fatherman

I read an article a few weeks ago (can't find it) that suggests that some of these mega church members are getting tired of the repetitve messages, music, and non-liturgical structure and are coming back to the traditional mainline liturgical churches. The article suggests the children aren't getting anything out of the "hip" style. But I want to off-shoot on something that was mentioned in the article you posted. Speaking in tongues. I dated a Pentecostal girl in high school. I went to her little country church and found the tongues to be odd. I questioned their authenticity, until something happened to my brothers. I have a brother who is a Presbyterian minister and another who goes to a Unitarian Universalist church. BOTH of them described personal speaking in tongues experiences, though neither of them believed in them previously. They both said that you can't just disbelieve your way out of them. It just wells up inside of you until it comes out in tongues. It's never happened to me, and I'm not sure if I want it to. But it has changed my view of it. They both described the experience as a powerful and transcendent.

What does an evengelical do with this if not pick and choose? Leviticus 18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard. 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

A common problem I encounter with the fundamentalists (and sometimes the progressives), is their absolute belief that they are right and I am wrong. There's not question about it, there's not relativity. The only point of the discussion is to better understand their perspective and to help them better articulate what they believe. Often, there are elements of scripture that they have never considered. If I give a fundamentalist pause for thought, then I feel like I've accomplished a great deed! And if they give me pause for thought, then I feel like my perspective can grow. As far as being judgmental, that goes both ways. There are a lot of conservative bashers out there. I'm not saying you are one, but there certainly has been some of that on this forum in the past. One of my principles is that it's never personal. Their attitude has more to do about them and their path than it does about you. The problem, however, arises when a group of these folks gain political sway and try to push their perspective on the rest of us. Then it becomes my problem as well.

This is the key. We have writers, prophets, historians for important leaders addressing their contemporaries. Like, regarding homosexuality. I'm willing to accept that within those contexts, it was sinful. Context being trying to grow a people, pedophilia, prostitution, and adultery. However, we have a loving context for same sex relationships today. I don't believe those laws apply to our modern day. And as far as the "certainty" of who wrote what, I do not accept that we can know beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've read the arguments, and I'm not convinced 100%, that Peter, John, Matthew, James weren't eye witness...disciples of Jesus or at LEAST were written by scribes for the original eye witnesses. I am, however, convinceds that Paul did not write Collosians, Ephesians, 2nd Epistle of Thesalonians, and Hebrews...thought, still, can't be 100% certain.

That's real nice, soma. Catch another gust.

I choose to believe something. I remain open-minded, but i take a position. I try it out. Live with it for awhile. Maybe it has merit, maybe not. Maybe it helps me achieve my goals. Bring more love and peace in my life. We are rational, reasoning creatures capable of discerning things for ourselves perhaps without even experiencing them. But I lean toward experience.

I choose to believe something. I remain open-minded, but I take a stance. I try it out. Maybe it has merit, maybe not. Maybe it helps me achieve my goals. Brings more love and peace in my life, If I had a belief-crushing litmus test to guide me I'm concerned I might just end up rudderless

It wouldn't matter to me if any of you were a-holes once in a while... it wouldn't mean that everything you say is rubbish. Paul's words about the nature of love to the Corinthians ring powerfully true today. Nothing "truthy" about that.

Keep in mind, that there is evidence to suggest that Paul's later letters may not have been written by him. There is a marked change in his stance on things.

We can't really know what he meant, but what the disciples did is start a new sect referred to as followers of the way. I do not doubt that in the least. Perhaps they misinterpreted Jesus. But we also know that Jesus made the great commission to make disciples of all men. To what end? disciples of what? And what do you do when you have a bunch of disciples of a figure and his teachings? You try to live, within a community, according to those teachings. That is a church.

Ah, but according to scripture he DID endorse a church. He told Peter that he was the rock on which his church should be built. So, Peter and the other disciples and followers founded Christianity (followers of The Way, I believe it was called) and Paul (who only knew Christ in spirit) spread it abroad. Just as with any cult leader, the leader will die and it's up to the followers to continue the cult the best they can. And I do believe they were doing the best they could. And for those that never got to witness Jesus we have the Gospels. A Gospel is a kind of persuasive writing. It has an agenda. And the agenda varies depending on the writer. Matthew wanted to convince the Jews that Jesus was the new Moses with the new commandments, for example. John wanted to convince people that Jesus was more than a new Moses, but a living Christ. John wanted to convey the notion that we could experience blessed living through faith in Christ. He wrote about the signs that proved his divinity. These agendas affect how the gospels were written. Which stories to choose. Which themes to emphasize. The differences don't prove inconsistencies. They prove different perspectives and agendas. So how do we form churches from all of these different perspectives of Jesus? We have our own perspectives. There's no true church and no false church. We are human, and so were the writers and members of the first churches. However, there are some themes that we can all agree on. Love is the most important. To be apart of a community that's not about debate, or bowling, or fantasy football, or research, but to be a part of a community focused on Love....loving God, and loving each other, and giving up ourselves in the process, this is as true a church as you will find.

