Unity - What Does It Mean?

[David]

The historical Jesus according to whom? It's easy to read the JS literature and think we know who the historical Jesus was, but that's just not true. We have the opinion of particular historians, but there are other historians that disagree.

 

The historical Jesus discussion takes place largely in the realm of rationalism. Hopefully I have posted long enough for you to know that rationalism is not the only way of knowing in my mind. However, the bounds of rationalism are much easier to follow than where "Christ" can lead. The question "which Christ" is harder to follow since on the one hand you have the fundamentalist Christ and then there are many versions all the way to the mystic Christ. I think that it is becoming more and more clear that there will be a consensus among those Biblical scholars that put rationalism before apology. My suggestion that we use the historical Jesus is to suggest that for Christians it is important to have some continuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ. When we leave that discussion and get into the larger philosophical discussion then we are aware that "Christ" is more up for graps and I have nothing against that. It is an interesting problem that I need to wrestle with more since I am interested more in polity than philosophy.

[David]

Is that why we Gnostics are considered so heretical and dangerous!?!

 

Many of us (Gnostics that is) do not believe in the historical Jesus at all. In fact, the myth of Jesus is so powerful and truthful that it need not have any factual basis whatsoever. We gnow the spiritual realities of Father, Barbelo, Christ, Sophia, Jesus, Mary, and the other emanations exist because of our inner knowing not because some archeologist found Jesus' left sandal somewhere in a cave. It just doesn't matter to us what score the Jesus Seminar gang gave to the NH.

 

I also know that many will not recognize us at the table (including the UCC......who is supposed to welcome everybody). That is why many of my Sisters and Brothers have created their own table and that is why, in my intro, I asked to make sure I was welcome at this progressive Christian forum. I, personally, still hold out hope that we may all mingle in the name of Christ.

The problem of inclusion/exclusion is a real problem. The best we can do is be honest about it. The worst thing I think we can do is "hide behind" a word that is all things to all people (the Christ). "The powerful myth with no basis in history" also applies to the fundamentalist position. I am trying to explore whether inclusion/exclusion can be done via "how we know what we know". Failing something such as that I see no potential in saving the Church with the continued Christ conflict.

 

By the way do you have an answer to the original question (is it "participation" or "full immersion"?)

[Gnosteric]

By the way do you have an answer to the original question (is it "participation" or "full immersion"?)

Sure, that's easy! It's both "participation" and "immersion." "And" not "or." Didn't we already say that?

 

A writer friend was telling me about second-person narrative. Might'nt (is that a real word?) that be similar to a mystical experience where both are held at once? A bit dissociative, sure, but not enough to fully lose one's own awareness.

 

Now, add the "A-Ha" and you've got Gnosis!

[des]

Ok, I have a question about this, Flow. Is this a metaphorical story or does this really happen.

I know that eggs would literally fry on our sidewalks O(or dashboards in a closed up car for that

matter) here in NM.

 

:-)

 

 

--des

 

 

My Mom performs an annual ritual each year here when this stuff hits, and it always does in July in the driest desert in N. America.

 

Crack one egg and place in a aluminum pot pie pan and place in the sun on the sidewalk. Check occasionally to see how long it takes for the white to become solid.( Son makes toast, butters it, dunks toast in partially cooked yellow of egg, takes a taste, and then smacks lips in satisfaction.)

 

This takes about 1-1/2 hr on days like these. I really didn't do the tasting with toast part, but Mom does the egg-cooking part. Too many stray birds and cats in our complex !

 

Just had my single El Salvadorian beer of the week so my brain is cool, and collected. Talk to ya later!

 

flow....

[David]

Is that why we Gnostics are considered so heretical and dangerous!?!

