Israelis Dealing With Their History

[davidk]

We agree with God that humility is superior to selfishness, pride, and arrogance.

 

One cannot do the will of God selfishly.

 

Jesus said in John 6:44 that, no one can come to Me unless chosen by the Father. In John 14:6 that, No one comes to the Father (who lives in Heaven) except by way of the Son. In John 15:5, we can't do anything good without Him (Jesus).

 

These verses explain in the simplest terms being chosen and the subsequent humility.

 

No one can say he has salvation by his own choice of God (arrogance). It is in response to God's choice of him (humility). God offers His salvation, through Jesus Christ, to all of us and we can choose to accept His grace (humility) or reject it (arrogance). We are all in need of justification by faith in Christ as Savior; Rom 3:23. No one who desires this graceful offer of the peace of God is refused. When you accept His offer, you then realize you have been... chosen! A very humbling realization.

----------

 

Let's say you have two children, one genuinely obedient and one genuinely disobedient. When you reward each with what they deserve for doing and not doing their chores, are you unfairly favoring the obedient child when he gets the keys to the car while the disobedient child has to stay home on telephone restriction? The keys were offered to both.

If, instead, you gave the keys to the disobedient child, you would be playing favoritism.

[McKenna]

Let's say you have two children, one genuinely obedient and one genuinely disobedient. When you reward each with what they deserve for doing and not doing their chores, are you unfairly favoring the obedient child when he gets the keys to the car while the disobedient child has to stay home on telephone restriction? The keys were offered to both.

If, instead, you gave the keys to the disobedient child, you would be playing favoritism.

 

This reminds me of the parable of the prodigal son...except with a different outcome?

 

Plus, there's a discrepancy between your analogy and the real world. While you may see it as a clear-cut choice between obedience and disobedience, it's really not. Generally kids who disobey their parents know they are breaking the rules; but non-Christians don't know they're "breaking the rules" by not being Christian, because otherwise they'd be Christian! At least, most would. (I have met one person who believes everything in the Bible, yet chooses to disobey - I think they were Luciferian?) It doesn't make sense to write off all non-Christians as disobedient to God and therefore deserving of whatever punishment God wishes to throw at them.

 

I have a friend who was raised an atheist. How can she be disobedient to a God she doesn't even believe exists? She can't - or not intentionally, anyway. And if disobedience is unintentional, how can it be punished? That's like the parent saying to the kid, "You broke a rule. You're grounded!" and the kid saying, "What rule? You never told me that!" You could say that God has told them the rules - through the mouths of Christians - but unless God speaks to them Himself, I see no reason why they should obey the rules, since the rules are coming from the mouth of another human. I don't feel I have to believe everything another human says, at least, and especially not what they say about God! "You broke a rule!" "What rule?" "The rule I told your brother to tell you!" "I thought he was lying, I didn't think you'd have a rule like that! Why didn't you tell me yourself??" If the parent tells the brother the rule, but not the other child, and then expects both to follow the rule, isn't the parent favoring the child they tell the rule to, since that child knows for a fact where the rule came from?

 

I understand your analogy and I would certainly ground the disobedient child if I were the parent. But I just don't see how it applies to real life.

[Realspiritik]

This reminds me of the parable of the prodigal son...except with a different outcome?

 

Plus, there's a discrepancy between your analogy and the real world. While you may see it as a clear-cut choice between obedience and disobedience, it's really not. Generally kids who disobey their parents know they are breaking the rules; but non-Christians don't know they're "breaking the rules" by not being Christian

 

Thanks, McKenna. Good comments.

 

Another good example of the great harm caused by Davidk's paradigm of obedience versus disobedience is the situation with young children. A young child, whose biological brain has not developed to the point of understanding abstract thought, is also incapable of making the choice that Davidk presents. Ditto for those who are mentally challenged. Also for those who have a disabling mental illness (eg. Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, stroke, various genetic disorders, and so on).

