Jesus Versus Paul

[Guest billmc]

...Their messages were different because they were intended for different cultures. I eventually came to the conclusion that it is all about context.

 

Your post gave me some good food for thought and reflection, Javelin. Perhaps like you, I would have chaffed at two different "salvation methods" or "dispensations" a few years ago. After all, conservative Christianity does seem to want a "one size fits all" MO.

 

But what your post made me think of was this: if we understand the word "salvation" in it's original pre-Dante meaning, it goes back to the idea of "wholeness" or "completeness" or even "maturity." Again, I don't want to descend too far into what I believe is Pauline doctrine, but if salvation has to do with wholeness, then it stands to reason that, yes, different cultures and different people are "broken" in different ways. What it takes for one person to find wholeness or purpose or meaning may not work for the next person. If that is the case, then, yes, the gospel may need to be reshaped and reformed for every generation or even for particular people.

 

A related annecdote: Salvation is usually perceived, with modern Christianity, as having one's sins forgiven and getting an assurance of the future gain of heaven. But if Moses had taken this kind of "salvation" to the Hebrews who were busting their backs in Egypt, they may have replied, "That's nice, but we need to be delivered from oppression and slavery."

 

The salvation I accepted at the age of 12 was, I suppose, appropriate for that age. But I need a different kind of salvation now as I enter into the latter half of my life. The salvation I had at 12 was an assurance that I would gain heaven and that God had a specific plan for me. The salvation that I am finding now has to do with my desire to leave something of significance and good to the world. And though Jesus is the centerpoint for both of these kinds of salvation, the relationship is deeper (and in some ways more troubling) than it was at 12.

 

So I don't mind so much the notion of different gospels or different salvations. This may, again, point to how unique and priceless we all are. God is an artist, not a baker.

[Guest billmc]

Your comment about how some PCs probably follow a Jesus that reflects their own ego is what struck me. I'll be looking to see if that is true about myself... I'm sure it is, to some extent...

 

Hmmm. Upon further reflection (and the passage of some time), I may have been somewhat hasty in my assessment.

 

What I mean is that we don't have the historical Jesus here. As Spong says, that person is dead and gone. What we have is a myriad of views about Christ, whether it be the Christ of history (Jesus) or the Christ of faith (the Spirit of Christ). Who is to say what the real Christ is? And does it really matter as much as the "Jesus scholars" say?

 

I was thinking about the old Jimmy Stewart movie, "Harvey", where Jimmy's character, Elwood, is thought to be quite psychotic because he has this relationship with Harvey the giant rabbit. Elwood is one of the nicest and best people you could ever want to meet, even if he believes in a delusion. The point of the movie, IMO, is that if they actually "cure" Elwood of his delusion, he would most likely be just as ornery and mean-spirited as many of the people who have to deal with "reality" everyday.

 

So I sometimes wonder if all of this God and Jesus stuff, though possibly being just all our individual giant rabbits, is what makes life bearable? Maybe there really isn't anything "real" behind religion, maybe it is all a product of our egos? But if it makes us better people, is there really harm in it? A reviewer for "Harvey" said, "Is Harvey real? The film leaves that up to our imaginations. And in the end, it doesn't matter if Harvey is a figment of Elwood's imagination, or a friendly spirit. It's the effect he has on Elwood that is important. His presence makes Elwood happy and relaxed, and Elwood makes others happy and relaxed."

 

How do we really know what is "real" anyway? I suppose that is one of my beefs with Christianity - it starts it's evangelical approach by trying to prove that God is real by using "miracles" as that proof. But the most powerful evidence for the "truth" of it is changed lives, not metaphysical laws.

 

Just, I hope, more food for thought.

[Javelin]

Admittedly Bill, I have not reached your level of Nirvana. I’m still very much struggling with forty some years of fundamentalist teaching and indoctrination. At this point I am just attempting to place scripture in its historical context so it at least makes sense to me on that level.

 

I’m certainly not on your level. I’m still metaphorically attempting to build a bridge with tinker toys. I’m a long way from even thinking about what the real engineering might entail. I’m sure not ready to order any steel.

