What Denomination Do You Attend?

[overcast]

I actually think it comes down to the word Atheist - which is from the Greek atheos, meaning 'godless, denying the gods, ungodly'.

 

Atheism isn't a belief system, it is actually about a 'lack' of belief. So rather than atheism meaning a belief in logic, science, what can be proved etc, true atheism simply means one doesn't believe in God or gods. Maybe some atheists feel the term is being 'stolen' from them, but really this is just being true to what the word means.

 

But yes, superstitious thinking can be a concern. Reading 'spiritual' messages into things can be dangerous. Alternately, closing one's mind to anything at all possibly existing which currently cannot be proven, might mean we are missing out too.

 

I think minds can be open without having to be superstitious.

I'll take is one more step - it comes down to the word "gods". The "gods" are hard to define, but "supernatural" might be the defining attribute of a "god". "Supernatural" is anything beyond metaphysical naturalism. The moment we start letting the possibility of "supernatural" effects influence our decision making at all, we are no longer atheist IMO.

 

So atheism = methodological naturalism.

While not metaphysical naturalism per se, in the more general sense of naturalism and philosophy expressed by Kate and Vitaly (2000) "there are certain philosophical assumptions made at the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on which science is grounded."[9] As noted by Steven Schafersman, methodological naturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it ... science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success (although science does have metaphysical implications), but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

 

Of course I know that my opinion isn't shared by most atheists.

[overcast]

Interesting points! This is where I differ with many PCs. First off, I don't call myself a progressive Christian in the sense that I'm a Liberal Christian or that I reject orthodoxy. If I'm a PC at all it's on the point that I don't believe that I HAVE to believe anything at all or any specific thing in order to be accepted by God.

 

I accept much of the traditional views of the Bible and Jesus as valid....or as fundamentally Christian. But I reject some of it. I would rather call myself a heretic than to set out to change Christianity, with some exceptions. I think that Christians should leave the judging to God. Christian beliefs should stay our of civil law. Christians should be taking Christ's teachings to care for the needy far more seriously than these peripheral issues like being anti-gay and anti-abortion. Christianity should be about Love, Hope, and Peace. The litmus on Christian living should be, "Does this action bring more love, hope, or peace into the world or less?"

Thanks, it is easier for me to understand your ideas. While I was hallucinating, it seemed that God was holding a spot light up to the areas of Christain theology that bothered me. (Of course what was really happening was that my subconscious mind was very uncomfortable with Christianity and creating hallucinations to highlight these problems.) So for a while, I felt that either God was telling me to be a heretic, or Satan and God had switched clothing to test me. So I can identify with being a heretic.

 

I was a member of a progressive church for 15 years before I got a job at another church. It turned as many kids into atheists as the Catholic church or Judaism. When kids went to confirmation and then were asked in front of the church if they wanted to be confirmed and make a profession of faith many did not. I respect it. It means that our kids are thinking critically and taking the decision very seriously. But I believe in raising a child in whatever faith you subscribe to (if at all). It gives them something to work with or against or come back to later in life. I feel that this church was failing in this area. Kids need to be given something black and white until they can begin to comprehend and consider the gray.

That is interesting. I don't have children, but I can see that teaching values is important. It is hard to decouple the values from the religion - especially if the parent believes the religion.

 

In regard to atheists and Christianity. There are many atheists who follow the social teachings of Jesus. I happen to think that this is an excellent thing in that it gives a person a moral framework and a life path that is positive. The Dalai Lama encouraged the world to stick with the faith they were raised in. I come from a long line of Protestants. I explored Buddhism and New Age and Neo-Paganism for quite a few years, but what I found is that the wisdom I was learning and experiences I was having had Christian names and symbols already. So why change the heritage of my family name just to call my faith by different names?

o.k.

[overcast]

The English word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus, meaning "breath", but also "spirit, soul, courage, vigor"

 

English words associated with spirit ... courage, enthusiasm, heart, resolve, vigor, essence etc..

 

In common they all relate to a non-corporeal substance in that it does not occupy space or have mass. A spiritual person does not necessarily imply belief in "spirits" (ghosts) as you seem to me to assume in your post though i admit some might.

