The Grail

[minsocal]

A community based on the first formula will eventually reveal itself in its political governance. Totalitarianism, Stalinism, and Laissez-faire Capitalism are all excellent examples of societal structures built on Status Anxiety. It ain't pretty.

 

A community based on the second formula -- on Jesus' Way, on the values espoused by Progressive Christians (among many others) -- is a society where people contribute their unique talents to teams who are working to improve education, health care, access to services, and so on, regardless of class, regardless of income, regardless of race, regardless of gender, regardless of sexual orientation. This is the inversion spoken of by Jesus in the Beatitudes and in James.

 

It took us a while (a mere 2,000 years or so) to catch on to what Jesus was actually saying, but I think we're getting it now.

 

Jen

 

Jen,

 

Thanks for your response. We are in agreement then ... any differences I might have would be minor when contrasted with larger picture.

 

minsocal

[Realspiritik]

Jen,

 

Thanks for your response. We are in agreement then ... any differences I might have would be minor when contrasted with larger picture.

 

minsocal

 

Cool.

[Realspiritik]

Oops. When I wrote Post #24, I used a confusing phrase at the beginning. I wrote, "If you're busy trying to copy all the latest trends -- i.e. if you're emulating the idea that there is only one "right" way to dress (oneness of body) and only one "right" way to think (oneness of mind) -- then you're not spending any time trying to understand what makes you unique from God's point of view." I would like to edit that sentence to say "If you're busy trying to copy all the latest trends -- i.e. if you're emulating the idea that there is only one "right" way to dress (sameness of body) and only one "right" way to think (sameness of mind)." Jesus picked the terms for the two formulae, and I don't want to mess with the Big Guy .

 

I would use the edit feature to change it, except the edit feature disappears after half an hour.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

Jen

[Realspiritik]

I understand Canajan's thought completely. How can we, as Children of God, fully realize our potential a spititual beings? By looking at ourselves, by reaching within, we come in contact with the Beyond, the Deep, which lies beneath all of this intellectualizing and speculating that we do in order to try to understand what we cannot and will never. We sense something More, reach out, long for...and even our words are inadequate. How can we describe that which must be experienced first hand in order to be understood? It is not our thoughts or words or the thoughts and words of others that opens up the Infinite within ourselves, but the direct, inward seeking and the direct, personal experience resulting from such seeking. There is no such thing as second-hand enlightenment. We cannot know God in a hand-me-down way. If we are to ever come to experience the Deep within, we must do it alone, by ourselves, with ourselves, and with an empty mind. All of our formulations, theories, theologies and constructions amount to nothing more than speculation and guesswork. God is Within...here...now.

 

Russ, I've been reflecting on your post, and I'd just like to thank you for your words. Would you feel comfortable sharing more about your personal experience? Thanks.

 

Jen

[Wayseer]

The more I learn about myself the more I understand how little I know. Those who wish to 'reach within' are, I suggest, deluding themselves. Yes, I accept that all this new age stuff is very persuasive and pervasive - it leads to a belief that it is just a matter of tapping into some internal wellspring and all will be revealed. If such were the case then we would never need all those books telling us how inadequate we are because we just don't know 'how to do it'.

 

For true Seekers, the words of others are their guide. For Seekers also realise our dimished existence and therefore accept such along with their personal reservations. For the Seeker, uncertainity is intergral to the path. Those Seekers who dwell alone do so after years of study - not because of some whim of individualism or in pursuit of the latest in spiritual fads. Most Seekers go unrecognise because they look just like you and me - rather ordinary really. You might get an idea of their true potential if you happened to engage with them in some meaningful conversation or catch a glimpse of their personal library. Otherwise they live in this world alongside all us 'followers'.

 

'We cannot know God in hand me down ways". Really? I would suggest there is no other way to begin.

[October's Autumn]

'We cannot know God in hand me down ways". Really? I would suggest there is no other way to begin.

 

 

I disagree. I inherit students from other teachers. One of the frequent pitfalls in teaching is to accept the student's previous teacher's assessment of them. I have to get to know each of my students, myself. I have to look at them with my eyes. I think the same goes for God. I have to find God and know God from my experiences. I can't use other people's experiences to know God.

[minsocal]

The more I learn about myself the more I understand how little I know. Those who wish to 'reach within' are, I suggest, deluding themselves. Yes, I accept that all this new age stuff is very persuasive and pervasive - it leads to a belief that it is just a matter of tapping into some internal wellspring and all will be revealed. If such were the case then we would never need all those books telling us how inadequate we are because we just don't know 'how to do it'.