 

I spend most of my time just reading and attempting to absorb the wisdom and possibilities being expressed by minds far superior to mine.

 

You, Joseph, and October’s Autumn are blowing me away with your wisdom, knowledge, and insightfulness. I’m pretty much in awe of this place right now, but hungry to learn and explore new possibilities.

 

I don’t possess the education or skills to articulate my thoughts as precisely or eloquently as a number of other contributors do. I’m here mostly to read and learn. My contributions, such as they may be, will be more on an elementary level.

[JosephM]

Javelin,

 

Sounds to me like you got the important part. Articulation and education are secondary when it comes to spiritual thing, at least in my view. It seems to me it is most important not to be taken much by good sounding words but to continue to examine your own experiences which it seems come naturally when the obstacles that prevent them are taken out of the way. Perhaps one of those obstacles is to much of man's education. To me true spiritual knowledge comes from beyond the mind and its nice if we can then express or articulate it by mind but there seems to me to be a trap whereby we get lost in the articulation instead of living in the experience.

 

Just a view to consider,

 

Joseph

[Guest billmc]

Admittedly Bill, I have not reached your level of Nirvana.

 

Ha ha! Your reply made me chuckle, Javelin. Nirvana? Me? No where close, my friend. I wrote on my blog that I know way more about what I DON'T believe than what I DO. Often wrong, seldom unsure -- that's me!

 

I’m still very much struggling with forty some years of fundamentalist teaching and indoctrination.

 

Me, too! I have lots of old fundie tapes that still play in my head.

 

At this point I am just attempting to place scripture in its historical context so it at least makes sense to me on that level.

 

That was/is a necessary step for me also, Javelin. For two main reasons: 1) I still value the scriptures and 2) seeing them in their historical context helps me to see that my faith should not be in the scriptures themselves.

 

I’m still metaphorically attempting to build a bridge with tinker toys. I’m a long way from even thinking about what the real engineering might entail. I’m sure not ready to order any steel.

 

 

Joseph would say this much more eloquently than I, but you are where you are. There is great freedom and release in just accepting that.

 

I spend most of my time just reading and attempting to absorb the wisdom and possibilities being expressed by minds far superior to mine.

 

There is ALOT of variety on this forum. Alot. And occasionally (though not often), it can almost take on the similar-to-fundie rivalry of "Who is the REAL progressive Christian?" So don't put anyone on a pedestal, my friend. We are all just real people (well, most of us except for Joseph who is really the reincarnation of the Stay-Puft Marshmellow Man from Ghostbusters) who are sharing our journeys.

 

I don’t possess the education or skills to articulate my thoughts as precisely or eloquently as a number of other contributors do. I’m here mostly to read and learn. My contributions, such as they may be, will be more on an elementary level.

 

As Joseph said, just be yourself. In all the universe, amongst all the billions of galaxies and stars, there is only one of you. So be who you are and we'll do our best to treasure your uniqueness.

[Javelin]

Joseph & Bill, thanks to both of you for your encouragement. I think the shock of finding a site like this still has me in its grip. I feel like a kid in a candy store that has been given twenty dollars to spend any way I want. I know I want some of everything, but I don’t know where to start.

 

TCPC is so different from anything I’ve ever been exposed to that I’m a bit overwhelmed. My thinking has coincided with the tenets of Progressive Christianity for a number of years, which placed me clearly outside the comfort zone of my Christian friends. I’ve been the focus of many prayers because my soul is clearly in danger of eternal damnation.

 

I think I’m in recovery mode right now. A lot of negative things have occurred in my church life during the past year. This isn’t a counseling site so I won’t go into all of that stuff. I will simply say it’s been an emotionally traumatic experience with no end in sight. I sincerely appreciate the encouragement.

[Guest billmc]

I think I’m in recovery mode right now. A lot of negative things have occurred in my church life during the past year. This isn’t a counseling site so I won’t go into all of that stuff. I will simply say it’s been an emotionally traumatic experience with no end in sight. I sincerely appreciate the encouragement.