I believe there is some truth to the notion that mysticism, in some regards, can be problematic for someone prone to mania. I used to meditate (Kriya yoga) daily and sometimes at length. It creates a powerful altered state. Some of the exercises stimulate the same part of the brain that mushrooms and LSD trigger. I'm not sure if what I experienced were hallucinations. They were mental images. But they were vivid. When I began my treatment, my caregivers wanted me to stay away from drugs, alcohol, nicotine, and mind-altering yoga/meditation. The high you get from this form of meditation (similar to kundalini) feels no different than a drug high...better in fact. And drugs can trigger mania and psychosis. So I quit. That doesn't mean I haven't had a mystical experience since then. I did have a powerful one late last year after my son attempted suicide, and I believe that it was authentic. I might have easily dismissed it, but I believe in a God that reaches out to the hurting.

I needed to hear that, soma. Thank for that inspiration.

Interesting points! This is where I differ with many PCs. First off, I don't call myself a progressive Christian in the sense that I'm a Liberal Christian or that I reject orthodoxy. If I'm a PC at all it's on the point that I don't believe that I HAVE to believe anything at all or any specific thing in order to be accepted by God. I accept much of the traditional views of the Bible and Jesus as valid....or as fundamentally Christian. But I reject some of it. I would rather call myself a heretic than to set out to change Christianity, with some exceptions. I think that Christians should leave the judging to God. Christian beliefs should stay our of civil law. Christians should be taking Christ's teachings to care for the needy far more seriously than these peripheral issues like being anti-gay and anti-abortion. Christianity should be about Love, Hope, and Peace. The litmus on Christian living should be, "Does this action bring more love, hope, or peace into the world or less?" I was a member of a progressive church for 15 years before I got a job at another church. It turned as many kids into atheists as the Catholic church or Judaism. When kids went to confirmation and then were asked in front of the church if they wanted to be confirmed and make a profession of faith many did not. I respect it. It means that our kids are thinking critically and taking the decision very seriously. But I believe in raising a child in whatever faith you subscribe to (if at all). It gives them something to work with or against or come back to later in life. I feel that this church was failing in this area. Kids need to be given something black and white until they can begin to comprehend and consider the gray. In regard to atheists and Christianity. There are many atheists who follow the social teachings of Jesus. I happen to think that this is an excellent thing in that it gives a person a moral framework and a life path that is positive. The Dalai Lama encouraged the world to stick with the faith they were raised in. I come from a long line of Protestants. I explored Buddhism and New Age and Neo-Paganism for quite a few years, but what I found is that the wisdom I was learning and experiences I was having had Christian names and symbols already. So why change the heritage of my family name just to call my faith by different names?

Soma. I've long since been open to mysticism, and I've had a fair share of mystical experiences. But lately, I've reverted back to primarily an intellectual state. That started with my treatment for bipolar. I closed that door thinking that it might keep the crazies away. It's been years since I had an episode, and now I feel like it is safe to open up again. I haven't shared any of those experiences, because I worry what people would think. It's hard to convey them, much like trying to describe a dream that only you can understand...if indeed you understand. PCs tend to reject it and conservatives have litmus tests for whether it's divinity or devilry.

" Like "spiritual" should mean you believe in a spiritual world. An atheist should not label as "spiritual"." A side note to what you've said here. There are people that don't believe in a god, but do believe in a spiritual dimension to the earth (earth-based religions for example). That there is something spiritual to humans and plants and animals and elements. They just don't believe in God, but they are spiritual nonetheless. I certainly wouldn't put you in the category! But I think some people would put themselves there.

I would add that the dictionary defines divine this way: "of, from, or like God or a god." This is interesting to me because it includes "of, from, and like" In Genesis, one of the story tellers says that humans are created in the image of God. So in the sense that we are like God, we are divine. And if you believe that we come from God, then you are divine. So one way to answer your question is that we are all divine. The question that remains is, what is so different about Jesus' divinity that he is called Son of God? Are we not all sons and daughters of God? I would say yes. Are we all incarnations of God? This is where it gets tricky. We are made in the image of God, but does that mean incarnation? The same dictionary defines incarnation as: "a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or abstract quality" I don't claim to be a bodily host to a personal God. I do claim to be made out of "God Stuff". But I make a distinction between the two. My bottle of water contains the stuff that oceans are made of, but it's not an ocean at all. Jesus said that "he who has seen Him (Jesus) has seen the Father" (John 14:9) You could interpret that to mean that Jesus is claiming to be an incarnation of God. So according to our working definition of "divinity" Jesus is not only of God and from God and like God, but he is God. That's the difference between Jesus being divine and me being divine. I would never claim to be sure that Jesus was who he said he was, or even if the Gospel writers understood/quoted him correctly. But then again, I would never claim to be sure that he wasn't.