 

For true Seekers, the words of others are their guide. For Seekers also realise our dimished existence and therefore accept such along with their personal reservations. For the Seeker, uncertainity is intergral to the path. Those Seekers who dwell alone do so after years of study - not because of some whim of individualism or in pursuit of the latest in spiritual fads. Most Seekers go unrecognise because they look just like you and me - rather ordinary really. You might get an idea of their true potential if you happened to engage with them in some meaningful conversation or catch a glimpse of their personal library. Otherwise they live in this world alongside all us 'followers'.

 

'We cannot know God in hand me down ways". Really? I would suggest there is no other way to begin.

 

Ethically, if there are two different "kinds" of people, those who search "within" and those who search "without", both are "true seekers" .... they just don't see each other in the same way. The differences are ancient in origin. Progressive thought seeks to reach beyond this false dichotomy.

 

P.S. Both views are represented in the Bible.

[grampawombat]

On the one hand I think of myself as an "inner directed" person, whose convictions come from using reason and experience. On the other, I am also influenced by my community; mostly that means the congregation to which I belong, but also means those whose opinions I respect in the wider community as well.

[Wayseer]

You all miss the point I was making. You have gone on the defensive. I was not speaking about 'experiences' - whatever they may be.

 

My premise is -

 

Learning originates from others.

 

then-

 

Others (including their books) are therefore important.

 

then -

 

Important because we have something by which to understand what we might call 'internal experiences'.

 

If my premise is wrong then you have to prove that we do not learn from others.

 

I am just as intuitive as the next person but that intuition is informed by a particular learning curve which developed through my early years and sustained and nourished in my teens and ealy maturity. That learning did not fall out of the sky - others were implicity involved. To ignore that involvment defies reality. That we might reach a point were one might act 'intuitively' is the result of accumulative learning process over many years. If one is honest then I suggest we will all find that we have learnt off others. That we later learn to modify that learning through our own experience is part of growing up - maturity. To deny that learning process is an act of grand arrogance in my view and is more in keeping with the popularist contemporary promise that the individual is the measure of all things.

 

I am probably doing more reading now than I have ever done in the past. Wonder why.

[grampawombat]

Gee, I though I was (more or less) agreeing with you.

[Realspiritik]

On the one hand I think of myself as an "inner directed" person, whose convictions come from using reason and experience. On the other, I am also influenced by my community; mostly that means the congregation to which I belong, but also means those whose opinions I respect in the wider community as well.

 

That sounds reasonable and balanced to me. We need be both inner-directed and outer-directed, which, as Minsocal points out, is not a dichotomy. Ideally, we're constantly comparing and contrasting the information we get from other people and the information we gather from our own unique experiences. We're sifting and sorting, trying to figure out who we are as part of God's family.

 

Wayseer, I don't see October's Autumn, Minsocal, and grampawombat's responses as being defensive. You presented this unequivocal statement: 'We cannot know God in hand me down ways". Really? I would suggest there is no other way to begin.' I think there are some here, including myself, who disagree with the one-sided nature of this comment. None of us disputes the importance of outside education, books, or learning. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a group of people more in favour of education (please count me in this group). But people are not like tabulas rasa, blank slates to be filled exclusively by other people's ideas. We each have a unique, inherent, and integral nature given to us by God. That is the soul. The soul is within. When we speak of inner-directed spiritual learning, we are speaking about the soul.

 

Your soul is unique to you. You are the only one (apart from God) who can truly know your soul's inherent nature. That is the part of the journey that nobody else can know, and nobody else can participate it. That is your unique experience. It is an experience that is separate but complementary to the knowledge you find from others in community.

 

If, however, you do not believe in the existence of an inner self or soul, then I can see why you would be upset by the "inner-directed/outer-directed" way of understanding our relationship with God.

 

Jen

[davidk]

Respondants to Wayseer have not only radicalized his position to being unrecognizable, but, in reading the responses, I found they perhaps did not take enough time to understand what he said.

 

Wayseer is on the right track. Learning begins from external inputs.

---

 

Finite man is well able to find different perspectives through communication with other finite men, and should; but all answers will ultimately fall insufficient if finite man is our highest source. Man cannot find the answers for knowledge and effort beginning with himself, he is finite, the ultimate answers will always be wanting.

 

Jean Paul Sartre put it this way, if a finite source does not have an infinite reference point, it is meaningless and absurd.