 

Speaking from my own experience, Joseph and many others here have been very encouraging to me. They accept me warts and all, even when I go off on a tangent (which I am prone to do). I suspect that they know, as I am coming to, that this is all about relationship.

 

This thread is a good example. We started off talking about doctrinal differences between Jesus and Paul. And somewhere along the way, we make new friends and learn to appreciate the differences and the journeys that others have taken. Other forums, truth be told, would say, "Get back to the topic of the thread. It is the topic that is important. Let's stay on track." But this community either knows or is discoverying that it is people that are important and that everything else is secondary. That is a rare thing, even on "Christian" forums. So there is no pressure here, IMO, to "keep up." Kinda nice, huh?

[rivanna]

Javelin wrote, “The Jewish believers saw, and understood, Christ in a very different context from Paul's Gentile believers. The Jews saw Jesus in the context of a Messiah King. The Gentiles saw Jesus in the context of a Messiah Savior.”

Could you elaborate on this contrast? I only skimmed the article you linked to, but it seems to make the false assumption that every letter attributed to Paul was actually written by him. I was not familiar with the claim that Roman Christians destroyed the Ebionites for not believing Jesus was divine. To me the more important idea you suggest is that there is no duality between Jesus and Paul in their messages, though the cultures they addressed were different.

The Jews expected the messiah would be a conquering hero - but for those who became Christians that image was replaced with the suffering servant concept from Isaiah. The Gentiles worshipped idols, and used the terms Lord, Son of God and Savior for the emperor. So for them, becoming Christian meant accepting Jesus’ “Kingdom of God” and Paul’s parallel term “Jesus is Lord” as a reversal of the unjust imperial systems of that time. "The way" that Jesus and Paul taught was one and the same – a subversive alternative wisdom which undermined every culture - a path of psychological and spiritual transformation centered in God as spirit.

[Javelin]

It’s a complex issue Rivanna and subject to a variety of interpretations. I claim no personal inspiration on the subject. Traditional Christianity, at least in my experience, teaches a confusing and conflicting message. Whether salvation comes by works, or by grace through faith alone, or some combination of those precepts, remains as unclear today as it was two thousand years ago.

 

If one steps outside the tenets of traditional fundamentalism then the reliability of the text itself becomes equally problematic. Assuming the text, although flawed, still retains sufficient truth to validate the message, or big picture, it reveals a distinct cultural split in the beliefs and practices of the Jewish and Gentile believers. That noted, both Jesus and Paul taught that salvation would be found only in the Messiah. I believe both also taught that such salvation would be obtained only by faith. If that is so, then they both taught the same message.

 

The split between the Jewish & Gentile believers is vividly revealed in Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the book of Acts especially in the fifteenth chapter, also identified as the Council of Jerusalem, where the actual split is recorded. Acts says that Paul first took his message to the Jews but they rebuked him. Then he went to the Gentiles who accepted his teaching. The issue of the completion of the Law was clearly a sore spot with the Jewish believers and one they would not accept.

 

The Jews continued to follow the law as well as their rituals and beliefs. The Gentiles did not follow the law or Jewish traditions. In my view, traditional believers today have mixed law and grace and are attempting to comply with both which has resulted in conflicting and confusing beliefs and practices. Many, if not most, traditional Christians today preach grace while embracing legalism. It is my personal belief that the real source of this confusion rest in a failure to clearly separate Paul’s teaching from the Jewish believers teaching & culture.

 

I’ve studied this issue quite a bit, but admittedly I am no expert on this subject. Additionally, I simply do no possess the education and skills necessary to adequately address this issue in a concise and informative manner. Sorry, but I have a tendency to ramble incoherently. There is quite a bit of information available on the web, which is where I got most of my information. The reliability of the data, as is likely true of any data, is subject to the creditability of the author. Most of the material I assembled, for whatever it’s worth, was the work of academics.

 

Depending on the validity of the gospels, Jesus confirmed, just before preaching the Sermon on the Mount, that his mission was to fulfill, or complete, the law. Paul is the only writer that I am aware of that actually taught that the law had been completed and nailed to the cross. The issue of the laws relevance, after the cross, was acrimonious and a major source of conflict between the Jewish and Gentile believers.