 

Many of us (Gnostics that is) do not believe in the historical Jesus at all. In fact, the myth of Jesus is so powerful and truthful that it need not have any factual basis whatsoever. We gnow the spiritual realities of Father, Barbelo, Christ, Sophia, Jesus, Mary, and the other emanations exist because of our inner knowing not because some archeologist found Jesus' left sandal somewhere in a cave. It just doesn't matter to us what score the Jesus Seminar gang gave to the NH.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I have not studied Gnostics and so it is probably unfair to post this from www.gnosticteachings.org:

 

"The Gnostic Church adores the Saviour of the World, Jesus. The Gnostic Church knows that Jesus incarnated Christ, and that is why they adore him. Christ is not a human nor a divine individual. Christ is a title given to all fully self-realised Masters. Christ is the Army of the Voice. Christ is the Verb. The Verb is far beyond the body, the soul and the Spirit. Everyone who is able to incarnate the Verb receives in fact the title of Christ. Christ is the Verb itself. It is necessary for everyone of us to incarnate the Verb (Word). When the Verb becomes flesh in us we speak with the verb of light. In actuality, several Masters have incarnated the Christ. In secret India, the Christ Yogi Babaji has lived for millions of years; Babaji is immortal. The Great Master of Wisdom Kout Humi also incarnated the Christ. Sanat Kumara, the founder of the Great College of Initiates of the White Lodge, is another living Christ. In the past, many incarnated the Christ. In the present, some have incarnated the Christ. In the future many will incarnate the Christ. John the Baptist also incarnated the Christ. John the Baptist is a living Christ. The difference between Jesus and the other Masters that also incarnated the Christ has to do with Hierarchy. Jesus is the highest Solar Initiate of the Cosmos...." - The Perfect Matrimony "Indeed, Christ is a Sephirothic Crown (Kether, Chokmah and Binah) of incommensurable wisdom, whose purest atoms shine within Chokmah, the world of the Ophani "Christ is not the Monad, Christ is not the Theosophical Septenary; Christ is not the Jivan-Atman. Christ is the Central Sun. Christ is the ray that unites us to the Absolute." - Tarot and Kabbalah.

 

In many, many, many churches today you will sit next to someone in the pew that will be into "Rapture Theology" and believe that the Christ will come as a military savior and fight the battle of Armageddon. There will be a period of seven years of tribulation. The saved will go to heaven and look down on the rest of us in agony. There are many books on the shelves now, none of which is supported by actual Biblical references yet these people want you to believe that this is the Christ.

 

How would tell someone with no experience in religion at all why your Christ is the correct Christ (and not the Christ of Rapture Theology)? If you do not want to have that conversation why would you want a minister of any UCC Church to "accept" the above while having at the same time accept Rapture theology (the UCC is "supposed to accept everyone").

 

A group that accepts everyone is going to be very, very small. We need some "glue" to keep us together but more importantly provides a reason for coming together. I do not see that "glue" in the wide acceptance of such diverse Christ concepts.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sure, that's easy! It's both "participation" and "immersion." "And" not "or." Didn't we already say that?

 

A writer friend was telling me about second-person narrative. Might'nt (is that a real word?) that be similar to a mystical experience where both are held at once? A bit dissociative, sure, but not enough to fully lose one's own awareness.

 

Now, add the "A-Ha" and you've got Gnosis!

 

I'm not to the A-Ha yet. If one does not lose one's own awareness then one participates but does not fully immerse if I understand the original question. Am I missing something? (this happens quite often)

[David]

 

This is one of the places where the JS and I part company, so to speak. The search for the historical Jesus only takes you so far. The Christ of faith lives within the literature of the Christian community. I have respect for the JS and for Borg in particular, but I can't help but think of their quest for the historical Jesus to be a liberal form of literalism/fundamentalism. In an attempt to find all the historical trees, many of them miss the forest.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it significant that The Center for Progressive Christianity does not use the word Christ once in their eight points. I do think that part of the Progressive movement has been to focus more on Jesus and less on "the Christ of faith". I do not understand how the Jesus Seminar results in literalism. It may be better understood as an attempt to see the signatures of the early Church more than the historical Jesus. In that sense they do point up "the literature of the Christian community". However, the point is that the literature of the early Church has provided us with a lot of baggage that Jesus did not carry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way I wanted to say "thank you" to Earl without bringing that whole post back up. I liked the explanations about "how to know".

[AletheiaRivers]

I find it significant that The Center for Progressive Christianity does not use the word Christ once in their eight points. I do think that part of the Progressive movement has been to focus more on Jesus and less on "the Christ of faith". I do not understand how the Jesus Seminar results in literalism. It may be better understood as an attempt to see the signatures of the early Church more than the historical Jesus. In that sense they do point up "the literature of the Christian community". However, the point is that the literature of the early Church has provided us with a lot of baggage that Jesus did not carry.