 

If we begin only with finite man's knowledge and effort, all answers are absurd and meaningless. It is only an infinite-personal God's initiating effort and knowledge that can provide us sufficient answers. When we finally begin to absorb this reality we will begin to have God's Spirit residing in our hearts. From that inspiration, that source of knowledge, we can search our selves for our finite personal cooperation with the infinite personal God.

[Wayseer]

But people are not like tabulas rasa, blank slates to be filled exclusively by other people's ideas.

 

I think this is where our disagreement lies. I would suggest that is exactly what we are like - a dry sponge ready to soak up any information coming within range of our senses. Reality is really a social construct - it all depends on where you are born. If any of us had been born in the Sudan we would not be having this conversation.

 

That initial learning process is later moderated by our own perceptions.

 

I accept that there is some 'divine spark' or whatever you might term it, lying within all sentient beings. But the existence of that divine spark can only be ignited by outside intervention. If we don't learn about it we will never know of its existence. Even Jesus was ignited by that spark from beyond himself. But of course I tread on many philosophical toes here.

 

Thank you Davidk.

[McKenna]

The experience of cherishing God, of treating God with kindness instead of harsh rebuke, is part of what it feels like to live with Oneness of Heart. The opposite of this, "hierarchy of the heart," is the experience of loneliness, anger, grudge-holding, and self-victimization that comes with treating God (and, inevitably, your family, friends, and community) according to the honour/shame "principles" of Status Anxiety. Among Christians today, there is an extraordinary level of cruelty towards God. It is cruel and abusive to blame God for the choices we make that we are secretly ashamed of. Jesus knew that (James 1:13-14), and he clearly said so.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Jen

 

Thanks for the explanation!

[McKenna]

I think this is where our disagreement lies. I would suggest that is exactly what we are like - a dry sponge ready to soak up any information coming within range of our senses. Reality is really a social construct - it all depends on where you are born. If any of us had been born in the Sudan we would not be having this conversation.

 

That initial learning process is later moderated by our own perceptions.

 

I accept that there is some 'divine spark' or whatever you might term it, lying within all sentient beings. But the existence of that divine spark can only be ignited by outside intervention. If we don't learn about it we will never know of its existence. Even Jesus was ignited by that spark from beyond himself. But of course I tread on many philosophical toes here.

 

Thank you Davidk.

 

Hey Wayseer,

 

Man, I'm just gonna be the person on this thread asking all the basic questions I guess...oh well I see where you're coming from, but could you explain the relation of your comment to this thread? Were you just responding to Russ?

 

Thanks

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

First off I'd like to Thank Davidk for his participation.

 

There is much that I would like to add, but for time limitations I will keep this very brief...

 

A contradiction exists in fact many of them exist and wham I was hit with another one, the two thoughts do contradict one another.

 

McKenna I hope you are paying close attention, and Davidk for this there is 'no bridge'...

 

Look read and know the book of Job as Wayseer has introduced this text and compare Job to James the verse that Jen used James 1:13-14... From Genesis to Revelation Satan is pure evil in the book of Job where do we find evil?

 

I'm telling you 'all' that the creation of evil is a creation of People and not GOD, this evil that people have created is used only to control the masses and is not allowing people to hold other people accountable for their own actions and applying proper discipline.

 

We are all disciples of the teachings of Jesus but we are not givien the correct information from the leaders as they have wrongly interpretted the lessons...

 

Perceptions and reactions have created a darkness to grow around the earth we need to become the beacons and lights of GOD teaching and sharing and picking each other up and caring for one another.

 

The true message is to know Love... To know GOD through Love...

 

There are many contradictions in the Bible for the Bible is written by the hands of people trying to manipulate the message for profit, not that the Bible doesn't contain the words of GOD through several prophets but that too many people have manipulated the text for personal gain.

 

Again we wrestle with the history of the Bible and all other Religious texts that have been created.

 

I could say so much about those that abuse others and the meek are the victims those humble children abused by bullies. The damage created takes too many years to repair and there is no reason for such a lag in today's society with the technology that we possess...

 

Human Nature vs. Nature and Humans we can do much better than we have been doing in the sense of the greater community we could do a much better job.

 

In the end it would be a blessing to both our neighbors and GOD...

[davidk]

You understand the need for unity and diversity but have abandoned the Christian explanation of God and His creation, leaving the only rational explanation behind.

--

"We cannot know God in a hand-me-down way. ... we must do it alone... with an empty mind. All of our formulations, theories, theologies and constructions amount to nothing more than speculation and guesswork." - Russ

 

We must experience alone, from within, with an empty mind and believe in no more than our speculations and guesswork?