 

I believe the theory of duel gospels is valid and explains why present day believers are doctrinally confused because, as I have already noted, they continue to try and mix grace and law together in their beliefs and teachings. Other believers, however, see no doctrinal conflicts, duel gospels, or law/grace conflicts in their theological beliefs and are quite happy doing their own thing. To each his own

[Guest billmc]

This brings up the question of what does it mean to say that Jesus completed or fulfilled the law?

 

I recall reading in the gospels that Jesus said that he didn’t come to abolish (do away or end?) the law, but to fulfill it. But does fulfilling it do away with or end it? Or does fulfilling it only connote living it out completely?

 

Jesus did seem to teach that the law would not end until heaven and earth have passed away. Is that to be taken literally? Or was he speaking metaphorically of the “heaven and earth” of the Old Covenant? Why did he establish a New Covenant if the Old is still in effect until the earth is destroyed?

 

When Paul speaks of the law, with its ordinances, being nailed to the cross, was he speaking of Jesus being the embodiment of the Jewish law or the personification or fulfillment thereof?

 

Back when I used to teach SS, I taught a lot about grace. But, in retrospect, my idea about grace was that it was a reward from God or a response from God to true repentance. Repentance came first, and then grace followed. And grace was only received through Jesus Christ. No Christ, no grace. No repentance, no grace. I’m ashamed to admit it now, but I taught grace as a carrot on a stick. One had to repent and get all their beliefs right in order to receive grace.

 

I say all of this to say that most of my understanding about grace didn’t come from what Jesus taught, it came from what Paul taught, or from what I was taught that Paul taught. I have a different understanding of grace now, but it comes more from the way that I see Jesus interacting and treating others than from Pauline doctrine. Perhaps someday I will find a resource that can help me see Paul in a better light. But I still tend to think that a lot of confusion arises when people create their own gospels from their own “Christ-experiences” that bear little to no resemblance to what we know of the historical Jesus. It reminds me of that old game show, “Will the REAL Jesus please stand up?”

[Javelin]

My views about grace and works have changed radically over the past few years. I am unashamedly a follower of Paul’s teaching. I believe Paul is the only human being to be directly inspired personally by Christ with complete and intimate knowledge of the cross, it’s purpose, and meaning for mankind.

 

I have come to believe that Paul’s statement in Ephesians 2: "8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast", is literally true.

 

Paul’s statement, at least as far as I’m concerned, is in perfect alignment with John 3: 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

I have also come to personally believe the doctrine of substitutionary atonement explains what Jesus meant when he said he had come to fulfill, or complete, the law. Individual righteousness is obtained vicariously through Christ sacrifice rather than by individual works, deeds, or obedience to laws, rules, and commands. The only definition of repentance that makes sense to me says that repentance means to turn to God in faith.

 

I think Paul’s statement in Ephesians 2 is literally true, which indicates to me that grace is, in essence, a license to sin. I’ve come to believe the indwelling Holy Spirit’s influence is what keeps a believer from literally using grace as a license to sin.

 

Like I said, my beliefs are radical and unacceptable in most Christian circles, but it works for me.

[Guest billmc]

Very interesting conversation, Javelin.

 

Although you didn’t say this in your post, I couldn’t help but think how it just seems to be either the fate or the folly of human nature that we create G-O-D, Jesus, and religion in our own image, in order to meet our own needs. Who is to say whether this is right or wrong?

 

The earliest Jewish church obviously had a need to see Jesus as their Jewish messiah, the one whom they believed came to kick out the Romans and to re-establish Jerusalem and Israel as the center of the world. Soon, they believed, Jesus would return on a white horse, with legions of angels following, to crush their enemies and establish God’s kingdom on earth forevermore.

 

Paul seemed to see Jesus as God’s way, not primarily of restoring Jerusalem and Israel, but of restoring all of creation at some point. Soon, he believed, Jesus would return and every knee, Gentile and Jew, would bow before Christ in submission. Jesus was God’s means, according to Paul, of becoming “all in all.”