 

To me, a spiritual person is more concerned with virtues or "fruits" as the Bible might call them than the physical substances of this world. Fruits being such things as love, joy, peace, forbearance (patience or self-control), kindness, goodness, gentleness, etc. While these things may be closely linked to religion, a non-religious person or Atheist may strive for these non-corporeal things and thus also be considered in my view a spiritual person by definition.

"love, joy, peace, ..." are subjective like "delicious, beautiful, ...". These words are a bit like morality, and I think atheists should not believe in objective morality.

[overcast]

I feel the word progress means moving forward so a Progressive Christian would be one that wants to move Christianity forward to a new paradigm. I meditate, but I am not Buddhist, I do yoga, but I am not Hindu. I feel I am Christian because I use Jesus as my deity to represent the abstract infinite realm in a physical form that I can relate to on the physical plane. Many people do not flock to the church and the problem is religion is not rational, but emotional, and it is not grounded in knowledge or in a firsthand spiritual experience except in the mystical components that are usually hidden in the tradition. The churches disregarding the mystical and scientific knowledge end up only providing ethical guidance when people want more than just being preached at. People would rather know and feel the experience of the Divinity within than just knowing the definition. Explanations of a universal consciousness can bring about and maintain the experience of being a part of the whole providing the young, curious minds with the inspiration to form their own views in life. Spiritual experience is an inside job that inspires people to help others and at the same time experience the love and peace from relaxing in the consciousness in the whole. It is time for a paradigm shift for our churches to see the virtue in opening minds and refining them instead of controlling and correcting them. We need a faith where people are able to know the Divine, understand the experience and incorporate it in their life so they may master, rule and have power over their abilities, senses, and desires. We need Christians who are grounded in reason and are big enough to adapt, cooperate and be resourceful in the moment as they cultivate virtue. The church is a living organism that needs to regenerate with each generation taking truths wherever they find them in order to enhance and deepen our wisdom and spirituality. It follows then that the undertaking of the ministry is not to rule with law and intense fear, but to restore and prepare people for a spiritual encounter through experience, persuasion and reasoning. Humans have free will and will prevail or fail on their own choice so need to come into their whole being expanding their choices and opportunities and not be poked and pushed with hate, hell or real estate in heaven. Making people feel guilty nudges them to the depths of misery, but a personal spiritual experience can suddenly elevate one to the height of bliss beyond authority, tradition and the conventional view. We need to rise above the conventional thought because we tend to make God in our human image with human qualities, but God is beyond your understanding and the behaviors of humans. In our finite world we calculate, label and explain things, but the infinite sphere is beyond our senses and the limits of the conventional mind; subsequently, Christ did not prescribe a religion or government, but only a love that is not fooled by our faults.

That sounds a bit like something an Eastern Orthodox would say.

[PaulS]

I would suggest the defining attribute of 'God' or 'gods' are that they are generally attributed a personality, as though they are a specific being/entity. Yahweh God, Jesus as God, Buddha (although not traditionally a God is viewed as such by some), the pantheon of Roman Gods (all having a name or identified somehow), etc.

 

Supernatural on the other hand is something that is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

 

So I still think that being true to the word 'atheist', believing in or being open to spirituality, is different to believing in God or gods.

 

But maybe that's just me

 

I'll take is one more step - it comes down to the word "gods". The "gods" are hard to define, but "supernatural" might be the defining attribute of a "god". "Supernatural" is anything beyond metaphysical naturalism. The moment we start letting the possibility of "supernatural" effects influence our decision making at all, we are no longer atheist IMO.

[JosephM]

No, I don't think PC's can just make up whatever they feel like and call it Christianity. The beliefs we call Christianity should be equivalent to the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Furthermore, these Christian beliefs should have survived intact to modern times due to their superiority over heresies.

 

Any claimant to the Christian denominational throne must he able to show an uninterrupted line of succession back to Jesus IMO.

 

I personally don't see it that way but you certainly are entitled to that opinion.

 

 

 

"love, joy, peace, ..." are subjective like "delicious, beautiful, ...". These words are a bit like morality, and I think atheists should not believe in objective morality.

 

Life as a whole here is of course subjective to sentient beings. And yes, those words are subjective just like your opinion or mine. I think we can not truly get to know an Atheist or Christian for that matter when we box them in by saying what they should or shouldn't believe.. Just my opinion.

Peace,

Joseph

[soma]

No, I don't think PC's can just make up whatever they feel like and call it Christianity. The beliefs we call Christianity should be equivalent to the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Furthermore, these Christian beliefs should have survived intact to modern times due to their superiority over heresies.

