fatherman

I can't speak for or defend the "The Course in Miracles" because I am not a student of it, but some of the principles you mention are common to Buddhism, Hinduism, and (yes) Christianity. It is not uncommon to mistake Pantheism for Nihilism You don't have to go very deep into the New Testament to find similiar expressions of oneness and illusion. Galatians Corinthians 12 The illusion that Christ and others lead us to conquer is the illusion of separateness. We shouldn't lose sight of our individual role to play, but we must also see that we are one. When the illusion is conquered, we will find that God is not impersonal (as you interpreted, PantRhea). We will find that God is so personal that he is in our very breath.

Throughout my faith journey, I have asked this question of myself several times. In one period of my adult life I lived on the brink of what I define as a Christian faith boundary. I don't have a problem with recognizing boundaries in a religion. A religion is with no boundaries/ground rules is arguably not a religion. When something I believe crosses that boundary or lies outside of it, I recognize it for what it is: a part of my personal, faith journey. In my personal view, I am a Christian if either I look to Jesus Christ as my primary model for living. As long as I do that, I consider myself a Christian. I don't set belief in the authority of the Bible, miracles, virgin birth, or resurrection as boundaries. I went along for years focusing solely on the model of Jesus' love, compassion, grace, wisdom, and righteousness. I never considered myself any less of a Christian than anyone else. The fact that I now accept Jesus as my savior, believe in miracles (the so called supernatural kinds), and believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead does not make me any more of a Christian than I ever was. It just means that I am more traditional in the way I practice it than I was. What primarily makes me a progressive as that I believe that we should practice the faith that is given to us. There are differences, but Truth converges as it ascends.

agreed

If working through the materials brings people into a loving relationship with themselves and the world, does it really make a difference how "special" the interpretation is?

I'm not an expert on either Gnosticism or Helen Schucman's Course, and maybe that's why it is not obvious to me why the Course in Miracles is a modern-day form of Gnosticism. As I understand it, Schucman claimed to dictate a massive revelation from Jesus (more like what Muhammed experienced in the cave). The Course is like psychotherapy. The focus is on letting go, forgiving, accepting, and loving. As I understand it, Gnosticism is most likely born out of Jewish mysticism and Greek paganism. It's focus is on working toward your own salvation by gaining knowledge directly from the source (attaining enlightenment, essentially). I guess the similarity here is the similarity of all religions: revelation, becoming perfected, reading scripture. What do you mean, BrotherRog?

I really can't speak for the Course in Miracles community, but I can say that elements of Gnosticism persist in the New Age/Mystic Christian community. The thing to understand about the label of "New Age" for the way I practice Christianity is that there is really nothing all the "New" about it. To me, the term "New Age" doesn't intend to imply a new way of practicing religion so much as it is an expression of hope that we are entering a new age in global spiritual evolution. It's really just a mystical approach to a faith tradition (like the Gnostics in Christianity and the Sufis in Islam). For some, it is a religion in and of itself. For me it means tuning the whole self to God and the Universe, not just the mind. If we choose to live in the world of thoughts, we are likely to experience nothing else but thoughts. Likewise, if we live in the world of the soul, we will experience the soul. Same goes for the body and every point of being (animal, sex, power, emotion, communication, ego self, God self) What all mystic practitioners of a religion have in common is their desire to know God and Truth in the here and now. We develop rigorous spiritual practices in order to calm the mind and awaken to the soul. We calm the chatter in our minds in order to hear the voice of God. We awaken the soul in order to be more like God.

I read here regularly and post occasionally. The forum has been a real blessing to me. What I've seen over there last 2 or 3 years has been that it's most valuable function is in helping isolated progressive Christians find their voice and articulate their beliefs in a safe environment. Once their Christology and Theology is worked out a bit, they settle down and start living it out. There comes a point when it's time to stop talking about it and start doing it or being it (right?). So on this forum we get spurts of inspiration and discovery. Or we get frustration and venting. A little debate perhaps. Then of course we get a steady, helpful stream of articles, conversations, and sermonettes from BrotherRog. Jeep, I know what you're talking about when it comes to some of the New Age topics that have been raised. Although some of us find metaphysics, meditation, Course in Miracles, yoga and such to be a natural extention of our progressive Christian path, I have found that most progressive Christians don't really relate to it. Too mystical, too supernatural. I've found that my so-called "New Age" practices/beliefs are more akin to moderate or conservative practice of Christianity.