 

I find it significant that the name of the organization is the Center for Progressive CHRISTianity, not the Center for Progressive Jesusanity.

 

How do I feel the JS can result in literalism?

 

On one far side of the fence there are those that feel that the Bible is literal all the way thru - everything, right down to 6 literal creation days, a literal being named Satan, and a whore named Babylon.

 

On the other far side of the fence there are those that feel that most of the Bible is myth, and since (in their view) many of the things written there couldn't possibly happen, just toss those bits out and what you are left with is the "actual, literal, real, historical truth."

 

What is missed by those on both sides of the fence are the deep, profound, amazing truths found not only in the literal person of Jesus (who I believed lived), but also in the incarnate Logos (who I believe Jesus was), and in the mythological and symbolic signposts pointing to God.

 

As for the baggage that Jesus the Christ did or did not carry, that is open to interpretation.

 

I guess the question is: Is this website for Christians that consider themselves in some way progressive, or is it for Jesus Seminar followers?

 

I know I'm coming across as cranky. I do apologize for that. However, it does feel like you ARE trying to be a gatekeeper, and I'm feeling a little frustrated.

[flowperson]

Ok, I have a question about this, Flow. Is this a metaphorical story or does this really happen.

I know that eggs would literally fry on our sidewalks O(or dashboards in a closed up car for that

matter) here in NM.

 

:-)

--des

 

Yes, it happens here, and my Mom does this routine every once in a while. But I think that the 5% humidity and desert breezes have alot to do with it also. Y'know all of that plus 115 degree heat turns this place into one huge convection oven on some days in the summer.

 

flow....

[David]

I find it significant that the name of the organization is the Center for Progressive CHRISTianity, not the Center for Progressive Jesusanity.

 

I know I'm coming across as cranky. I do apologize for that. However, it does feel like you ARE trying to be a gatekeeper, and I'm feeling a little frustrated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for responding even when you feel cranky. I am not the gatekeeper. The discussion that you and I are having seems very natural to have related to what Progressive Christianity means. I certainly did not intend to imply that I am right and you are wrong in terms of the “big picture” but I would like to challenge you on what Progressive Christianity is all about.

 

Can we continue?

 

It seems like an appropriate approach to start, but not end, with rationalism. The Jesus Seminar itself has really not gone beyond the rational attempt to look at the historical Jesus. The Seminar itself has not attempted to go the next step and determine what “Christ” means. However, just the process itself has had implications about what “Christ” could mean. This is what rationalism does. It narrows the possibilities of what can be considered possible. We have been dealing with this since the Enlightenment.

 

Many (but not all) within the Seminar then do go on to the next step and attempt to deal with those “deep, profound, amazing” truths which include attempting to focus on “Christ”. However, there is a tendency again to remain within the bounds of “the possibilities of what can be considered possible”. It seems clear to me that one of those possibilities is to find that the Christian mystic has a lot to say about Jesus and the Christ.

 

I am not the gatekeeper but this is a gate keeping process. I would suggest that it is a process that most persons who call themselves Progressive Christians would at least find comfortable. If this is correct then it seems natural to me to have the gate be more related to Jesus than the Christ. We can look at all that surrounds Jesus more in a rational manner. We then can all go from there to talk about the Christ. So the Christ is not a foreign concept to Progressives, it just is not part of the gate.

 

The Christ may be where we can meet people from other faiths since people from other faiths have no reason to be much interested in Jesus. In my mind the Christ can have much in common with Buddhist thinking for instance.

 

This is obviously not the only way to be a Christian (and it may not be accepted by all that call themselves Progressive Christians). If this is not what it means to be a Progressive Christian then this is the place to talk about it.

[DavidD]

Paul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus. I don't remember exactly how the accounts in Acts and when Paul wrote about it describe that, but as I recall, others on that road with him had some sensory experience, but it wasn't the full vision of Jesus that Paul had. I'd say Paul was immersed in that experience of Jesus, while the others participated, including my participation almost 2000 years later. Paul was the one who went blind and was most changed by this. The rest of us get something less than that from the experience. We who participate do so to various degrees, limited by language, limited by concepts, limited by knowledge of pertinent facts. I'm sure there are many limitations.