--

"The first formula is a "cultural package" of beliefs and values that creates tremendous stress on all our relationships, including our relationship with God. If you're busy trying to copy all the latest trends... then you're not spending any time trying to understand what makes you unique from God's point of view, and you're not spending any time practising (sic) empathy for other people's way of dressing or other people's way of thinking." -canajan, uh?

 

"A community based on the first formula will eventually reveal itself in its political governance. ... It ain't pretty." -canajan, uh?

 

"Inside your confused weary human brain" the belief in the deity of Jesus Christ is incompatible with modern 'scientific' world views. So one follows the surrounding societies "cultural package" rather than Biblical teaching. The essence of theological liberalism is allowing thinking and living to be shaped by the surrounding society’s finite views and values instead of God's revelation, creating a false sense of reality. It's unable to explain man's extraordinary nobility and man's "... extraordinary level of cruelty towards God" and his fellow man. All the while, Biblical Christianity has been verbalizing the sufficient explanation for centuries.

 

There's no "God the Mother" in Christianity. L/P theology, take your place in the line of lost sheep with the "cultural package" of beliefs and "your unconscionable sense of superiority". There is no God the Mother. We are not angels. The only 'divine' we have is a verb or an adjective, for we are only the finite receptor of the knowledge of The Divine, the triune God, the infinite external source (of everything) revealed to us through Scripture. Ya know, all those references from Luke and James and Job and such about God and Jesus so often found quoted in these posts.

--

"...act of grand arrogance,... the popularist contemporary promise that the individual is the measure of all things." -Wayseer

 

The Grail: Not a leap of faith, but the historic Christian faith, where I am invited to ask my sufficient questions in regard to the existence, order and complexity of the universe but also in regard to the existence of man and then believe God and bow before Him metaphysically in knowing that I exist because He made man, and bow before Him morally as needing His provision for me in the substitutionary, propitiatory death of Christ.

[minsocal]

You understand the need for unity and diversity but have abandoned the Christian explanation of God and His creation, leaving the only rational explanation behind.

--

"We cannot know God in a hand-me-down way. ... we must do it alone... with an empty mind. All of our formulations, theories, theologies and constructions amount to nothing more than speculation and guesswork." - Russ

 

We must experience alone, from within, with an empty mind and believe in no more than our speculations and guesswork?

--

"The first formula is a "cultural package" of beliefs and values that creates tremendous stress on all our relationships, including our relationship with God. If you're busy trying to copy all the latest trends... then you're not spending any time trying to understand what makes you unique from God's point of view, and you're not spending any time practising (sic) empathy for other people's way of dressing or other people's way of thinking." -canajan, uh?

 

"A community based on the first formula will eventually reveal itself in its political governance. ... It ain't pretty." -canajan, uh?

 

"Inside your confused weary human brain" the belief in the deity of Jesus Christ is incompatible with modern 'scientific' world views. So one follows the surrounding societies "cultural package" rather than Biblical teaching. The essence of theological liberalism is allowing thinking and living to be shaped by the surrounding society’s finite views and values instead of God's revelation, creating a false sense of reality. It's unable to explain man's extraordinary nobility and man's "... extraordinary level of cruelty towards God" and his fellow man. All the while, Biblical Christianity has been verbalizing the sufficient explanation for centuries.

 

There's no "God the Mother" in Christianity. L/P theology, take your place in the line of lost sheep with the "cultural package" of beliefs and "your unconscionable sense of superiority". There is no God the Mother. We are not angels. The only 'divine' we have is a verb or an adjective, for we are only the finite receptor of the knowledge of The Divine, the triune God, the infinite external source (of everything) revealed to us through Scripture. Ya know, all those references from Luke and James and Job and such about God and Jesus so often found quoted in these posts.

--

"...act of grand arrogance,... the popularist contemporary promise that the individual is the measure of all things." -Wayseer

 

The Grail: Not a leap of faith, but the historic Christian faith, where I am invited to ask my sufficient questions in regard to the existence, order and complexity of the universe but also in regard to the existence of man and then believe God and bow before Him metaphysically in knowing that I exist because He made man, and bow before Him morally as needing His provision for me in the substitutionary, propitiatory death of Christ.

 

Are you certain?

[minsocal]

Are you certain?

 

Then that is a "closed" system of beliefs.

[minsocal]

If my premise is wrong then you have to prove that we do not learn from others.

 

Why?

