Tears For The Soul

[Realspiritik]

Jen,

 

How do you think one gets 'in touch' with the soul, if indeed there is such a thing as getting in touch with something that is already a part of you.

 

Cheers

Paul

 

Hey, going back to this important question . . . I thought I should add one of the really obvious and really important ways of getting in touch with the soul -- uplifting music!!!

 

Biblical exegesis is a thankless job most days . . . but put on a great tune with harmonies and bass and rockin' percussion, and the soul can't help grinning with joy.

 

Timeless melodies have a way of cutting through all the crap.

 

Best,

Jen

Edited July 6, 2012 by canajan, eh?

[romansh]

Norm,

 

I started this thread for people who believe in a theistic God (you say you don't), for people who believe in the historical Jesus (you say you're not really sure and don't care), and for people who believe the soul is perhaps part of the Divine mystery (I'm not clear what your thoughts are about the mystery of the soul).

...

 

Jen

 

Jen

I reread your OP, I must admit I did not read into it that there were only certain qualifications or viewpoints that would be acceptable in reply. Again this seems strange for a site that claims to be progressive and Christian.

 

Nevertheless I will respectfully withdraw.

[JosephM]

Jen

I reread your OP, I must admit I did not read into it that there were only certain qualifications or viewpoints that would be acceptable in reply. Again this seems strange for a site that claims to be progressive and Christian.

 

Nevertheless I will respectfully withdraw.

 

Hi Rom,

All viewpoints are welcome and acceptable in this forum area if within the confines of the guidelines stated at the top of the thread topics list for this forum area. So there are indeed some qualifications to post in this one safe area but everyone qualifying may express their own viewpoint and it certainly need not be in agreement with the opening or any participating poster. This one particular forum area is a safe place for freedom of PC expression but challenges are better served in the debate and dialog sections for those wishing more to challenge or engagement rather than just expression and questions.

 

As one will note from examination of that post in question, it received a poor peer rating (-1) so far, by a member and i (in my personal opinion as a member) would personally agree rightfully so for the seemingly questionable tone in which it was written. As moderator, I would encourage members when reading a post that they feel is not conducive to constructive discussion for this area or any area for that matter to vote a post down as was done or.... if it seems of exceptional value to them to vote it up. I say this hoping that members will use their option for a negative rating sparingly and with some restraint and be more loose with positive ratings.

 

Just a clarification after reading your concerned and worthwhile comment,

Joseph (as Moderator)

Edited July 6, 2012 by JosephM

[NORM]

Norm,

 

I started this thread for people who believe in a theistic God (you say you don't), for people who believe in the historical Jesus (you say you're not really sure and don't care), and for people who believe the soul is perhaps part of the Divine mystery (I'm not clear what your thoughts are about the mystery of the soul).

 

As pointed out by our moderator, these threads aren't exclusive to theists. If you wish an agnostic or atheist free forum, I would suggest a place like T-Web or some such. They have all but a couple forums limited to people who think just like them.

 

 

Norm, it's reasonable for a reader to believe you share Jefferson's Materialist beliefs, since you make no effort to refute them, and your own statements of belief seem to align with Materialist beliefs. If I'm mistaken in this regard, please clarify.

 

Your quote above -- "Personally, I think that the Jesus of history was a student of Hillel" -- indicates clearly that you call this a personal theory. Please don't say you didn't say something when you clearly said it in print. Geez!

 

Your points, when taken on an individual basis, make sense, but they don't add up to a unified understanding. (No worries if you haven't figured it out yet. We're all trying to figure it out. But be HONEST about your own thoughts and feelings. Don't hide behind thinly veiled excuses such as "Not as I put it -- as Thomas Jefferson put it." If you think you made a mistake, say so. If you think you could have made your point less ambiguously, clarify it!)

 

Jesus can't be both "a composite of many such wandering magicians/healers around the turn of the Common Era" AND "a student of Hillel," who was presumably a real person and not a composite. You have to make a choice, Norm. You can't have it both ways. You either have to walk away from Jesus (if you think he's a composite or an unoriginal ho-hum teacher) OR you have to decide to try to work your way through his difficult teachings (or at least not dismiss that journey when chosen by others).