 

I wrote about my experience like that here at least once. I was surprised how much it fit some stereotypes of such experiences, wondering whether that just fit my expectations of such an event or whether there is something about spirituality that accounts for them that has nothing to do with my prejudices. It was the sunlight streaming into the room that became the presence of God. I'm not sure if it brightened, but there wasn't a major change in my sensation. What changed was cognitive, and at first I couldn't believe it. I said I didn't believe in this kind of God, maybe in words, maybe just as a thought, maybe to myself, maybe out loud. I don't remember every detail.

 

Immediately God answered, "You've always believed in Me." Immediately with that there was this cascade of words and images that made that point, how I had always believed in Him and loved Him in my way, a way He approved, unlike how many others would say my liberalism makes it impossible for me to know anything, especially God. Just as impressive was that at the end of that, I had no doubt whatsoever. I'd never experienced such perfect faith. I'm a good scientist. I'm trained to see how things don't make sense. To be without that is as dramatic as floating up into the air. Fortunately it came back regarding things other than God.

 

I've wished I could find words to do this experience justice. It was the greatest demonstration of a debating technique I've ever seen. God just had that one sentence for me that day, as well as exposing me to another level of His existence, but He proved to me without a doubt that He was right on that point, and I was wrong. I have no doubt about the reality of that moment 17 years later. I don't suppose I ever will. Could it have been something like a dream? Of course, not an ordinary dream, but maybe something like a dream physiologically, just much more intense. Of course, it might also be something that has nothing to do with my brain at all, just my mind. Some would refuse to even consider that possibility, but there's no way to know. There is no chance that this was just some random electrical discharge. Some of my neuroscience colleagues would like to reduce Paul's experience to something epileptic, despite all the speculative elements in asserting that. To someone who participates enough both in Paul's life and in modern neuroscience, though, it's easy to say, no, that makes no sense. I don't know exactly who and what that Jesus was that Paul encountered, but I know He is my Lord and my Savior. Of course, that leaves out a lot of steps.

 

How does anyone participate in what else there is in the physical universe and any nonphysical, spiritual side within and beyond the physical universe to interpret their own immersion? No wonder some get so fascinated with science fiction like The Matrix. I am sure that science has been a great improvement in that, but there is more than science, too. I'd hate to try to capture in words the best way to negotiate that part of life where science doesn't help. I cheat. I go back to the God who came to me 17 years ago. You can call Him whoever and whatever you will, He is still the same to me, even She, one Spirit, many voices. My words can drift off into a different way of speaking like that, where words are about imagery, not definitive meanings. And if I do that too much, some people refuse to participate. They don't like that style. They don't like the particular word-images I use. Oh well, we all learn at our own pace.

[earl]

Paul encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus. I don't remember exactly how the accounts in Acts and when Paul wrote about it describe that, but as I recall, others on that road with him had some sensory experience, but it wasn't the full vision of Jesus that Paul had. I'd say Paul was immersed in that experience of Jesus, while the others participated, including my participation almost 2000 years later. Paul was the one who went blind and was most changed by this. The rest of us get something less than that from the experience. We who participate do so to various degrees, limited by language, limited by concepts, limited by knowledge of pertinent facts. I'm sure there are many limitations.

 

I wrote about my experience like that here at least once. I was surprised how much it fit some stereotypes of such experiences, wondering whether that just fit my expectations of such an event or whether there is something about spirituality that accounts for them that has nothing to do with my prejudices. It was the sunlight streaming into the room that became the presence of God. I'm not sure if it brightened, but there wasn't a major change in my sensation. What changed was cognitive, and at first I couldn't believe it. I said I didn't believe in this kind of God, maybe in words, maybe just as a thought, maybe to myself, maybe out loud. I don't remember every detail.

 

Immediately God answered, "You've always believed in Me." Immediately with that there was this cascade of words and images that made that point, how I had always believed in Him and loved Him in my way, a way He approved, unlike how many others would say my liberalism makes it impossible for me to know anything, especially God. Just as impressive was that at the end of that, I had no doubt whatsoever. I'd never experienced such perfect faith. I'm a good scientist. I'm trained to see how things don't make sense. To be without that is as dramatic as floating up into the air. Fortunately it came back regarding things other than God.