 

The test for the truth of a message about God's love is the applicability of that message to all beings. Davidk's message excludes millions of people who are surely loved by God! In Davidk's Pharisaic system, there is no place for all the sick and disabled people who were specifically included by Jesus in his ministry as being fully worthy of his love, fully worthy of his healing, fully worthy of his time, and fully worthy to sit at the table with him. Davidk's "lepers" are breaking the rules as Davidk sees the rules, and he is convinced that God will simply not be able to favour them (since to favour a young child or a person with dementia would be like giving the car keys to the disobedient child who didn't accept the "offer.")

 

In Davidk's version of the Prodigal Son, it is the elder son (the one who is angry and judgmental, though very obedient to the Law) who gets the fatted calf. The younger son -- who was foolish and took risks, but humbly acknowledges his mistakes and asks for forgiveness, and finally understands what his father means to him -- not only doesn't get the fatted calf, but his telephone privileges are restricted.

 

Somehow I don't think Davidk's version is what Jesus had in mind.

 

I know, Davidk, that you will never back down on what you're saying. You don't seem to have a capacity to deal with ambiguity in your religious experience. You need the Law to be the Law. That is a choice you have made. But don't you find it exhausting to be so judgmental?

 

Jen

[October's Autumn]

to quote If Grace is True "Why would God punish someone for a lifetime (70 years or so) of sin for eternity?" That would be like punishing your disobedient child by grounding them until they are dead!

 

 

This was a discussion we were having at church how non-sensical this idea is. Human's can't possibly comprehend eternity so even if they knew that if they did thus-and-so and hell would happen forever their concept of "forever" is not possible. There is no way for us to make such a choice -- it is beyond our comprehension.

 

I always wonder what kind of a person worships a god who would send most people to punishment forever... in my experience it says more about the person than it does about God. We do, after all, create God in our own image.

[davidk]

Jen-

Hello? Do you have the capacity not to rabbit trail. It takes a great deal of effort to communicate with someone that takes such great effort to disagree. You have distorted the topic to the point of its being unrecognizable, untruthful, judgemental, and insulting. If you cannot see to calm yourself and be somewhat rational, I'm afraid I will have to relieve myself of you.

 

 

McKenna-

Almost did the same thing but came through in the nick of time.

"I understand your analogy and I would certainly ground the disobedient child if I were the parent." It applies to real life because: even having the disobedient child as a favorite would not be a problem, because you offered the keys to both and you must favor the obedient one for his obedience. Had you given the keys to the disobedient boy you would have shown him favoritism because he did not deserve the keys and the damage would be to the obedient child.

The disobedient child's choice to be disobedient was a detriment he chose for himself.

 

We should go back through March posts and pick up on the topic of Israel vs Arab-Muslims. The obedient to God vs the disobedient to God and who should be favored.

[McKenna]

McKenna-

Almost did the same thing but came through in the nick of time.

"I understand your analogy and I would certainly ground the disobedient child if I were the parent." It applies to real life because: even having the disobedient child as a favorite would not be a problem, because you offered the keys to both and you must favor the obedient one for his obedience. Had you given the keys to the disobedient boy you would have shown him favoritism because he did not deserve the keys and the damage would be to the obedient child.

The disobedient child's choice to be disobedient was a detriment he chose for himself.

 

I must admit I'm entirely confused. I got your point the first time. In that actual situation, of course I would ground the disobedient child. But I'm not talking in terms of analogy. I just meant in that real-life situation, I'd ground the disobedient kid.

 

I don't see how that relates to what I was trying to say, which is that your analogy doesn't actually apply to the whole Christian/non-Christian thing?

[Realspiritik]

Jen-

If you cannot see to calm yourself and be somewhat rational, I'm afraid I will have to relieve myself of you.

 

 