 

Ouch!

 

I reserve the right to have conflicting views about mythological subjects! LOL!

 

Seriously, I still maintain that my thoughts and opinions of Jesus are not a "personal theory." I did not come up with the idea of a materialistic understanding of Jesus. I first encountered it through reading and lectures I've heard. I can't claim it as a theory of my own. I lean in that direction, but, as I've said; I don't really care whether Jesus is a real person or an amalgam of Biblical heroes as Bishop Spong suggests.

 

I do not believe in miracles or divine intervention in human affairs. Sorry, I just haven't seen anything that would confirm otherwise.

 

You know, some days I glean different understanding from the books I read. Other days, I discover something entirely different. I don't think that literature can - or should - be interpreted in only one way.

 

My comment about crucifixion was not meant to undermine the brutal reality of crucifixion in the Roman Empire. I was thinking of one of the major criteria used by researchers of the historical Jesus (eg. the Jesus Seminar) to better understand why Jesus was attacked by everyone, not just the Romans who eventually crucified him (i.e. the "Rejection and Execution" criterion). I apologize for my lack of clarity.

 

The religious hierarchy could complain all day about Jesus' blasphemy, but the Romans were the only ones who could enforce a "final solution." Jesus certainly wasn't the only Jew in history to die at the hands of political opportunists.

 

 

I'd like to see the play you describe about the book of Mark. For a long time now, I've been sure the author of Mark wrote his book as part parable and part play. It must be a play with a lot of action.

 

The actor's name is Wayne Turney. Here is a link to his website. It has listings for current productions of The Gospel of Mark.

 

http://www.wayneturney.20m.com/

 

Norm, if you want to start a thread about your own theories about the historical Jesus and other historical teachers of the time, that's great. But I'm going back to the purpose of this particular thread, which is to talk about the soul and what this means for people of faith today.

 

Jen

 

Believe it or not, people of no faith can add to the discussion. We aren't totally without good ideas!

 

NORM

[NORM]

 

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery puts a positive spin on this.

 

Also what is more important the message or "the commentary"?

 

I absolutely LOVE the commentary! Nothing is more stimulating than watching a group of worldly-wise, elder Rebbes have at it over a parcel of Tanakh! The Jewish faith is definitely NOT a spectator sport.

 

NORM

[romansh]

I absolutely LOVE the commentary! Nothing is more stimulating than watching a group of worldly-wise, elder Rebbes have at it over a parcel of Tanakh! The Jewish faith is definitely NOT a spectator sport.

 

NORM

 

That someone can love the commentary is not surprising (whether Jewish, Christian, or Islamic). But you did not answer my question - which is more important? Surely "living" the message is more important or do you disagree?

 

This I think is the whole point of Karen Armstrong's Charter for Compassion. I disagree with some of her arguments that she used to get to her end point, but I think her end point is more or less right.

 

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/2957-charter-for-compassion/

[NORM]

That someone can love the commentary is not surprising (whether Jewish, Christian, or Islamic). But you did not answer my question - which is more important? Surely "living" the message is more important or do you disagree?

 

My understanding is that there is no "message" in Judaism. The faith IS about living. There is nothing else. The Rebbe's argue about HOW we should live. That's what the commentary illuminates.

 

The mystics worry about hidden meanings and numerology. Perhaps to them, the message is more important.

 

Or, do you have another meaning to message? Maybe I am misunderstanding your question.

 

NORM

[Realspiritik]

Dear Joseph,

 

I've read the comments that have been posted in the past couple of days on the Tears for the Soul thread. I note the negative rating attached to the last post I wrote. I note that I've been rebuked for raising valid rebuttal points with regard to Norm's 2 long rebuttals of my own posts.

 

It was my understanding that the Forum where I posted the Tears for the Soul thread is to be considered a safe site for those who identify with the goals and beliefs of Progressive Christianity.

 

I wish to state clearly to you, as Global Moderator, that I do not feel safe anywhere on the TCPC site.

 

I understand that if I post on the Debate & Dialogue Forum, I have to take my chances. I accept this. Many of the regular posters on the Debate Forum have chosen to take a non-theistic stance or an atheistic stance with regard to God.