 

I've wished I could find words to do this experience justice. It was the greatest demonstration of a debating technique I've ever seen. God just had that one sentence for me that day, as well as exposing me to another level of His existence, but He proved to me without a doubt that He was right on that point, and I was wrong. I have no doubt about the reality of that moment 17 years later. I don't suppose I ever will. Could it have been something like a dream? Of course, not an ordinary dream, but maybe something like a dream physiologically, just much more intense. Of course, it might also be something that has nothing to do with my brain at all, just my mind. Some would refuse to even consider that possibility, but there's no way to know. There is no chance that this was just some random electrical discharge. Some of my neuroscience colleagues would like to reduce Paul's experience to something epileptic, despite all the speculative elements in asserting that. To someone who participates enough both in Paul's life and in modern neuroscience, though, it's easy to say, no, that makes no sense. I don't know exactly who and what that Jesus was that Paul encountered, but I know He is my Lord and my Savior. Of course, that leaves out a lot of steps.

 

How does anyone participate in what else there is in the physical universe and any nonphysical, spiritual side within and beyond the physical universe to interpret their own immersion? No wonder some get so fascinated with science fiction like The Matrix. I am sure that science has been a great improvement in that, but there is more than science, too. I'd hate to try to capture in words the best way to negotiate that part of life where science doesn't help. I cheat. I go back to the God who came to me 17 years ago. You can call Him whoever and whatever you will, He is still the same to me, even She, one Spirit, many voices. My words can drift off into a different way of speaking like that, where words are about imagery, not definitive meanings. And if I do that too much, some people refuse to participate. They don't like that style. They don't like the particular word-images I use. Oh well, we all learn at our own pace.

Thank you for sharing your interesting experience David. You mentioned something earlier re wanting to discuss the nature of what "Christ" is. Must say that as I'm actually more interested in that than the nature of Jesus per se, once you get around to that, I'll probably be tempted to join you all in that one. Besides can't seem to log out anymore anyway literally. (also seem to be prevented from simply adding a reply without piggy-backing onto another post.) Afterall, seems that Christianity is about Christ more than Jesus perhaps for similar reasons that Buddhism is about Buddha not Gautama have a good one, earl

[des]

AR,

 

>On one far side of the fence there are those that feel that the Bible is literal all the way thru - everything, right down to 6 literal creation days, a literal being named Satan, and a whore named Babylon.

 

>On the other far side of the fence there are those that feel that most of the Bible is myth, and since (in their view) many of the things written there couldn't possibly happen, just toss those bits out and what you are left with is the "actual, literal, real, historical truth."

 

>What is missed by those on both sides of the fence are the deep, profound, amazing truths found not only in the literal person of Jesus (who I believed lived), but also in the incarnate Logos (who I believe Jesus was), and in the mythological and symbolic signposts pointing to God.

 

The problem with no. 3 as I see it, is that once you say *some* of the Bible is metaphoric-- where do you draw the line? I also believe there was a historical Jesus. Though it is a "belief" since it is not really open to scientific or historical inquiry. So I guess in my view the totally metaphorical would not be entirely

applicable. OTOH, I don't view metaphorical as less true somehow. In some ways metaphorical can

be MORE true. For instance, suppose Mark Twain had written a true story about a run away slave who

was really named Jim and some boy that helped him out (if such a story existed)-- would it have

had the power, depth and staying power of Huck Finn. I am doubtful.

 

I think Western faith is much more worried or stuck with what is literally true or not. For ex. I have

heard Native Americans describe their stories as not true, but they really happpened. That implies to

me an ease in going back and forth between the literal and factual with the mythical and deep

essence of reality.

 

>As for the baggage that Jesus the Christ did or did not carry, that is open to interpretation.

 

Sandals and a canteen of water? :-)

 

 

>>I guess the question is: Is this website for Christians that consider themselves in some way progressive, or is it for Jesus Seminar followers?

 

>I know I'm coming across as cranky. I do apologize for that. However, it does feel like you ARE trying to be a gatekeeper, and I'm feeling a little frustrated.