Gosh, Davidk, I would be so sad if I had to get up each morning, and not read your new posts that tell me and others on this site that we're not really Christians, and that God therefore does not favour us the way he favours you. Davidk, you are upset by the way I respond to your posts. I take your posts, reflect on them, and apply "the logic of consequences" to them. I point out what the practical results of your thinking are. I can't help it if you find the reasonable and probable consequences of your fundamentalist thinking to be unrecognizable, untruthful, judgemental, and insulting. That's something you'll have to deal with. You don't seem to see any connection whatsoever between your belief systems and the systemic injustice of the world. You seem to live in a bubble of religious bliss, where you think can say anything you want about God, Jesus, and everybody else's souls, and where you will not have to experience the practical consequences that flow from these religious thoughts you cherish. But you're living in the world where God has placed you, and you're expected by God (as are we all) to challenge traditions that cause overt suffering and harm. You're then expected to do something about those traditions -- to work within a community of like-hearted people to effect change. You live in the state of Georgia. Georgia has had to deal with a massive amount of fallout from the issue of slavery. Historically speaking, those who chose to own other human beings used the Bible as their justification. Yet these individuals who hid behind scripture could not have been further from God's truth. Davidk, will you come out in public, and denounce the hypocrisy of those historical figures who said they fully honoured God's word, yet did not listen to their own conscience and did not listen to either God or Jesus on the matter of slavery? Will you do that? Will you walk in the path of Jesus in daring to criticize the ancestors of some of the people you live and work with?

 

If you do not feel comfortable doing so in public, will you do so in your heart -- just between you and God?

 

Just a thought, Davidk, just a thought.

 

Jen

[davidk]

... what I was trying to say,... is that your your analogy doesn't actually apply to the whole Christian/non-Christian thing?

The characters are metaphorical. In this case, the obedient are the Semites and other Godly people. The disobedient are the anti-Semetic and other un-Godly people. You, the parent, are God. The keys are to Heaven. Telephone restriction is Hell (just ask any teenage girl). The "children" made their choices based on their knowledge, love, respect, and obedience of you. They knew what the results were going to be, they made their choice. Each got what was promised.

 

 

October's Autumn

to quote If Grace is True "Why would God punish someone for a lifetime (70 years or so) of sin for eternity?" That would be like punishing your disobedient child by grounding them until they are dead!

 

I hope I may comment on this sufficiently. I also hope we agree that Grace is a gift from God.

While a gift is obviously given, likewise, a gift is recieved, rejected or ignored. Does anyone have any unopened wedding presents, or a gift you may have just put in a closet somewhere, given away, or just thrown away? The gift of Grace has been treated the same.

God is soveriegn and He has given man free will. He has the authority to offer us this gift of eternal Grace and we have the authority to either accept His gift, or reject it. He gives us the choice, explains it, demonstrates it, promises the results, we decide. It is the consequence of our decision on His gift that will determine our reward (Heaven or Hell).

[McKenna]

The characters are metaphorical. In this case, the obedient are the Semites and other Godly people. The disobedient are the anti-Semetic and other un-Godly people. You, the parent, are God. The keys are to Heaven. Telephone restriction is Hell (just ask any teenage girl). The "children" made their choices based on their knowledge, love, respect, and obedience of you. They knew what the results were going to be, they made their choice. Each got what was promised.

 

Oh my Lord. Sorry for my frustration, but I have already clearly stated - twice - that I understood your analogy as you first presented it! My very first post in response to your analogy clearly stated this, and I went on to reject this analogy as not applicable to the real world. If you would like to actually respond to my ideas - rather than restating an idea over and over which I have already said I understand - I would appreciate it.

 

He has the authority to offer us this gift of eternal Grace and we have the authority to either accept His gift, or reject it. He gives us the choice, explains it, demonstrates it, promises the results, we decide. It is the consequence of our decision on His gift that will determine our reward (Heaven or Hell).

 

This is what I was arguing against. If my argument was unclear because it was stated within the confines of the parent-child analogy, let me know and I can restate it.

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

I hope I may comment on this sufficiently. I also hope we agree that Grace is a gift from God.

While a gift is obviously given, likewise, a gift is recieved, rejected or ignored. Does anyone have any unopened wedding presents, or a gift you may have just put in a closet somewhere, given away, or just thrown away? The gift of Grace has been treated the same.

God is soveriegn and He has given man free will. He has the authority to offer us this gift of eternal Grace and we have the authority to either accept His gift, or reject it. He gives us the choice, explains it, demonstrates it, promises the results, we decide. It is the consequence of our decision on His gift that will determine our reward (Heaven or Hell).