I've recently been coming to a new place on this subject, and it would probably do me some good to articulate it. Over the last few years, I've come to know Christ as a state of conciousness, a state of being, a metaphysical Gateway to God. I've been focused on meeting Christ in as real a way as possible. I'm interested in the ancient assertion that Christ sits at the right hand of God the Father where he judges (engages us in the process of self examination) the living and the dead. I'm not saying that I think Christ has to be a particular heavenly person in a particular place in the Universe. I believe each person is an individual instance of the Kingdom of God, trinital in nature and possessed of all knowledge, power, and love. I believe that we are both individual and One in this regard. From this perspective, I see acceptance of Christ as Savior as crucial in the process of Self and God-realization (Salvation, if you will). It is the act of meeting our true selves (just as Jesus of Nazereth did) and making it the center of our life. Once we have done this, we can come to the Father (the Source). I don't think it makes a difference if you see Christ as outside of you or inside of you. Whether you see him as a light, a person, an idea, or yourself. It doesn't even matter what name you give it. What matters is that you meet it and give yourself over to it. As Christians, we look to Jesus and the Bible to teach us how to do this. My Hindu friend looks to his guru and the Gita. My Muslim friend looks to Muhammed and the Koran. My agnostic friend looks to his conscience and to the written wisdom of humanity. I have friends that looks to psycho-analysis and 12-step programs. We are all either in the process of meeting Christ and accepting him as our personal savior or we are lost and suffering. The good news is that if we don't find Christ, Christ will eventually find us.

Exactly! No easy solution for this.

All the arguments I've read on this thread are valid and thoughfully expressed. The truth on this matter in regards to Christians and issues relating to homosexuallity is that there is no easy resolution. Progressives site innaccuracies in Biblical translations, different cultures and times, science, and their gut feelings. Conservatives site the inerrancy and consistency of the Bible on this issue, natural order, and their gut feelings. To change DCJ's mind would require a change in his fundamental Christian beliefs (a hard thing to ask) To change my or Socius' mind would require a change in our fundamental Christian beliefs (just as hard a thing to ask). The middleground that remains is a genuine love and respect for gay folks. The problem that remains is whether or not DCJ's and other's fundamental Christian beliefs should be the basis for Federal or State Law in this country. Because the only basis for denial of a gay person's right to marriage that I've heard is a religious belief that homosexuallity is a sin and therefore wrong. Should divorce be illegal? What about consumption of shellfish? What about the covetting of our neighbor's wife or property (that one even made the top ten!)

I've noticed this trend this year, too. I figured that the marketing guys found that Thanksgiving just wasn't that big of a money-maker so they may as well get on with the main event. There are a number of reasons why it bothers me: 1.) I like tradition. The tradition has been that we turn to the cultural observance of the Christmas season on the day after Thanksgiving. (everything should have it's season) 2.) I have OD'd on holiday music, eggnog, decoration, and Christmas movies in the past. If I start too early I risk a relapse. 3.) The commercial/cultural observance of Christmas interferes with my religious observance. I mean, how can preparation for the birth of our Saviour compete with Andy Williams and fruitcake?! I'm hopeless. Lent has become my favorite Christian season because I can do my thing without anyone bothering me about shopping or listening to my favorite Lenten hits of yesterday and today. Lord, Help us to seek Peace and Light this Advent. Amen. 4.) I LOVE THANKSGIVING. We need it. To be a family. To give thanks. To pass out from partaking of the Great Bird of Sedation. I will defy Madison Avenue by having an awesome Thanksgiving and by giving Peace for Christmas! (ok I'll give presents, too).

So are you saying that folks who cannot or do not wish to have children should not marry? I've never understood this particular argument againster gay marriage. Gay folks are the exception, they just want the legal right to marry who they choose. No one is saying that gay marriage should usurp hetero marriage as the norm. Concerning commandments to be fruitful. Gay folks do have kids. Those that can give birth often do. Those who wish to have kids but cannot are usually denied adoption as an alternative. With as many kids that need a home, it is a shame that potentially wonderful parents are turned down because of their God-given sexuallity. In time, the laws will change. Folks have found all kinds of arguments (including Bible-based) to justify their perspectives about who should marry who. It was illegal for protestants to marry catholics, blacks to marry whites, slaves to marry at all. The only criteria for marriage (as offered by the state) will be that the applicants be consenting, single, adults.

DCJ, In your opinion, what kind of relationship is described in the The Song of Solomon? How do you interpret the scripture 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.' ? This statement reflects an attitude toward marriage that I believe is a common, underlying problem of many doomed or failed marriages (especially those with children). The marriage (not the children) must be the cornerstone of the family. Why is this? Because God gave us to each other to support each other and love each other. A marriage should be something that sustains it's participants. When parents continually put their children's needs above the needs of marriage, the marriage will eventually collapse and it will then be even harder to meet the needs of the children. It is very difficult to be a good parent if you don't have a partner of some sort supporting you. Concerning marriages with no children...in my opinion, the love and support of a life partner is one of God's greatest gifts. So when you wrote: you are saying that one of God's greatest gifts could be described as "mere". In answer to your question Because "they are no longer two but one flesh". If you didn't like the shape/appearance of your arm, would you be willing to cut it off to be relieved of the sight of it?