 

It seems to me that, like the ability to move a bit more easily between black and white, we should also

be a bit more at ease with varying definitions and varying beliefs. I don't know why Progressive faith has

to EXACTLY be anything. I think inherent in any definition of progressive, and not included in the 12 points, -- or maybe so about there being many ways to Truth, should be the idea that we all work out for ourselves certain things within our own culture and experiences. I think it is just as progressive to believe in a literal Jesus and literal miracles or not to. I suppose at a certain point some faith might not be too progressive, but I am not qualified to make that particular designation. If someone wants to be a part of our group, I don't mean someone who is coming in trying to convert us say, but someone geniunely believes himself/herself to be progressive, who am I to say that they aren't.

 

I think one thing that does not fit well in to Progressive is the idea of IS/is not.

But I do understand due to some differences in make up that some people may NOt be so easy with

this, or maybe learning to do this.

 

--des

[David]

Thank you for sharing your interesting experience David. You mentioned something earlier re wanting to discuss the nature of what "Christ" is. Must say that as I'm actually more interested in that than the nature of Jesus per se, once you get around to that, I'll probably be tempted to join you all in that one. Besides can't seem to log out anymore anyway literally. (also seem to be prevented from simply adding a reply without piggy-backing onto another post.) Afterall, seems that Christianity is about Christ more than Jesus perhaps for similar reasons that Buddhism is about Buddha not Gautama have a good one, earl

Hi Earl,

This wonderful post came from DavidD, not me. Not much of this in the deliberations of the Jesus Seminar at work. I can understand why most people did not want to sit through those meetings like I did. I guess I am like Borg who I believe to be very close to a mystic if not one. Borg starts with a "scholarly" process but does not stop there. Also like Borg I am more interested in the God that Jesus found than the Christ that the Church has made. So I probably will not get around to doing much of a Christology but if you want to talk about the Divine/Nirvana lets do it.

David

[DavidD]

"For instance, suppose Mark Twain had written a true story about a run away slave who

was really named Jim and some boy that helped him out (if such a story existed)-- would it have

had the power, depth and staying power of Huck Finn. I am doubtful."

 

And so there are so many more fictional movies than documentaries, because there are many more possibilities for the former.

 

"I think Western faith is much more worried or stuck with what is literally true or not. For ex. I have

heard Native Americans describe their stories as not true, but they really happpened."

 

I remember hearing that Australian aborigines consider dreams to be more real than westerners do. As I heard it, if someone else hurts you in your dream, that other person is expected to give a real apology, even though he or she only has the dreamer's word that an apology is needed. Can you imagine that in our culture?

 

The thing about analyzing why our culture emphasizes literalism as much as it does, I think it's important to understand the context of the transition our culture is in. Knowledge has been exploding for centuries, and part of that knowledge is that some of our traditions are complete rubbish, not just that they are mythological, but they don't work. I have found prayer to be a wonderful thing, but its benefits are limited. We have been lied to. It's not just a matter of bedtime stories or a story like Santa Claus. I'm sure you can detail the lies traditional religion has told for yourself. It's not just some benign myth like "It's a Wonderful Life" or whatever movie you care to describe as a good myth. Religion has been malignant. So people are skeptical about what exactly is reliable.

 

I don't think it comes up enough that 200 years ago, mainstream science still believed Genesis. Despite a lot of information about species, God's special creation of species was mainstream science in 1800. Noah's Flood was the cornerstone of geology. It's a big deal what has happened. There is no precedent whatsoever for modern, global culture, bursting at the seams with facts, armed to teeth with technology. I find it much more interesting to think about where this is going than look back at where humanity has been. Of course, that scares people. What of humanity can they count on? Is myth part of that? You know, it may not be, not at this point. Times have changed a lot. I don't think we'll have caught up with that in 100 years, maybe 500, I don't know. But I know I need to clear my mind of as much junk as possible, and I'm afraid a lot of myths are going out with the rest of the junk.

[soma]

People who live in the realm of logic and reason are interested in the history of Jesus and that is valid. They should take the sciences and the information at hand and debate it. My hope is that maybe some people who support Christianity's religiosity will expand their thoughts to be inclusive and not so exclusive. The Bible offers a window to see our lives, our destination, a spiritual experience and some history. Different people are attracted to different aspects and turned off by some. All are valid.