 

See there it is again, (Heaven or Hell) how about Heaven or nothing? Take another look into the Universe, the Heavens and see if beyond the light is there anything? Could a soul be cast out into nothing? An eternal soul could be lost forever cast into an infinite nothing far away from communion with a pure and holy GOD... How else could it be written that no evil will enter the presence of GOD? Check out Job, I think the book of Job agree's that there will be no evil in Heaven as that is a universal law and truth, then how can you ever justify the presence of evil before a pure and holy GOD? The only way this could be true is that the story is flawed for if GOD is omnipotent then GOD knew and allowed the evil to happen to Job and now you have to agree that GOD has missed the mark... In Proverbs we read that GOD allows the rain to fall on the just and the unjust equally, so that means that the Blessings of GOD are not given only to the Christians as Evil can happen to anyone at anytime. The only way to fix this problem is to expose the evil so that all can see, the light must shine on the dark places for all to know.

 

The whole problem is created by the hand of man trying to manipulate the masses for the profit of the leaders. The flaw is in all aspects of Government through the Church we need good laws that are enforced with authority and diligence...

[davidk]

McKenna-

 

Perhaps I misinterpreted when you gave me a response saying how you understood and when you made a real life application by saying, "...in that real-life situation, I'd ground the disobedient kid." You led me to believe we were on the same page, but perhaps my metaphor was unclear, for you said, "...doesn't actually apply to the whole Christian/non-Christian thing?". Ergo, I had to explain it was not about Christians, but Gods favor in regard to the obedient Semites.

 

TGWB-

 

So, we are in agreement about the Grace of God being His gift to us.

 

Autumn-

 

"I always wonder what kind of a person worships a god who would send most people to punishment forever... in my experience it says more about the person than it does about God. We do, after all, create God in our own image." - Autumn

 

Where does this fit in?

[October's Autumn]

Autumn-

 

I always wonder what kind of a person worships a god who would send most people to punishment forever... in my experience it says more about the person than it does about God. We do, after all, create God in our own image.

 

Where does this fit in?

 

Had I not seen you play dumb already this morning I would think that it was beyond you to do so. I am forever optimistic.

 

BTW, if you use the "quote" you'll have more easy to read posts.

[McKenna]

McKenna-

 

Perhaps I misinterpreted when you gave me a response saying how you understood and when you made a real life application by saying, "...in that real-life situation, I'd ground the disobedient kid." You led me to believe we were on the same page, but perhaps my metaphor was unclear, for you said, "...doesn't actually apply to the whole Christian/non-Christian thing?". Ergo, I had to explain it was not about Christians, but Gods favor in regard to the obedient Semites.

 

I guess we're just misunderstanding each other all over the place.

 

Your analogy was first brought up in post #26:

 

No one can say he has salvation by his own choice of God (arrogance). It is in response to God's choice of him (humility). God offers His salvation, through Jesus Christ, to all of us and we can choose to accept His grace (humility) or reject it (arrogance). We are all in need of justification by faith in Christ as Savior; Rom 3:23. No one who desires this graceful offer of the peace of God is refused. When you accept His offer, you then realize you have been... chosen! A very humbling realization.

----------

 

Let's say you have two children, one genuinely obedient and one genuinely disobedient. When you reward each with what they deserve for doing and not doing their chores, are you unfairly favoring the obedient child when he gets the keys to the car while the disobedient child has to stay home on telephone restriction? The keys were offered to both.

If, instead, you gave the keys to the disobedient child, you would be playing favoritism.

 

Due to the fact that the analogy was located right after you mentioned being "chosen" (in other words, "favored") by accepting Christ as Savior, and by the words "Let's say" you seemed to be implying that the analogy related to the preceding paragraph, I assumed that your analogy had to do with Christians being "favored" by God by getting to go the Heaven ("have the keys") while non-Christians are not favored because they "reject the keys" by being "disobedient" and therefore go to Hell.

 

Where in there did I misunderstand you?

[davidk]

Your analogy was first brought up in post #26:

I can see where you got that. Isreal was the 'main' topic, and the concept of 'chosen' was challenged so I ended up with both topics on the same page trying to address Jen. I put a line in there to try and delineate them from each other. My Bad!

 

Autumn-

PLAYING dumb?

 

I do have a question here, when you said;"We do, after all, create God in our own image." I can't tell whether it was facetious or not. I hope it is.

"...to quote If Grace is True , ..."