ArmadilloUCC, I want you to know that I stand with you in your sadness over these new amendments. I live in Oklahoma where an overwhelming majority voted in favor of an amendment that 1.) defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. 2.) prohibits giving the benefits of marriage to people who are not married 3.) provides that same sex marriages in other states are not valid in this state 4.) makes issuing a marriage license in violation of this section a misdemeanor. This makes me very sad. I'd also like to express some thoughts on the matter in terms of goverment and politics. I think, that our fellow advocates in Massachussets made an unfortunate error in strategy that may have played a part in this. Because many interpret the U.S. Constitution as saying that any marriage in one state must be recognized by all states, opponents of same-sex marriage believed they must take immediate constitutional action. I think the majority of Americans (possibly even Bush) support civil unions and domestic partnership rights for same-sex couples. I believe that unions are the logical first step for states to take. Their is a problem with civil unions, though. Since they are really designed to be an equal alternative to marriage for gay folks, we have a potential "separate, but equal" legal dilemma. The only solution that I can see that serves all the people fairly is this: We must draw a clearer line between the Church and the State. The State should not be handing out licences for marriage and the Church should not be signing state licences. As in other countries, the State should offer a civil union license only. Marriage should be offered by the Church or other significant community organizations. As it is now, there is no clear distinction between entering the legal contract of Marriage (and all of its benefits) and the Sacrament of Marriage offered by the Church. God bless you, Armadillo. In the grand scheme of things progress is being made very rapidly; unfortunately, our human lives progress much more rapidly than the grand scheme.

IMHO (In My Humble Opinion), this election does not prove that the "masses are asses". It proves that our nation is divided in world view. I don't believe one world view is more valid than the other, they are just different and possibly mutually exclusive. People probably voted for Bush because ...he shares their world view and Kerry does not ...they are concerned that what they consider to be American, family, or Christian values are eroding ...he holds dearly those very values that they are concerned are erroding. ...he sees the world in terms of black and white, wrong and right, us and them ...they don't want a change in leadership during a war ...they want to protect wealth and property ...he sticks to his guns ...he doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks, he's going to do what he's going to do ...he's a Republican ...(see other Republican values i.e. limit goverment, limit spending, cut taxes) Is this stupidity? No. If you voted for Kerry it was probably because ...he shares your world view and Bush does not ...you want a president who is smarter than you, not an average joe ...he recognizes the complexity of the world and has the vision and brains to lead us in it ...you see America as a player on a global team that is seeking to do the common good (not just the American good) ...he uses his faith in God for support, strength, and guidance, but he does not believe it is appropriate to legislate his religious beliefs ...he understands the importance and the nuances of diplomacy ...he believes goverment should serve people, not just protect wealth and property ...he wants to protect the American worker, not just American employers ...he believes in investing in the middle class, not just the wealthy ...he believes in science for more than just war and oil production ...he's a Democrat ...(see other Democratic values i.e. education, civil rights, environment) I suppose I articulate my world view better than than I articulate Bush supporters' world view, but you get the idea. Most importantly, though, it's time to give up the fight and accept the outcome of the election. The beauty of this country is that we get a whole new opportunity to express our view as a vote in another four years. Peace, David (fatherman)

I was raised Presbyterian

Jeep, I used to call myself a progressive Christian and participate regularly on this site. For a decade or so I called myself a progressive because: - although I continued to look to the historical Jesus as a model and teacher, I did not believe in the notion that there was anything miraculous about him other than his will to bring truth, love, and peace the world. -I believe that there are many paths to God -God does not have direct interaction with the Universe except to stand with us and love us -The Bible is relevant because it contains the history and wisdom of our faith tradition, and because it contains what some of what little of Jesus' life and teachings we have (although it is subject to significant interpretation because it is flawed by the ignorance of an ancient civilization) These beliefs will always be a part of who I am, but I began to make my progressive/liberal beliefs into a rigid dogma. Out of a desire to be open-minded, I became very close-minded. Although I embraced that faith of Hindus, Buddists, Muslims, and Jews, I rejected the faith of mainstream Christians. At the same time, I began to suffer from an anxiety disorder. I went to therapy and began medication to deal with it. In my search for peace, I also began going to a meditation class. Here, I came into direct contact with a living God and my own divine Self. I realized that: - God is not just an idea to be debated, but a conscious presence to be experienced. - Their is more to the universe than what our five bodily senses can perceive and what Science has validated. - faith is a starting point, but knowledge is a goal. - Christ is a state of being in which we realize our true selves - God has a specific purpose for my life - Until I learn to abide in God, the Universal law of Karma will a play a significant role in my life - Jesus was a fully Self and God-Realized person whose purpose was to give the world a glimpse of the true nature of God (all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal) An interesting thing about this shift in my life is that in spite of the New Age'y' lingo it actually brings me more in line with traditional Christianity (no!!!!!!!!! not that!!!!!) I've been able to reclaim the symbols of my faith tradition and move on. Although I'm completely in line with the TCPC 8 points, my views don't always jive with views expressed at the TCPC forum. And since I'm not interested in debating God at this point in my life, I prefer to just read the valuable and wise words that the folks here have to say. BrotherRog is right about Marriane Williamson and her awesome program. It flys in the face of traditional progressive Christianity (and yes, "traditional progressive" is an oxymoron)

Another facinating account comes in The Gospel of Philip.