 

I think Christianity is an organization or institution and must evolve like everything else including atheism.

 

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

― Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina

[overcast]

I would suggest the defining attribute of 'God' or 'gods' are that they are generally attributed a personality, as though they are a specific being/entity. Yahweh God, Jesus as God, Buddha (although not traditionally a God is viewed as such by some), the pantheon of Roman Gods (all having a name or identified somehow), etc.

 

Supernatural on the other hand is something that is attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

 

So I still think that being true to the word 'atheist', believing in or being open to spirituality, is different to believing in God or gods.

 

But maybe that's just me [/size]

Personality is another key attribute. Like what is personality? I would say it's predictability. I drink coca cola a lot. I imagine that I am an actor with free will who likes coca cola. This is a bit like a supernatural spirit in a cockpit piloting my physical body through life.

 

Gravity is predictable, but it is TOO predictable - it doesn't seem to have free will. A personality needs to be SOMEWHAT predictable. The weather is more like a personality. Of course science would say the weather is chaotic instead of choosing.

 

(Sorry, I enjoy trying to question what I mean by this or that. I know this is probably pedantic to people who have done more reading on these issues. )

Edited May 22, 2015 by overcast

[overcast]

I personally don't see it that way but you certainly are entitled to that opinion.

 

 

Life as a whole here is of course subjective to sentient beings. And yes, those words are subjective just like your opinion or mine. I think we can not truly get to know an Atheist or Christian for that matter when we box them in by saying what they should or shouldn't believe.. Just my opinion.

Peace,

Joseph

That's true, and sorry if I get carried away with my opinions.

[PaulS]

Personality is another key attribute. Like what is personality? I would say it's predictability. I drink coca cola a lot. I imagine that I am an actor with free will who likes coca cola. This is a bit like a supernatural spirit in a cockpit piloting my physical body through life.

 

Gravity is predictable, but it is TOO predictable - it doesn't seem to have free will. A personality needs to be SOMEWHAT predictable. The weather is more like a personality. Of course science would say the weather is chaotic instead of choosing.

 

(Sorry, I enjoy trying to question what I mean by this or that. I know this is probably pedantic to people who have done more reading on these issues. )

I agree with you that personality can be subjective, but in the context I am using the word I am simply talking about the attributing of a personality to something (in this case a God or gods) in order to identify it in a more personal way (which is what I am saying atheism is about - the non-belief of such God or Gods).

 

In the context of our discussion, considering spirituality in general and/or a 'force' or some other 'beyond our physical capabilities' existence, is very different to thinking of a God or gods as say the God of love, war, peace, etc, or indeed that God or gods being assigned a name such as Jehovah. Those Gods are considered to have a personality (the likes of which is subjective I agree) which I think is what distinguishes them as God or gods which atheists don't believe in.

[overcast]

I think Christianity is an organization or institution and must evolve like everything else including atheism.

 

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

― Galileo Galilei, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina

Maybe that's the essence of Progressive Christianity?

 

Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim to be basically unchanged.

Protestantism claims to be going back to the original through discarding tradition and relying only on the Bible.

Liberal Protestantism says lets discard parts of the Bible that seem to be corruptions of the inspired parts.

 

Does Progressive Christianity say it's o.k. to evolve Christainity into something that the historical Jesus may not have endorsed?

Does Progressive Christianity assume that Jesus would have endorsed anything that works?

[soma]

Everything is changing, evolving including our education, science, language, customs and thinking so should our institutions. Life does not come in nice, neat little boxes because there really are no boundaries except the ones we make in our minds and maps. What Jesus would our would not have endorsed are only opinions, which most of the time are used to manipulate people to a certain kind of Christian belief. I feel a true Christian will try to make what ever one believes, knows or works that makes them a better person should be supported, may that be Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, or Christian.

[farfromthetree]

 

 

Does Progressive Christianity say it's o.k. to evolve Christainity into something that the historical Jesus may not have endorsed?

 

I would hope so. Even traditional Christianity is something Jesus wouldn't have endorsed. After all, he didn't go to church and he wasn't a Christian!

[overcast]

I would hope so. Even traditional Christianity is something Jesus wouldn't have endorsed. After all, he didn't go to church and he wasn't a Christian!

Welcome to the forum, farfromthetree.