Where do we find knowledge of God's Grace? (in Hebrew, and in Grk [although not commonly], 'Grace' is also translated as 'favor'. hmmm?)

We agree that God sending anyone to Hell is not in His nature.

We abandon His Grace by rejecting the gift of faith in Jesus Christ, forever. Even if you don't agree with this, 'forever' is completly understood. It is ludicrous to think 'forever' is not an understandable concept. It means forever, for eternity. To tell anyone you don't understand that it is a very long time that doesn't end, you're lying.

 

TGWB-

Man does evil within the sight of God everyday. God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He allows us free will. There is judgement.

In Job, the Adversary was allowed to test Job's Faithfulness. Job lived up to the hype. He was restored and blessed by God even more than he was before.

 

The whole problem is created by the hand of man...

You hit that nail!

[McKenna]

I can see where you got that. Isreal was the 'main' topic, and the concept of 'chosen' was challenged so I ended up with both topics on the same page trying to address Jen. I put a line in there to try and delineate them from each other. My Bad!

 

Ah. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

[October's Autumn]

Autumn-

PLAYING dumb?

Yes, when you act like you don't know what someone is talking about... you aren't stupid...

 

I do have a question here, when you said;"We do, after all, create God in our own image." I can't tell whether it was facetious or not. I hope it is.

 

No, your understanding of who God is comes directly from who you are, you've created God in your own image. You have a need for retaliation therefore your god has a need for retaliation. You need to be favored therefore your god favors you.

 

 

I've ignored the rest of your non-response because it is pointless to continue discussing any of it.

[davidk]

"PLAYING dumb?"It's hard to relay a question like that properly in type. Basically, I was saying; I am already dumb, I don't need to pretend.

 

I've ignored the rest of your non-response because it is pointless to continue discussing any of it.

How do you discuss a 'non-response'?

 

...your understanding of who God is comes directly from who you are, you've created God in your own image. You have a need for retaliation therefore your god has a need for retaliation. You need to be favored therefore your god favors you.

My understanding of who God is comes directly from who He said He was. I believe we are who God said we are, created in His image. God has no need for retaliation therefore I have no need for retaliation. God favors those who seek to be favored by Him.

 

God will not find favor in those not willing to seek His favor by being obedient to His Word. The nations who seek to destroy Israel are not seeking favor from God. They ignore God and will not be favored. They carry the burden of the innocent victims.

 

...while non-Christians are not favored because they "reject the keys" by being "disobedient" and therefore go to Hell.

God offers His favor to us. If we believe in Jesus Christ, the name of God's only begotten Son, we are not judged. Those who don't believe are judged already, because they did not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Jesus said He is the light and the truth, but some men have loved the darkness rather than love the light. Because they don't love the Son of God their deeds are evil. So, those that practice the truth (Jesus is the Son of God)) come to the light. Those that don't, won't.

At the risk of being rude, I'll repeat the following:

God is soveriegn and He has given man free will. He has the authority to offer us this gift of eternal Grace (favor) and we have the authority to either accept His gift, or reject it. He gives us the choice, explains it, demonstrates it, promises the results, we decide. It is the consequence of our decision on His gift that will determine our reward.

[Wayseer]

Because they don't love the Son of God their deeds are evil. So, those that practice the truth (Jesus is the Son of God)) come to the light. Those that don't, won't.

 

I not only find this post offensive, divisive and arrogant, it is also a grand display of ignorance - it demostrates that the author fails to understand that GOD, of which he presumes to know so much, is not contained by his intellectualisations.

 

It is sad that those who make such uninformed claims about GOD display such a poverty knowledge that says more about them than it does about GOD.

[October's Autumn]

"PLAYING dumb?"It's hard to relay a question like that properly in type. Basically, I was saying; I am already dumb, I don't need to pretend.

 

You are hardly dumb.

 

My understanding of who God is comes directly from who He said He was. ... God has no need for retaliation therefore I have no need for retaliation.