 

Those that see a deeper understanding in the Bible feel Jesus foresaw the plot against his life and did not run. These mystics see more to the physical world than what is in it and value love the same as the historian, but internal reflection is hard to document. In our lives and in the Bible we get clues to the spiritual experience of unity. People have near death experiences, dreams, angels protecting some and gut reactions ect. are a few of the crude clues of mysticism as it parts the veil giving a glimse to a deeper reality. The Christian Mystics step of of exclusion to inclusion as they see the spirit everywhere as tought in the Bible. The difference is they see the Bible with new eyes and a wider vision than just history. In this reality intentions are important as one recognizes a warm heart beneath a harsh external projection and a cold heart beneath a polished playboy projection with pleasing words. Jesus in this realm is alive in Christ, accessible, and appreciated in small details as meaning is found in everything.

 

Thinking about Jesus is never more than thinking. It is like reading a menu with descriptions, but the mystical experience in a flash of insight showing God as infinite becomming finite in Jesus to guide us back to the infinite (God the Father). The experience arouses one from immaturity and prejudices as the Christian personality is soothed with acceptance, love and beauty. The Christian mystic interacts in the world to be brought into this wholeness, as he touches new spiritual depths. I think this is better than Christians running rampant in the world with no reflection or contact with the soul finding meaning in life by rejecting other religions. The mystic will always act out of love as not to poisin the Spiritual experience and would never shake a fist with scorn at others for trying to find God.

[AletheiaRivers]

The problem with no. 3 as I see it, is that once you say *some* of the Bible is metaphoric-- where do you draw the line? I also believe there was a historical Jesus. Though it is a "belief" since it is not really open to scientific or historical inquiry. So I guess in my view the totally metaphorical would not be entirely applicable.

 

Yes it is a problem to know what parts of the Bible to take literally and which to take as allegory. However, it's a problem that can't be ignored. Scripture is made up of history, poetry, song, prophecy, and story. Not all of it is meant to be interpreted metaphorically, nor is all of it mean to be interpreted literally. I would never suggest that scripture be interpreted only metaphorically, any more than I would suggest it be interpreted only literally. It's both/and, not either/or.

 

>As for the baggage that Jesus the Christ did or did not carry, that is open to interpretation.

 

Sandals and a canteen of water? :-)

 

A gourd! Follow the gourd! No the shoe! Follow the shoe!

 

I think inherent in any definition of progressive, and not included in the 12 points, -- or maybe so about there being many ways to Truth

 

Yup, it's in the 8 points.

[David]

AR,

 

It seems to me that, like the ability to move a bit more easily between black and white, we should also

be a bit more at ease with varying definitions and varying beliefs. I don't know why Progressive faith has

to EXACTLY be anything. I think inherent in any definition of progressive, and not included in the 12 points, -- or maybe so about there being many ways to Truth, should be the idea that we all work out for ourselves certain things within our own culture and experiences. I think it is just as progressive to believe in a literal Jesus and literal miracles or not to. I suppose at a certain point some faith might not be too progressive, but I am not qualified to make that particular designation. If someone wants to be a part of our group, I don't mean someone who is coming in trying to convert us say, but someone geniunely believes himself/herself to be progressive, who am I to say that they aren't.

 

I think one thing that does not fit well in to Progressive is the idea of IS/is not.

But I do understand due to some differences in make up that some people may NOt be so easy with

this, or maybe learning to do this.

 

--des

 

I have to disagree (hopefully without being disagreeable).

 

One example of the importance of is/is not (while also recognizing that both/and is a very valuable understanding):

 

"When once this fundamental contrast between John and Mark was seen, a great historical "either/or" presented itself to scholars. Either the historical Jesus openly proclaimed his divine identity and saving purpose (John), or he did not (Mark). To put the issue most directly, Jesus could not consistently proclaim his identity and at the same time not do so. Thus the question became, "Which image of Jesus is more likely to be like the historical Jesus, John's or Mark's?" The universal answer given by scholars was "Mark". With that answer, the popular image's basis as a historical image disappeared. The image of Jesus as one who taught that he was the Son of God who was to die for the sins of the world is not historically true." (Marcus Borg "Jesus, A New Vision").