Sometimes a thread of pure gold is woven into this forum. Jeep, ShinyPebble, pacigoth13, and Joshua...I am filled with gratitude for your journeys and how beautifully they are reflected in your words!

ArmadilloUCC, Thank you so much for sharing your story. I celebrate that you've found acceptance in a Christian community and that you've found love! Fatherman

Actually, I believe that God does have Consciousness and Will and that we are all a part of God's Consciousness and Will, but that it requires realization on our part to freely flow with it. (I realize this begs the question, "Does this mean we don't have our own free will?") God can know everything if God is everything. Ok, this is the statement that's going to get me in trouble: Ford wrote This bugs me, too. But there might be some truth in it anyway. The problem with this world/God view for me is the part that correlates "Real Christian" with "miss the disaster". This requires the use of a judgement based on things that can't be known except by a Jesus or a Buddha or some other fully God-Realized individual: the full pattern of someone's Karma and God's purpose for that individual. If it is necessary for an event (deemed a tragedy) to happen to a person in order to satisfy the law of karma, it will happen eventually (to bring balance) unless that person's karma gets burnt off through rapid evolution or intercession by a God-Realized person. It won't matter if we are so-called "Real Christians" or not. What matters is is our soul's highest need and how it is best met. God never punishes. God created a Universe that is self-balancing.

I don't think it is as simple as fundamentalist Christians are anti-gay. We tend to reject in others what we reject in ourselves. I'm not saying that fundamentalists are all gay, btw. I'm saying that our judgement starts with the judgement of ourselves. One could easily make the blanket statement that progressive Christians are anti-fundamentalist (fundamentalist the person, not the idea). But many of us love our fundamentalist brothers/sisters. We reject fundamentalism in or for ourselves. If we were ever fundamentalist in our past, we think "boy! we were stupid and narrow-minded then, but now we aren't". Just like in 5, 10, or 20 years, we will look back and say some other judgement about ourselves. I think the point the progressive Christian wants to make is that it's bad enough that we judge ourselves, but do we really need to throw that judgement onto the world? So a conversation might go like this: progressive: "Hey, I know that being gay doesn't work for you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for somebody else." fundamentalist: "So does that mean that if being a murderer works for me, then it's ok?" progressive: "No, because when one person is a murderer...it doesn't work for the people around him." Of course a progressive will never get the last word, and we should never try to. We are all where, what, and who we need to be at the moment.

I don't think that that shift was to keep anyone happy. I believe it was to squash pagan religious practices (specifically worship of a Sun god). Let's not forget that Constantine decided to make Christianity (a particular flavor of it) mandatory for all of his subjects (punishable by death). It's probable, though, that his pagan roots heavily influence his view of Jesus, particularly in promoting Jesus from human to divine. I'm not a historian, so if I've misrepresented history here, please speak up!

I agree, Angelus. There is nothing in the Universe that is not or of God. I will take it one step further and suggest that the dual nature of the Universe ("Good" and "Evil" in this case) is an illusion that we (humans) have created to try to make sense of the world. We say one thing is evil because it causes suffering and we say one thing is good because it causes pleasure or relief from suffering (or for what ever reason). But if suffering is necessary for our own evolution, how can it be evil? Consider Romans 8:28 "We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose." I don't think this is saying that if you love God, good things will happen to us. The writer is suggesting that the veil of illusion will be lifted for us to see that what we perceive as "Good" and "Evil" in our lives are both working to meet our highest needs. The problem is that we don't always consciously know what our or others' highest needs really are (or how they can best be met).

It makes more sense within the context of reincarnation, but perhaps it can work in the single human life scenario (unless you throw original sin into the mix!). We are born whole and perfect. The fontanelle (through which we receive the divine light or consciousness), is soft and thin, so union with God is natural for an infant. As we grow up, we succumb to the "Great Illusion" or "Maya" that we are seperate from God and the Universe, and the skull cap grows over the soft spot (which means God made us to have to choose God over self; whereas, an infant doesn't have the choice). We have to remember our true nature...not discover it or invent it. Jesus conquered illusion. So in the single human/earthly life scenario: 1.) we are born into Christhood 2.) our perception of this truth becomes obscured by illusion 3.) we seek to remove the illusion until we remember who we are