I agree.

Like I said, I'm not an inerrantist. But what I don't do is look at the Gospels and say "Well, we think this has been added later (a redaction), and so has this, so lets 'take these out.' Plus this is a miracle, so we'll ignore this part too." I don't discard any of it. I look for the truth in it. That's all I meant.

You are very welcome.

I can't seem to get this book from my local bookstore is it available over the internet. thanks bob ve

www.amazon.com - McChurched

Very well put. I especially like the phrase you use "transformation centered Christianity". That is what real Christianity is about: NOT having a set of intellectual propositions to which you give intellectual assent, but a relationship of trust (another word for 'faith') and loyalty which moves you to a life of change and development.

Here comes Kay with another serendipitous comment ...

Over the past few days I've been doing research into post-liberalism and neo-orthodoxy, which of course brings up "propositional theology" versus "narrative theology." Interesting stuff, with which I was relatively unfamiliar, but now I'm running into it all over the place.

Yes, there are propositional truths found in scripture, but there aren't as many as certain Christians think. Scripture is narrative that moves (hopefully) one to a relationship with the Divine; that allows insight into deep truths about the universe and mankind; and that gives hope for and motivation for the future. .

Kay, are you implying, perhaps, a nondualistic viewpt.? If so, interesting! (and i'll get back with you

when I understand it. :-))

Actually I was not. Weird eh?

It seems clear to me that Jesus is not a sceptic about the OT Law but rather is explaining the full scope of what the Law should be. .

This is somewhat I had in mind.

There is/was a rabbinical teaching method of "binding and loosing," ( and of "abolishing and fulfilling"). All these teachings (whatever the Rabbi bound or loosed as far as the Law goes) made up the teacher's "yoke." Jesus said his yoke was easy and light, and that the truth of it would set you free.

Although Jesus' teachings were not unique (in that they are found in the OT), they were uniquely presented. What he presented, and how he presented them had a ring of authority that many pharasees did not like. He called himself God's son. He forgave sins. And not only did he let loose certain laws ("You have heard it said ... but I tell you), but he gave his disciples the authority to do so (the keys to the kingdom).

An interesting perspective emerges when you delve into what Jesus meant by "You have heard it say, but I tell you ..." And also what the words "abolish" and "fulfill" would have meant to Jesus a(nd to the Jews he was talking to). It's quite a bit different than what western, modern brains tend to interpret it as.

Peter's dream (vision) of the unclean foods, on a blanket, descending from Heaven ... quite an interesting progression of events unfold after Jesus death, as to whether or not the Law must be observed by Gentile converts ...

The notion that Jesus held the scripture to be God's Word is an interesting concept, allbeit a misconception. The New Testament didn't exist at the time. The idea of "God's Word" didn't exist at the time. It is a modern idea.

I didn't think Jesus was referring to the "New Testament" but to the Law and the Prophets. It's unfortunate that nowdays the terms "scripture" and "bible" and "God's word" are used interchangeably. I do it myself and kick myself when I do it.

Judaism has traditionally been a religion of discussion and debate. Interpreters freely disagree with each other about what means what.

That's something that Rob Bell (my current favorite Christian thinker) makes a big deal about in his book "Velvet Elvis." That scripture is open-ended and that it's meant to be interpreted, discussed, debated and delved into IN A GROUP.

Certainly you can find truth anywhere so the bible would not be any different than a piece of artwork, a poem, a song, a book, newspaper article or a speech.

I do look at the Bible as being a bit more inspired and inspirational than those things, but I don't rule out finding truth in those things either.

It is when the bible becomes a weapon in the hands of some that I draw the line.

Yup. Me too.

... they give an approach to religious pluralism/tolerance which doesn't involve any sort of "tossing the baby out with the bathwater" i.e. sacrificing elements that are valuable in any religion for the sake of some sort of ecumenical goal.

That's quite true. Others that are interested in pluralism (John Hick comes to mind) are very much against the philosophies that make a tradition unique. For example, Hick is anti-trinitarian. He misses the point, I think.

Huston Smith is in a category all his own.

I've read The World's Religions, a book that discusses the major world religions. It's very good if you want a well rounded view of what different people believe. I'd consider it the must have primer on the topic.