[Realspiritik]

You understand the need for unity and diversity but have abandoned the Christian explanation of God and His creation, leaving the only rational explanation behind.

--

"We cannot know God in a hand-me-down way. ... we must do it alone... with an empty mind. All of our formulations, theories, theologies and constructions amount to nothing more than speculation and guesswork." - Russ

 

We must experience alone, from within, with an empty mind and believe in no more than our speculations and guesswork?

--

 

DavidK, the cut-and-paste job you did on Russ's prose does not, in my view, reflect at all what Russ was attempting to express. You are determined to use any means within your power to belittle those of us who are expressing a point of view that differs from your own. Again, I ask you to please not engage with my material. Please start a different thread. I'm sure it is quite clear to everybody who reads this site that you and I have diametrically opposed views on everything.

 

It is deeply ironic that you would attempt to challenge my position with the above statement: "You understand the need for unity and diversity but have abandoned the Christian explanation of God and His creation, leaving the only rational explanation behind." This is too funny. Leaving only the rational behind? I am, of anybody posting on this site at present, the most radically mystical mystic of anyone. I am the scientist who is also a full-time channeller, a full-time mystic who gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night having spent the contemplative portion of my day (that is, the portion of my day not spent with family and community) engaged in active quantum communication with assorted quantum beings (i.e. angels), who talks every day to Jesus, who reaches out to God the Mother and God the Father in everything I do. So get off my case, Davidk. I have a wildly complete, joyful, trusting, blissful relationship with God, and I do not need your "help" to "save" poor helpless me from my "error."

 

I am not speaking to you. I am content that you and God will work it out. I am speaking to other Progressive Christians who have the same kinds of questions that I have, who are looking for a way to reconcile issues such as faith vs. science -- issues that have been forced apart by dogmatic Christians (like you, Davidk) and also by dogmatic scientists. This false dichotomy between faith and science must end. You, however, are not helping -- you toss around cliches and isolated phrases (some of which include scientific terms), but you aren't saying anything that Augustine of Hippo, the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Constantinople, and the Council of Chalcedon didn't cover in the 4th century. I am suspicious of anyone who is fearful of asking new questions about God. To me, it demonstrates a lack of trust in God's motives. It's also hypocritical to demand that Christians today abide by 1600-year-old theology when we do not abide by 1600-year-old medical treatments or 1600-year-old communication technologies. Surely God is not afraid of our questions! Surely God is not so insecure and so petulant as to demand fideism!

 

And you know what else, Davidk? Jesus doesn't seem to be afraid of questions, either. I ask him questions every day about science and theology. It was he, not I, who insisted that spiritual insight is obtained by fully integrating scientific knowledge with spiritual practices. It was he who put the emphasis on "apoptosis" rather than "apotheosis."

 

I will not be apologizing to you for anything I have said here, Davidk. I am not speaking any more strongly to you than you do to others.

 

Jen

[McKenna]

-canajan, uh?

 

Well that was rather rude.

 

"Inside your confused weary human brain" the belief in the deity of Jesus Christ is incompatible with modern 'scientific' world views. So one follows the surrounding societies "cultural package" rather than Biblical teaching. The essence of theological liberalism is allowing thinking and living to be shaped by the surrounding society’s finite views and values instead of God's revelation, creating a false sense of reality. It's unable to explain man's extraordinary nobility and man's "... extraordinary level of cruelty towards God" and his fellow man. All the while, Biblical Christianity has been verbalizing the sufficient explanation for centuries.

 

Okay. First of all. You do realize that we openly call ourselves Progressive Christians. Just as you openly call yourself a conservative Christian. So...duh that we are trying to take Christianity into the modern world, while you feel it has always been sufficient just the way it is. I mean...seriously...it isn't like this is breaking news or anything.

 

Secondly, I think most of us would argue that the Bible (as well as other early Church writings, and writings throughout the ages) also represents beliefs "shaped by the surrounding society's finite views and values." The culture of the time did influence what was written in the Bible - to deny that is, in my opinion, to deny reason and rationality, which you seem to be fond of. Furthermore, Christianity has changed over the centuries as society has changed. (Sorry, but I don't really think what Jesus had in mind was what the Catholic Church became - a huge megapower dominating an entire continent; nor could the Popes of old have anticipated the Protestant revolution. And how about the huge scope of churches today? Quakers, Catholics, Pentacostals, Mormons - all quite different...so which one, may I ask, truly preserves the true "Christianity"? This is a quick and simple question to answer. Please inform me.)