 

There have been numerous mystics down through the years, both inside the church and outside it, who have claimed visions, appearances, and messages from Jesus. As I haven’t had any, I am certainly in no position to judge the validity or truthfulness of such claims. Even if I did have one, given my skeptical nature, I would be more likely, like Scrooge, to attribute it to some bit of undigested beef than to a divine visit. But I would say this, and though Jesus said it about his followers, I suspect it applies to revelations of the “supernatural”: A tree is known by its fruit. If people claiming to have these experiences of the Spirit of Christ don’t exhibit the fruit of the Spirit, then I reserve the right to myself to doubt the validity of their claim.

 

So, on a certain level, I don’t really care if Matthew’s Jesus matches Paul’s Jesus. Jesus scholars readily admit that we can know almost nothing of who the historical Jesus really was. And I wouldn’t find a “second-hand” Jesus sufficient to my own journey. What matters to me is, does the Jesus that people claim to know/see/hear/experience lead them to live out the fruit of the Spirit? So, for now, I “cherry-pick” the parts out of the gospels, out of Paul’s epistles, and out of different people’s testimonies of Jesus that speak to me. . The rest, I let fall away.

 

I’m building my own view of Jesus, sort of a composite. But, unlike most Christians, 1) I openly admit that I am doing it and 2) I don’t want to foist it upon anyone else. The last thing I want to do is to get into “Jesus Wars”. I’ve had enough of singing, “Onward, Christian Soldiers!”

[rivanna]

Just a few responses to some of the ideas here--

 

“Whether salvation comes by works, or by grace through faith alone, or some combination of those…” Isn’t it always a combination? Salvation seems to me a state of mind that comes and goes during our lives, though my belief is that we all eventually return to God.

 

When Jesus said he came not to abolish but fulfill the law, I think it meant the old written code was replaced by a new covenant of spirit. The kingdom of God was at hand-- humanity was reconciled to God. The law which had been intended to help humans live in harmony with God and each other, had become a stumbling block that led to anger, fear, and alienation. I think Paul’s letters echo Jesus’ teaching about trusting in God’s love as freely given, rather than something we have to struggle to earn.

 

I agree about Ephesians 2, but I don’t see grace as a license to sin. Paul makes that clear in Romans 6:15 and elsewhere. Maybe what you meant was more like Galatians 5, “If you are led by the spirit, you are not subject to the law.” Of course the law in those times included alot of ordinances and rituals on diet, circumcision, holidays, etc.

 

About having radical views - the doctrine of vicarious or substitutionary atonement is fundamentalist. I imagine most progressive Christians adhere to the Christus Victor or moral example theory.

[Javelin]

 

.....About having radical views - the doctrine of vicarious or substitutionary atonement is fundamentalist. I imagine most progressive Christians adhere to the Christus Victor or moral example theory.

 

 

I continue to accept some fundamentalist beliefs while rejecting others. I accept some of the thinking associated with Progressive Christianity, but not all of it. I suppose that makes me some sort of an undefined hybrid believer.

 

Some elements of fundamentalism strike me as indefensible on any level. Some fundamentalists seem to reject any aspect of intellect, logic, or reason in their thinking. I don’t feel comfortable in that kind of environment.

 

Progressives, on the other hand, strike me as a bit too skeptical and agnostic on some issues, at least, too skeptical for my taste. It seems, as I’ve already noted, that I am currently theologically somewhere in between those two concepts.

[Guest billmc]

Progressives, on the other hand, strike me as a bit too skeptical and agnostic on some issues, at least, too skeptical for my taste. It seems, as I’ve already noted, that I am currently theologically somewhere in between those two concepts.

 

Javelin, one thing you’ll find here, and I’m sure you already know this, is a W-I-D-E range of opinions, beliefs, and experiences, much more so than on a fundie forum. This is both a blessing and a bane. It is a blessing because we have the opportunity, freedom, and responsibility to question what we believe and why. This can lead to a lot of personal growth and rewarding relationships with others who share different views. It’s a bane because this can seem, especially at first glance, like “anything goes” and that it doesn’t matter what anyone believes as long as they are sincere about it.