 

 

Really? People who claim to hear the voice of God are generally thought to be "crazy" and end up being treated. What is hell, in your understanding, but retaliation for not believing in God/Jesus? You may not use those words but by how you describe why someone is going to hell it is nothing but a playground "if you don't like me, I don't like you" mentality. Or worse "You don't like me, so you are going to miserable for eternity"

 

BTW, just because you can define "eternity" doesn't mean you actually comprehend it! Comprehension goes to a completely different level.

 

PS thank you for using quotes.

[Cynthia]

Because they don't love the Son of God their deeds are evil. So, those that practice the truth (Jesus is the Son of God)) come to the light. Those that don't, won't.

 

I not only find this post offensive, divisive and arrogant, it is also a grand display of ignorance - it demostrates that the author fails to understand that GOD, of which he presumes to know so much, is not contained by his intellectualisations.

 

It is sad that those who make such uninformed claims about GOD display such a poverty knowledge that says more about them than it does about GOD.

 

 

Good point Wayseer. I agree and am reminded of the Buddhist saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him". That's the fun of spiritual intellectual pursuit - just when you think you've got it all nailed down, you know beyond a doubt that you are wrong!

[David]

Because they don't love the Son of God their deeds are evil. So, those that practice the truth (Jesus is the Son of God)) come to the light. Those that don't, won't.

 

I not only find this post offensive, divisive and arrogant, it is also a grand display of ignorance - it demostrates that the author fails to understand that GOD, of which he presumes to know so much, is not contained by his intellectualisations.

 

It is sad that those who make such uninformed claims about GOD display such a poverty knowledge that says more about them than it does about GOD.

 

Wayseer,

 

You have posted the following elsewhere:

 

“There is a danger in any new movement of repeating the mistakes of the past - more often through association rather than by design. It would be disappointing should PC follow the traditional Church and develop, for whatever reason, a doctrine or dogmatics by whatever name. I do not see PC as exclusive - therefore no boundaries - that is - none, zip, zero. Scary? - well Jesus set no boundaries to his Love - that's should be our example.”

 

I would like to ask you to relate this comment to how the Center for Progressive Christianity should respond to the Church of DavidK. DavidK does represent quite a number of people and provides us with a live symbol for that group. I am interested in the topic of inclusion/exclusion because of my interest in ecclesiology and because I think that the topic of inclusion/exclusion is a most difficult topic for progressives.

 

DavidK does not “scare” me. But DavidK does present a challenge to the Center for Progressive Christianity as to how to relate “boundaries” to the Church of DavidK. So I would like to ask you to relate your “no boundaries” approach to several levels of The Center for Progressive Christianity.

 

The Center for Progressive Christianity operates on several levels. Obviously there is this level, the Message Board. This Board can operate successfully with few or no boundaries. As I watch the activity on the Board it seems like the only boundary that has been agreed upon is that when someone is “disrespectful” they do not receive a response or they receive a negative response with a strong request to change their behavior. I would consider that “boundary keeping”. Would you like to eliminate that boundary?

 

On another level TCPC operates the internet site. There are several parts to that operation each coming with some “boundaries”. One part of the operation is the maintaining of a list of church affiliates. Here is the “boundary” related to affiliates:

 

“By affiliating or renewing your affiliation with TCPC and listing your group in the directory, your organization agrees to extend a particular form of welcome to those who seek to be a part of it. This form of welcome is outlined in TCPC's 8 Points - TCPC's working "definition" of Progressive Christianity. This doesn't mean, of course, that you all must agree with every detail of the wording, but just that you and your community can affirm the underlying principles. You are even free to reword them in a way that makes sense for your group. But, before affiliating or reaffiliating, we ask that you talk over the Points with people in your organization, especially those with decision-making authority.”

 

Would you eliminate this “boundary making” and invite all the Churches of DavidK to become affiliates?

 

TCPC has a mission statement and has the 8 Points which I will not repeat here. Would you eliminate the boundaries created by the mission statement and the 8 points and have a mission statement that would state that the TCPC has “no boundaries”?

 

The TCPC is providing content for us to read about Progressive Christianity. Obviously there are boundaries to that content. We don’t have much from the Church of DavidK in that content. Would you want to change this?

 

The TCPC has leadership. Would you open that leadership to DavidK so there are few or no boundaries to that leadership?