 

Progressives want to find the truth at the core of Christianity as much as you. It's not like we're on some diabolical mission to destroy Christianity. I'd appreciate if you'd stop implying that we're simply trying to get a Christianity that will "sell" today, like we're trying to market some watered-down version that people could believe today. That is NOT what we are trying to do, at least not the people here, who I believe are honest seekers. What we are trying to do is get to that core of Christianity, the truths at the heart of it that transcend culture/society; and we are also trying to understand it in light of today's scientific knowledge, which because of RATIONALITY (oh my goodness it's that word again) we cannot just reject! I.e. we can't see Jesus in comparison to Adam (except metaphorically) because Adam never existed, or at least, he was not the first man, and he did not eat a magical apple that condemned humanity to suffering.

 

Our mission is no different from yours. We are seeking truth. Please stop repeating that "L/Ps" or whatever you're calling us are doing otherwise. It's really getting tiresome.

 

"We will continue to delete posts in all areas of the boards - including this one - that we do not feel are presented in a manner that is respectful of other viewpoints, or seeks to convert, or coerce, or attack." <- I do not believe you are respecting our viewpoint (since you do not seem to have allowed yourself to learn anything from anyone here - in which case I must again ask what you are doing here...perhaps you think you will change our minds...but then that would be seeking to convert us, wouldn't it?).

[Realspiritik]

Secondly, I think most of us would argue that the Bible (as well as other early Church writings, and writings throughout the ages) also represents beliefs "shaped by the surrounding society's finite views and values." The culture of the time did influence what was written in the Bible - to deny that is, in my opinion, to deny reason and rationality, which you seem to be fond of. Furthermore, Christianity has changed over the centuries as society has changed. (Sorry, but I don't really think what Jesus had in mind was what the Catholic Church became - a huge megapower dominating an entire continent; nor could the Popes of old have anticipated the Protestant revolution. And how about the huge scope of churches today? Quakers, Catholics, Pentacostals, Mormons - all quite different...so which one, may I ask, truly preserves the true "Christianity"? This is a quick and simple question to answer. Please inform me.)

 

Beautifully said, McKenna.

 

I actually agree with everything you wrote, but I picked out the quote just above because I had decided a few minutes ago to get back on this thread and challenge the statement Davidk made in Post #13 about "Christianity," and when I got here, I discovered you had already beat me to the punch with your bang-on observations about the huge scope of the church today.

 

In Post #13, Davidk made the rash and insupportable statement that "the 'path' you [meaning me, Jen] are expounding upon is vastly different from Christianity. If that is your path, that is undeniably up to you, but do not call it Christianity." Ever since then, I've been thinking about the gall of Davidk's statement, and I've been wondering whether he would have the courage to get back on here, and say to us something all the lines of, "Well, you know, I guess when I review all the books about church history, and when I look at the dispute in the New Testament between Paul and the early church in Jerusalem headed by James, and when I factor in the very early differences between the Johannine community's understanding of Jesus (Gospel of John, Epistles of John) compared to, say, the Gospel of Mark's understanding of Jesus, then, well, you know, perhaps I was a bit one-sided in stating that my own orthodox understanding of Christianity is the only correct way of understanding Jesus and Christianity, because clearly there has never been, in all the history of Christianity, a single, correct, uniformly accepted idea of what it means to follow Jesus."

 

But I don't think Davidk has the courage to be honest about what is written in the Bible, let alone be honest about the catastrophic harm inflicted by the orthodox Western church on many others (please note, Davidk, the small "o" in orthodox, and the capital "W" in Western, as I would not want anyone here to think that I have not read up on church history) -- including, but not limited to, the harm intentionally imposed upon Jews, Muslims, other Christians, aboriginal populations, women, children, and those who are not fully abled.

 

Meanwhile, the Grail for Davidk, is not a leap of faith, but the historic Christian faith. Like . . . give me a break. There isn't even a single, unambiguous understanding of Jesus in the New Testament that is agreed upon by all the canonical writers, let alone a homogeneous "historic Christian faith."

 

Davidk, I await with considerable interest the Houdini-like contortions you will go through to try to explain to us poor ol' unenlightened Progressives, boobs that we are, why your statement is not factually wrong, and why the real problem is that we misunderstand you and try to distort your message.

 

Ain't life a bitch.

 

Jen

[davidk]

Are you certain?

yes

[davidk]

Well that was rather rude.

At first, I coudn't figure out what you were talking about. Then I realized I had mistakenly typed a "u" instead of an "e" in her blog name.