The DSMV notes a difference between religious psychosis and spirituality. There is a difference between "hearing voices" because you have schizophrenia and sensing the leading of the holy spirit.

overcast. Wow. Yeah, that's a harmful and perhaps deadly belief...believing that a medical issue like psychosis is a spiritual issue. If that's what you mean by spirituality, then I agree with you that it is harmful 100%

A recent discussion on spirituality has raised questions about mental health. That perhaps a spiritual person is a delusional, mentally ill person. This is of interest to me because I receive treatment for a mental illness: bipolar. So I'm always trying to create a lifestyle to supports my mental health. I'm very careful about what I eat. I swim several times a week. I always take my meds. I take every supplement that is shown to support mental/neurological health. I go to therapy I meditate....and strive to be spiritually healthy. I have chosen to live my life according to the principles that Jesus Christ taught and lived by. I confess that I am as big a sinner as I am a believer. I have done many things that have hurt myself and others over the course of my life. This sinful (or hurtful) behavior has only exacerbated my mental health issues in the past. But it is the belief that if I confess my sin to God and commit myself to repenting (turning away from) that behavior that I will find the grace to let it go and try again. I choose to live within a spiritual community (a church) where I am supported and where I can express myself in worship (to stand before someone or something in complete awe and gratitude). I did a little reading and found many studies and papers whose findings suggest that people who are spiritually active are more likely to be mentally healthy. Here's an interesting one. It has a little bit of an agenda, but the citations are strong: Spirituality and mental health - Indian J Psychiatry. 2008 Oct-Dec http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755140/ Here are a few excerpts of note: " Lack of spirituality can interfere with interpersonal relationships, which can contribute to the genesis of psychiatric disturbance" "Recent studies show that religious beliefs and practices are supportive to cope with stresses in life and are beneficial to mental health" "religiosity kept children from smoking, drinking and drug abuse by buffering the impact of life stresses" "parents who were more involved in church activities were more likely to have harmonious marital relationships and better parenting skills. That in turn enhanced children's competence, self-regulation, psychosocial adjustment and school performance" " maternal religiosity and mother-child concordance in religiosity were protective against depression in the offspring" "In a 12-year follow up of all articles appearing in American Journal of Psychiatry and Archives of General Psychiatry, 72% of the religious commitment variables were beneficial to mental health; participation in religious services, social support, prayer and relationship with God were beneficial in 92% of citations.[19] " So, here's the push back. How can I believe something like the existence of God (in the orthodox sense), which Science does not support, without being considered delusional? And if I'm delusional, doesn't that make me mentally ill? Perhaps it's a delusion that I'm willing to submit to for the sake of my well-being. If that's what's happening, then I'm cool with it.

So what is so compelling about Jesus that you would identify as a Christian, while rejecting the spiritual nature of Jesus? (I'm assuming that you are a Christian) My answer would be that you can practice much of what he taught without believing in spirit. I know many people who do. You don't even have to call yourself a Christian to act as a Christian. That's fine. Now, I'm going to challenge you a bit here. As far as mental health goes, I have bipolar affective disorder. I've seen my fair share of mental health professionals, and not one of them would agree with you that spirituality is a symptom of mental illness or that it is unhealthy in any way. That notion, which was prevalent 100 years ago, is passing away What is your science regarding spirituality and mental health? This paper reflects the current direction of psychology/psychiatry in regard to spirituality and mental health. There are many such studies and articles that support the ideas in this paper http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755140/

1.) I attend a United Methodist Church. I am the music director. I've missed less than 20 Sundays in my entire life (preacher's kid!) 2.) I meditate, but not as frequently as I did in my 30s. I find a lot of meaning in the music of the church. I journal. I read the Bible. 3.) Hmm. I used to attend a very progressive church in which I could express my progressive beliefs, but could not express my orthodox beliefs. Now I work at a moderate church (good balance between progressives, moderates, and conservatives) where I pretty much keep it private. I got into it with a conservative in Sunday school about Univeralism. I decided that maybe since I'm on staff, I shouldn't be so open about what I believe. I don't want it to cause a barrier with people that would make me less effective as a music minister. I don't like that UMC is behind the times on gay marriage. I was brought up Presbyterian, and they are well ahead in this area, but I do like the liturgy, the hymns, the emphasis on social justice, and the method (the Quadrilateral).

Please keep in mind that I am simply trying to help you articulate what you believe. That's what this thread is about. So alchemy gave way to something very valuable and so did astrology. What valuable thing is spirituality giving way to that can only happen if we give it up?

Perhaps you missed my point. If a person can increase their ability to love without spirituality, then they should stick with it.

Are you saying that the Pope are mentally ill? ;-) What is truly important is does what you believe make you more loving? That's all that really matters.