 

I note that your response to DavidK and by implication the Church of DavidK, relies upon lifting up what you see as “offensive, divisive and arrogant” and noting “that the author fails to understand that GOD, of which he presumes to know so much, is not contained by his intellectualizations”. I see this as an attempt to create a boundary around what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in your mind. I have noted your comments about the lack of reality supporting the individualness of existence. Yet without social boundaries we are left with this kind of individual boundary making based upon what we understand to be God (in your terms doctrine or dogma). “Doing Church” is all about social boundaries based upon understanding or "failing to understand GOD". How do you want to “do Church” and how do you want the Center for Progressive Christianity to help you do this? Without social boundaries related to understanding or "failing to understand GOD" can we have any social groups and would we not be left with just this Message Board in your “boundary less” world?

 

By the way I do not agree that Jesus did not get involved in social boundaries or that Jesus did not have a theology that guided his view of justice which is all about the creation of and maintaining of social boundaries. The kingdom of Caesar was based upon different social boundaries than the Kingdom Jesus saw but the Kingdom that Jesus saw had justice related consequences. For one, I would suggest that the Great White Buffalo has yet to see “the light” when he only will recognize a marriage between a man and a woman. Same sex marriage does not mean “love without boundaries”. It is still based upon social boundaries with obviously what I think to be a more correct “doctrine” or “dogma” in your terms. Does the Center for Progressive Christianity have a role here in creating “good doctrine”?

 

And, finally, to get back on topic, the whole Middle East question that this discussion started with is about boundary making. Should not our religious vision have something to say about this kind of boundary making? Can we not say that the vision that sees the pain and problems of both sides is a better vision than the vision of DavidK and should we not therefore attempt to create a boundary around the Church of DavidK so that he does not do more harm than has already been done?

Can the Center for Progressive Christianity help do this?

[Wayseer]

David - why bring this topic us here? I posted to another thread which has nothing to do with here but was addressed to the administrators. I would have imaged if you have some difficulty with any perceived ambiguities you would have raised such in the initial thread.

 

But as you have raised the matter here I will endeavour to address you concerns.

 

The most deliberting effect of taking posts out of context is that readers are not aware of the initial context. What I was talking about is the aspect of dogma and doctrine - not what one call 'acceptable behaviour'.

 

David's inference in this post here is that I am advocating that there should be no boundaries to human behaviour. I have not indicated as such nor would I wish as much. What you are suggesting David is that I am advocating that child abuse should not be resisted, that murder and rape be turned a blind eye, that graft and corruption become acceptable means of accumulating wealth. Which is all but a delberate misreading of that particular post.

 

But let me cut to the chase.

 

.... without social boundaries we are left with this kind of individual boundary making based upon what we understand to be God ...

 

So what's the problem? Either one is progessive or one is traditional - one is moving forward or locked into the past. The institutionalised Church has been locked into the doctrine and dogma of the past. The result is a series of out of date creeds and laws that have no reality in the 21st Century. What you are in fact asking me to do is to suspend my rational mind, to lock up logic and suspend my intelligence. As one of the delegates to the recent climate change conference in Bali said to the US - If you don't want to be part of the answer get out of the way and let those who are concerned proceed - or words to that effect. If the Church won't move, individuals will. The Church, whether liberal, traditional or progressive will be bypassed.

 

Whether you accept the church of DavidK or not is your call. Personally I feel some empathy for him and his position - I was once there myself. Fortunately I chose to grow up. David K can do the same - that's his call.

 

Without social boundaries related to understanding or "failing to understand GOD" can we have any social groups and would we not be left with just this Message Board in your “boundary less” world?

 

What a great idea.

 

Where we are going now is uncharted territory - the Church has not had the courage - individuals have. The result will enevitably lead towards the tendency to form some tribal affiliations as in the past but I think this time it might be different. What will we do will all those empty churces? They can't all be turned into museums!

 

I can disagree with David K - he can disagree with me - we don't have to play at some 'love-in' which is nothing but hyprocricy anyway. David K has points to make, as do others, but when such points are repetitive acts of past abuses committed by the Church I have to hold up my hand. Whether anyone takes any notice is another matter.

[David]

I’m sorry if you do not see the relationship between your “no boundary” posting and this thread.