 

You need to know, Joseph, that in your efforts to make a space for those who don't believe in God and those who even seem to hate the idea of God (I'm sorry, but this is an honest paraphrase of some of the posts on the Debate & Dialogue Forum), you have failed to create a safe space for those of us who actually believe in God and those of us who actually believe in the uplifting teachings of the man who lived as Jesus.

 

I said nothing - nothing at all - to Romansh and never asked him withdraw. Nor did I even think to myself that he should withdraw. How could I? He'd made only one short reply at that point. I note that you're instantly ready to defend a slight perceived by Romansh, but you are not prepared, it seems, to defend my right to defend myself. Norm made several contradictory statements. Is it your policy as a Moderator that posters are no longer permitted to point out obvious contradictions that go to the heart of the subject being discussed?

 

I tried to start a thread to talk about a subject that's of deep importance to many Christians today. It has not escaped my notice that none of the long-time posters and none of the Moderators are interested in this topic.

 

I want to state clearly WHY I don't feel safe anywhere on the TCPC site.

 

You may assume that my feelings arise from a personal sense of entitlement and a lack of willingness to be "wrong" in a debate. I've been wrong many times in my life, and I can handle being wrong. This isn't why I don't feel safe.

 

I don't feel safe because I and others who are trying to find a way to express a simple, loving, honest faith in God are constantly being bullied by those who don't believe in God and don't want to believe in God.

 

Even on the Progressive Christianity Forum, which is supposed to be a safe place for people who want to discuss the mysteries of faith in EXACTLY the way that Fred Plumer describes on the video you posted this week (which is EXACTLY what I was trying to do), people such as myself are not permitted to defend their belief in God or their belief in the historical Jesus for fear of offending those who choose not to believe.

 

I refuse to stop speaking about God and faith and Divine Love and soul and mystery and healing and redemption because somebody might take offense. How can we ever bring healing or understanding to the church if we stop talking about the questions that matter most to us because somebody somewhere doesn't like the questions we're asking?

 

Where is the line between being inclusive and being a person who lacks the courage of his/her faith in God?

 

I'm not going to apologize for the post I wrote above that earned me "demerit points." I said something honest, without exaggerating and without twisting Norm's words. I wrote a precis of what Norm had already written. Yet for daring to point out the honest truth, I am chastized.

 

I'm not the first to make these observations about the "rules" of posting on this message board. Perhaps at some point in the future, it will be possible for people of faith who believe in God and the soul to share their stories here, but that day is not today.

 

Jen

Edited July 8, 2012 by canajan, eh?

[Realspiritik]

Believe it or not, people of no faith can add to the discussion. We aren't totally without good ideas!

 

NORM

 

I've said more than once that those without faith make a difference in the world, for example through service clubs. Also, through teaching, medical care, road repair, parenting, and on and on and on.

 

I believe every individual is important.

Edited July 8, 2012 by canajan, eh?

[JosephM]

Hi Jen,

 

Perhaps Norm and Rom should not be posting in this area. They should re-read the guidelines and if they would not self label themselves as a progressive Christian in general agreement with the 8 points, stay in the other areas. That is one issue to be resolved. The other issue, concerns you and it seems that you were more than happy to dialog with both and even allow the change in subject to Hillel and respond with them as long as they seemed to agree with you. When views differed, it appeared from your words (honest as they seem to be) you disagreed but entered some very unnessary and unconstructive dialog to good discussion in that post.

 

You were in my opinion condescending which was not necessary and your OP nor this area is not limited to people who describe themselves as non-theist (Spong describes himself as such) nor is there a requirement to believe in a historical Jesus to be a progressive Christian or post in your thread. If you want to know exactly what other statements in Post #25 that i feel are not conducive to constructive dialog for this area i will be happy to dialogue with you by PM.

 

JosephM (as Moderator)

[Realspiritik]

Hi Jen,

 

You were in my opinion condescending which was not necessary and your OP nor this area is not limited to people who describe themselves as non-theist (Spong describes himself as such) nor is there a requirement to believe in a historical Jesus to be a progressive Christian or post in your thread. If you want to know exactly what other statements in Post #25 that i feel are not conducive to constructive dialog for this area i will be happy to dialogue with you by PM.