 

Yes, there is probably a considerable amount of skepticism here, especially concerning dogmatic beliefs. Skepticism is what lead many of us (but certainly not all of us) to leave fundamentalism in the first place. We dared to question. We dared to ask why. We dared to not accept the all-inclusive excuse that G-O-D is a mystery and that “his ways are not our ways.”

 

So, speaking from my own experiences here (and my own shortcomings here), be patient with us and with yourself. Having our worldview or paradigm questioned almost always feels like at attack, even though that is usually not anyone’s intent. We are humans who have a hard time separating our beliefs from who we are. So it is not easy to either have one’s beliefs questioned or to look hard at one’s beliefs to try to discern what is worth keeping and what is worth letting go as we grow.

 

As for me, I’m not even a Christian, of my own admission. To me, there is no way to get around Jesus’ mandate in Matthew 28 that says his disciples are to obey everything he taught and I simply cannot and will not do that. I value much of Jesus’ teachings and value his selfless act in laying down his life for his friends, but I certainly don’t hold to the “letter of the law” on everything he taught. So I cannot, in good conscience, say that I am a Christian, even of a “progressive” bent. Rather, I tend to see myself simply as “spiritual”, as wanting to better connect with G-O-D and others in love. And, ironically, there seems to be even a place for one such as me here at TCPC forum.

 

So don’t feel like there is pressure to conform here. As are as I can tell, there really is none. But the by-product of that freedom is that folks are allowed to express their opinions on most anything, as long as no one is personally attacked.

 

Hope some of this reflection helps you as you explore.

[Javelin]

Javelin, one thing you’ll find here, and I’m sure you already know this, is a W-I-D-E range of opinions, beliefs, and experiences, much more so than on a fundie forum. This is both a blessing and a bane. It is a blessing because we have the opportunity, freedom, and responsibility to question what we believe and why. This can lead to a lot of personal growth and rewarding relationships with others who share different views. It’s a bane because this can seem, especially at first glance, like “anything goes” and that it doesn’t matter what anyone believes as long as they are sincere about it.

 

Yes, there is probably a considerable amount of skepticism here, especially concerning dogmatic beliefs. Skepticism is what lead many of us (but certainly not all of us) to leave fundamentalism in the first place. We dared to question. We dared to ask why. We dared to not accept the all-inclusive excuse that G-O-D is a mystery and that “his ways are not our ways.”

 

.....As for me, I’m not even a Christian, of my own admission. To me, there is no way to get around Jesus’ mandate in Matthew 28 that says his disciples are to obey everything he taught and I simply cannot and will not do that. I value much of Jesus’ teachings and value his selfless act in laying down his life for his friends, but I certainly don’t hold to the “letter of the law” on everything he taught. So I cannot, in good conscience, say that I am a Christian, even of a “progressive” bent. Rather, I tend to see myself simply as “spiritual”, as wanting to better connect with G-O-D and others in love. And, ironically, there seems to be even a place for one such as me here at TCPC forum.

 

So don’t feel like there is pressure to conform here. As are as I can tell, there really is none. But the by-product of that freedom is that folks are allowed to express their opinions on most anything, as long as no one is personally attacked.

 

Hope some of this reflection helps you as you explore.

 

I’m not feeling any pressure one way or the other. As I’ve already noted, I’m still sorting out my beliefs. I’m probably more certain, at this point, about what I don’t believe than what I do believe. I know I have no interest in conforming to any group’s beliefs again.

 

I’ve been exposed, throughout my life, to the idea that believers must follow all the commands of Jesus or perish in hell. I’ve never found a list of those supposed commands nor have I ever encountered anyone who could produce such a list, and I was a member of an ultra fundamentalist legalistic group for more than 20 years. I’ve had a belly full of than kind of thinking and I can endure no more of it.

 

Jesus summarized the law, and the greatest commandment, saying believers are to love God and love their neighbor. That seems straightforward and simple enough to me., not that anyone can actually do it, but it is a worthy standard.