 

You seem to have only one vision of the Church. That vision seems to be based upon a Church which requires that you check your mind at the door, come in and repeat the Nicene Creed and then try to somehow apply that to what really matters. You seem to say that it is not possible to have a Progressive Christian Church.

 

I would disagree. I would encourage you to do some research. For one example check out Christ Community Church in Spring Lake Michigan. They have a wonderful internet site. Please visit it. I do not think they will be “bypassed” by individuals even as progressive as you are. I think they will have more impact upon the world than you as an individual will have. They have a "dogma" and a "doctrine" that is inclusive but also would exclude the likes of DavidK.

 

It is just not "my call" as to whether to accept or reject the Church of DavidK. DavidK is a symbol of a serious social movement that affects among other things the Middle East conflict. It is "your call" whether to respond only as an individual on a message board or attempt to respond to a social movement with another social movement. I would hope that we all will be able to eventually find places like the Christ Community Church and I would reject that it is a "great idea" to be just left with this message board in a "boundry less" world.

[Wayseer]

David - I'm nor sure where you are going in this. However, I will try to respond in a constructive way.

 

It would seem you know something of the church according to Davidk of which I am ignorant. DavidK is a symbol of a serious social movement that affects among other things the Middle East conflict. Perhaps you might share that knowledge. As far as I am concerned I take what Davidk, you or anyone else on this board may say on face value and endeavour to repond in an honest a manner as I am able.

 

I googled the site you recommended and the first hit was, interestingly, Christ Community Church is Brisbane, Australia - about 350 kilometers from where I live. This is the Church's philosophy -

 

We Believe...

 

that the Bible is the written Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error in the original manuscripts. The Bible is our infallible and divine authority in all matters of faith and life.

 

Well .... I think you see what I mean about being fettered by ignorance, if not lies.

 

However, I narrowed the search and came up with the site - one which I already have in my bookmarks as it so happens. Notice the difference in philosophy -

 

We live together in awe of Life, connected by a sense of mystery that many call God.

 

Inclusive grace moves us to embrace all with unconditional love and gracious acceptance, celebrating ethnicity, gender, age and sexual orientation.

 

Christ Community is a diverse, creative community in background, in faith perspective, in public expression; a blending of all the great spiritual traditions.

 

Christ Community finds a window to God in the face of Jesus and also in the quest and insight of other faiths; seeking dialogue and mutual enrichment in our pluralistic world.

 

We strive for greater justice and peace in the world inspired by Jesus and social activists through the centuries who challenged the status quo,

 

We seek to be the change we wish to see in the world, respecting earth’s patterns, and honoring wellness in its many forms.

 

Christ Community is a community of open mind and warm heart, valuing the progressive unfolding of theology, where all are encouraged to honor their minds live their questions and embrace inner peace.

 

We invite all to join us in this exciting adventure of humanity.

 

There is no 'we believe' here - I don't read any imposed 'boundaries' in this philosophy. Rather, what I read is an openness that invites all who wish to enter - there is no restriction. On that point you may well be right - such a church could lead the way forward. As Chesterton once said; it's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting; it's that Christianity has never been serioulsy tried in the first place (or words to that effect).

 

Of course, those like Davidk would run a mile from this church - such an expression of freedom threatens their own philosophy to such an extent that they could only respond in hate. But, as I suggest, that his choice.

 

My concern is that dogma and doctrine are constructed to stop the perceived threat that DavidK lookalikes impose on established order. This is what the institutionalised Church did - stopped anyone with a slightly different point of view from being part of the Church. They were extradordingly effective. We are now only breaking out of that repressive past.

 

I don't know what part of the world in which you live but in my part I live in a spiritual desert. Yes, there are small oasis here and there but they are far apart and the cost of travel, at least for me, is all but prohibitive. So, for the moment at least, there is only me. It is from sites such as this I get sustainance and a sense of a community, far flung as it may be.

 

I don't think we are all that far apart David. Then again, perhaps I'm more like Davidk than I care to admit - seeking responses means that I'm not totally alone - that there are others with similar experiences - and that helps.

[October's Autumn]

Okay, so I'm agreeing with both of you so I'm having problems understanding what the conflict is...