 

JosephM (as Moderator)

 

I appear to have misunderstood the path of Progressive Christianity, since I've just learned from your post that Jesus has been "demoted" and is no longer of primary relevance to the movement.

 

Also, I will apologize to you and withdraw, as it seems from what you say that Progressive Christianity is no longer a movement about finding relationship with God, but is instead a non-theistic movement.

 

It is my error in failing to see this reality.

 

You may wish to consider removing the Fred Plumer video you posted, as this leads to a false impression of what the Progressive movement is really about.

 

Best of luck to you.

[JosephM]

Jen,

Perhaps you have misunderstood my words? PC as Fred points out is a path not a dogma or doctrine. While I choose to believe in a historical Jesus, others may not. PC does not define the path as a set of required beliefs for the individual. JESUS has not been demoted and relationship with God/The Divine remains key to the path.

Joseph

[Realspiritik]

Perhaps you have misunderstood my words? PC as Fred points out is a path not a dogma or doctrine. While I choose to believe in a historical Jesus, others may not. PC does not define the path for the individual. JESUS has not been demoted and relationship with God/The Divine remains key to the path.

Joseph

 

I have not misunderstood your words. I've listened carefully to what you've written. I don't accept your interpretation that the PC has no defined path. The eight points can be understood as a defined path. I don't think I'm the only person on this site who thinks there is defined path for Progressive Christians, a path which -- according to the eight points -- seems to have something to do with Jesus (the actual, historical Jesus) and something to do with God.

 

I would certainly agree there is no rigid, dogmatic set of rules for PC's to follow. But there is still a defined path, which, as far as I can tell, seems to have something to do with being in relationship with God.

 

If God is removed from the equation, then, as I've said before, the PC movement is nothing more than a service club.

 

And to reiterate, since I don't wish to be falsely accused once again of dismissing and undermining the importance of volunteerism and service clubs, I think service clubs are wonderful.

[romansh]

Or, do you have another meaning to message? Maybe I am misunderstanding your question.

 

NORM

I think we are almost on the same page.

when Hillel says:

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.

The golden rule or at least a form of it I take as the message.

 

You point to the same thing as you said it is about our lives lived - so to speak.

[NORM]

I think we are almost on the same page.

when Hillel says:

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.

The golden rule or at least a form of it I take as the message.

 

You point to the same thing as you said it is about our lives lived - so to speak.

 

OK. Under that definition, I would agree.

 

You have to understand, that although I am now Jewish, I was raised in a fundamentalist, Baptist Church. In that paradigm message means something entirely different. That is to what I thought you were referring.

 

My apologies. We do agree.

 

NORM

[NORM]

I don't feel safe because I and others who are trying to find a way to express a simple, loving, honest faith in God are constantly being bullied by those who don't believe in God and don't want to believe in God.

 

 

 

Bullied?

 

Please provide some examples of this claim.

 

Perhaps their understanding of G-d is different from yours.

 

For example, I don't believe in a three-tiered universe where there is a spirit being called "God" dictating the course of events on this planet. I also don't believe that there is a Prime Mover orchestrating events within this world.

 

I think, rather, that G-d is a concept within each one of us that is enabling us to evolve as a species to a place where loving-kindness is the NORM. A Ground of Being (to borrow from minds greater than mine) seems to me a rather nice way of putting it.

 

I do not have hostile feelings toward those of faith, and I have even complimented you on your expression of Christianity.

 

I am sorry if you perceive some in this forum as "bullies," and hope that you don't count me among their numbers.

 

Sincerely,

NORM

[glintofpewter]

While it is not appropriate to use this board as a blog, it is appropriate to start a a thread about a topic one is knowledgeable. And appropriate to keep the discussion focused. Post #21 might have been a good place to do that. Unfortunately the opportunity to refocus the conversation was missed.

 

I think it is okay for anyone who speaks as if they accept the 8 pts to participate in this section. Politeness wins.

 

 

Dutch