I've read The Soul of Christianity. In it Smith unpacks his view of Christianity, which, unless you're somewhat familiar with the perennial philosophy, can be confusing. I really enjoyed it however. Smith is easy to read.

I've read Why Religion Matters. It's a bit of a polemic against what Smith calls "scientism," the blind faith that some put in science while condeming religion. It's been my least favorite so far, but still a good book.

You might enjoy the interview (streaming video) with Smith on the Meaning of Life TV (website) before deciding to buy any of his books. It's a great site with many interesting interviews.

Here is his homepage, it lists everything available from him.

Smith would be considered a pluralist (or perhaps a universalist), so although he's Christian, you'll find other sources (Hindu, Buddhist) in his writings to explain his philosophy.

I'm not an inerrantist, but I do choose to look at the words of Jesus in the Gospels as what Jesus actually said. There isn't anything that is attributed to him that I don't find amazing (and is actually why I'm Chrisitian).

Jesus believed the Scriptures to be God's word, and that's a powerful motivator for me to as well.

That has come to mean a lot to me over the past few months.

I'm still not an inerrantist, I think men's opinions are in the Bible as much as God's are, but even with that, I look at each scripture (even the objectionable ones) and try to find the truth within it. Reason and interpretation definitely play a role.

I did some diggiing and came across the work of Huston Smith and Frithjof Schuon, both of which have an approach I can handle:

Hey AT, have you visited http://www.cutsinger.net/articles.html ? He is an expert on Schuon and does the compiling of Schuon's work for publication. He does his own writing as well, which is very good. You can find many articles at that link.

Hi Rivanna. Neosnoia is my blog.

I was looking for a relatively unique domain name. "Neos-noia" is a made up word that means "new mind."

I'm glad you liked it. It's still under construction to some degree. It took me forever to decide on a template that is easy to read.

Hi Rivanna.

I think the word "relationship" is a good one. The earliest meaning of "relate" is to "bring back" or to "restore" or "to connect."

All of these meanings, I think, are appropriate and true.

We live a life that is disconnected from God. To "relate" to God, is to reconnect to God.

Or we could just call it, "Great minds think alike"

OK, this is totally off topic, but I just had to mention it.

Up until a week or so ago, I was using your current avatar on another site.

The link to Kevin Smiths newest movie is viewaskew, and my husbands online persona is "skewedview."

We seem to like the same authors (Wright, Smith and Schuon).

There's the "Dust of the Rabbi" thing.

And the "wrestling with the angel" thing.

OK - I'll let the whole "synchronicities are cool" thing go now.

The above quote from the scholars explains why so many people don't worship a living God, but a straw man, a limited God, a set of characteristics or rules or ideas which can be easily manipulated and controlled.

That's pretty much where I've been stuck over the past few years.

My God had become a set of ontological and philosophical suppositions with no life. As you put in another post somewhere, God became "first principle" which, while perhaps philosophically sound, I found to be wrong, nonetheless.

I was tempted to continue arguing the point, but realized, it doesn't matter.

That has become my new mantra of late. I too have a tendency to lose sight of what's important when it comes to online discussions.

The question "What do we do?" is the important one. Do we bring Heaven to Earth or do we bring Hell to Earth?

Best people dealing with this question so far: Huston Smith and Frithjof Schuon. Interestingly they both base it on the exoteric/esoteric distinction.

Huston Smith's "Soul of Christianity" is great. I just received "The Fullness of God" by Schuon a couple of weeks ago, but haven't started it yet. I'm finishing up a book called "Pascal's Fire."

From the esoteric point of view, all religions grow out of the one Absolute, thus all are true, in a sense.

They all contain truth, yup. All truth is God's truth, wherever is is found.

Different people learning different things at different times so why can't all be accepted. Can it all be true? No mistakes, everything has a purpose leading us to pure happiness.

Nice points.

People learn different things at different times. I know I did. I used to hold beliefs that are completely

Funny thing, I went to a Presbyterian PCA church (not exactly the same as the USA brand!)

There is a PCA church very close to where I live, but not a PCUSA. I didn't realize they are so very different until I looked up the "our beliefs" part of the respective websites.