 

If Paul’s teaching is right, and if I’m interpreting Jesus Sermon on the Mount correctly, then the eternal destiny of my soul isn’t dependent on my ability to keep laws, rules, and commands perfectly. If that’s what it takes, then I have no hope and it doesn’t matter what I believe or how I live. The exploration of my faith continues on.

[JosephM]

I continue to accept some fundamentalist beliefs while rejecting others. I accept some of the thinking associated with Progressive Christianity, but not all of it. I suppose that makes me some sort of an undefined hybrid believer.

 

Some elements of fundamentalism strike me as indefensible on any level. Some fundamentalists seem to reject any aspect of intellect, logic, or reason in their thinking. I don't feel comfortable in that kind of environment.

 

Progressives, on the other hand, strike me as a bit too skeptical and agnostic on some issues, at least, too skeptical for my taste. It seems, as I've already noted, that I am currently theologically somewhere in between those two concepts.

 

Javelin,

 

Perhaps you have put Progressives in a label prematurely? Or determined where you fit prematurely by forming a concept of a PC theology where there may be none? Or Perhaps not? It does seem to me that you have only heard from very few progressives at this time of which none are a spokesman for PC theology. Personally, I am not sceptical of the paranormal or supernatural at all though others here may be. I do not spend my time seeking that which I have been shown leads only to endless pursuits but in no way do I deny or disbelieve in what people consider miracles or the supernatural as they are intertwined in my personal experiences in this life. This range of beliefs here is as BillMc said, very wide. It seems to me, the mind (most everyone's) continually tries to define PC or people by others limited exp​ressions in a relatively few posts. In my opinion, it cannot be done so simply and be an accurate assessment. People are more complicated and PC is too abstract to be specifically defined except by the eight general principles listed in the 8 points and even they can be broad in scope rather than specific as you may have noticed.

 

As you already know, there is no need for all here to have the same beliefs. There is only a need that in sharing we remember that love, mutual respect and actions are more important than what we say we believe. Perhaps that is the only specific theology I see personally that we require here? And to me, I think you fit in quite well.

 

Just some points to consider only as relates to your post,

Joseph

 

PS Many thanks for your many topic posts that have stimulated such active participation by others in the spirit of honesty sincerity and love. They are appreciated.

[Javelin]

Javelin,

 

Perhaps you have put Progressives in a label prematurely? Or determined where you fit prematurely by forming a concept of a PC theology where there may be none? Or Perhaps not? It does seem to me that you have only heard from very few progressives at this time of which none are a spokesman for PC theology. Personally, I am not sceptical of the paranormal or supernatural at all though others here may be. I do not spend my time seeking that which I have been shown leads only to endless pursuits but in no way do I deny or disbelieve in what people consider miracles or the supernatural as they are intertwined in my personal experiences in this life. This range of beliefs here is as BillMc said, very wide. It seems to me, the mind (most everyone's) continually tries to define PC or people by others limited exp​ressions in a relatively few posts. In my opinion, it cannot be done so simply and be an accurate assessment. People are more complicated and PC is too abstract to be specifically defined except by the eight general principles listed in the 8 points and even they can be broad in scope rather than specific as you may have noticed.

 

As you already know, there is no need for all here to have the same beliefs. There is only a need that in sharing we remember that love, mutual respect and actions are more important than what we say we believe. Perhaps that is the only specific theology I see personally that we require here? And to me, I think you fit in quite well.

 

Just some points to consider only as relates to your post,

Joseph

 

PS Many thanks for your many topic posts that have stimulated such active participation by others in the spirit of honesty sincerity and love. They are appreciated.

 

I appreciate your words of encouragement Joseph.

 

PC is a radical departure from my religious traditions, but that’s what I was seeking when I made the decision to leave my fundamentalist teachings. At this point, I’m simply attempting to absorb some of concepts associated with PC and see how they might fit into my theological puzzle.

 

I’m not seeking a new religion. I’m not exactly sure what I’m seeking. Maybe I am simply seeking the freedom to worship as the Spirit leads me, rather than having to conform to the traditions of men.

 

I have no theological insight or wisdom to impart to anyone. I’m simply attempting to gather and process information.