 

I agree that probably the historical Jesus would not have endorsed traditional Christian theology. Of course most everything about the historical Jesus is speculation.

 

HOWEVER, traditional Christians BELIEVE that they are following the teachings of the historical Jesus with perhaps some minor errors. That is different from KNOWING indifference to the historical Jesus.

 

There is also the possibility of disconnecting the historical Jesus from the living Christ. I suppose a PC might imagine that Jesus was just some ordinary guy trying to connect to a living Christ, become a living Christ, etc. That type of PC might say the historical Jesus and his teachings can be ignored, modified, etc., because he is just an early religious leader trying to figure it out - just like modern PCs.

 

As an atheist, I don't have a horse in the race, but I'm confused about PC ideas.

Edited May 23, 2015 by overcast

[fatherman]

I would hope so. Even traditional Christianity is something Jesus wouldn't have endorsed. After all, he didn't go to church and he wasn't a Christian!

Ah, but according to scripture he DID endorse a church. He told Peter that he was the rock on which his church should be built. So, Peter and the other disciples and followers founded Christianity (followers of The Way, I believe it was called) and Paul (who only knew Christ in spirit) spread it abroad. Just as with any cult leader, the leader will die and it's up to the followers to continue the cult the best they can. And I do believe they were doing the best they could. And for those that never got to witness Jesus we have the Gospels. A Gospel is a kind of persuasive writing. It has an agenda. And the agenda varies depending on the writer. Matthew wanted to convince the Jews that Jesus was the new Moses with the new commandments, for example. John wanted to convince people that Jesus was more than a new Moses, but a living Christ. John wanted to convey the notion that we could experience blessed living through faith in Christ. He wrote about the signs that proved his divinity.

 

These agendas affect how the gospels were written. Which stories to choose. Which themes to emphasize. The differences don't prove inconsistencies. They prove different perspectives and agendas. So how do we form churches from all of these different perspectives of Jesus? We have our own perspectives. There's no true church and no false church. We are human, and so were the writers and members of the first churches. However, there are some themes that we can all agree on. Love is the most important. To be apart of a community that's not about debate, or bowling, or fantasy football, or research, but to be a part of a community focused on Love....loving God, and loving each other, and giving up ourselves in the process, this is as true a church as you will find.

[JosephM]

fatherman,

 

Just for clarification.

When Jesus told Peter

 

And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

 

He said you are Peter not you are the rock. The rock was the foundation principle that flesh and blood didn't reveal but the Father. Jesus wasn't telling Peter to start the body of Christ but by that rock (foundation) , hearing directly from the Father, the body of Christ (the church) would come together. No organization can replace hearing directly from the father That is the foundation of his assembly.... not an organization. Notice there is no mention elsewhere of starting a physical organization by Jesus.

 

At least that is my view of the writing you refer to

Joseph

[fatherman]

fatherman,

 

Just for clarification.

 

He said you are Peter not you are the rock. The rock was the foundation principle that flesh and blood didn't reveal but the Father. Jesus wasn't telling Peter to start the body of Christ but by that rock (foundation) , hearing directly from the Father, the body of Christ (the church) would come together. No organization can replace hearing directly from the father That is the foundation of his assembly.... not an organization. Notice there is no mention elsewhere of starting a physical organization by Jesus.

 

At least that is my view of the writing you refer to

Joseph

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

[PaulS]

I doubt very much that Jesus ever encouraged a Church or indeed endorsed making 'disciples' of all men. That to me seems very likely to be somebody else's understanding of Jesus. If we were to go with the 'red letter' words in the bible, Jesus' message loud and clear is that you don't need an intermediary to be at one with God, but that rather you as an individual can have a relationship with God. And how do you have that relationship with God, by being in relationship with EVERYBODY else, not just those in your Church. Not saying you do that Fatherman, but Churches themselves always become 'clubs' and are exclusive, no matter how inclusive its congregants think they are.

Edited May 26, 2015 by PaulS

[Keith Kelly]

United Methodist. Have volunteered in the past to be sure. Attend weekly plus on religions holidays. The Methodist Church I attend is fairly open to comments that are progressive and are not offendedn that I know of regarding a person's beliefs, however most attendees themselves it seems are adherents of a theistic theology and would see the scriptures more as divinely inspired and containing accounts of happenings instead of being spiritual literary works.