 

I would suggest that is is a historical fact that Jesus died and was crucified. The sources outside the Bible support this. I would also suggest that there are important "either/or" decisions to make and the attempt to replace an "either/or" with a "both/and" is an attempt to avoid the issue.

 

Now, as to whether we are both "Progressive" or not in one sense is not important. What motivates your faith is most important to you and likewise for me. However, when we are talking about a social movement such as Progressive Christianity it is important for others to understand what that is all about. I think that many people who would call themselves Progressive Christians would more identify that social movement with Borg than with your position that seems to indicate that if you want to call yourself a Progressive Christian then you may do so. That has nothing to do with whether you or Borg is "correct".

[Gnosteric]

I have not studied Gnostics and so it is probably unfair to post this from www.gnosticteachings.org

Yes, you should have trusted your gut .....and posted something that is a little more representative of the forms of Gnosticism found in the Nag Hammadi texts.

 

A better place to start would be http://www.gnosis.org/ecclesia/ecclesia.htm The Ecclesia Gnostica is probably the most active, and well respected, Gnostic church at the moment. The Apostolic Johannite Church is very close (but younger), but let's stick to the intro page of the EG in order to facilitate conversation. BTW, a great blog for Gnostic theology can be found at http://egina2.blogspot.com/ by a Priest of the AJC.

 

But beware, you just might learn something about us.

[David]

Yes, you should have trusted your gut .....and posted something that is a little more representative of the forms of Gnosticism found in the Nag Hammadi texts.

 

A better place to start would be http://www.gnosis.org/ecclesia/ecclesia.htm The Ecclesia Gnostica is probably the most active, and well respected, Gnostic church at the moment. The Apostolic Johannite Church is very close (but younger), but let's stick to the intro page of the EG in order to facilitate conversation. BTW, a great blog for Gnostic theology can be found at http://egina2.blogspot.com/ by a Priest of the AJC.

 

But beware, you just might learn something about us.

 

Thank you for this direction. You are most gracious in your response. I look back on that post and it does not sound like an invitation to discuss.

David

[Gnosteric]

A gourd! Follow the gourd! No the shoe! Follow the shoe!

He's not the Messiah......he's just a very naughty boy!

 

Did I get the quote right? Or close enough?

 

 

 

Thank you for this direction. You are most gracious in your response. I look back on that post and it does not sound like an invitation to discuss.

Thanks for your kind words. Wouldn't it be something if we were all sitting around the table breaking bread instead of trying to navigate the traps of "forum speak." If we were sharing real emotions instead of posting these silly faced emoticons?

 

Hey, I'm even willing to play the role of the "scapegoat" in the Christian family. That's a role most Gnostics are familiar with. Just ask Irenaeus!

[des]

David:

>"When once this fundamental contrast between John and Mark was seen, a great historical "either/or" presented itself to scholars. Either the historical Jesus openly proclaimed his divine identity and saving purpose (John), or he did not (Mark). To put the issue most directly, Jesus could not consistently proclaim his identity and at the same time not do so. Thus the question became, "Which image of Jesus is more likely to be like the historical Jesus, John's or Mark's?" The universal answer given by scholars was "Mark". With that answer, the popular image's basis as a historical image disappeared. The image of Jesus as one who taught that he was the Son of God who was to die for the sins of the world is not historically true." (Marcus Borg "Jesus, A New Vision").

 

I do recognize there are examples where one is of the scriptures is perhaps more likely to be

"really Jesus" and one is not, but I think the important thing in that case is to look at the writers and see what their particular frame of reference (or agenda in some cases) was, vs trying to figure out who

is "right". I don't really know-- you know it could be neither. For example, who was John anyway, why would he say the kinds of things he said, and so on. Mark also had his own motivations and influences which

can be explored.

 

>I would suggest that is is a historical fact that Jesus died and was crucified. The sources outside the Bible support this. I would also suggest that there are important "either/or" decisions to make and the attempt to replace an "either/or" with a "both/and" is an attempt to avoid the issue.

 

Well sometimes it's either/or and sometimes it's both/and. And sometimes it's neither/nor.

It depends.

 

>Now, as to whether we are both "Progressive" or not in one sense is not important. What motivates your faith is most important to you and likewise for me. However, when we are talking about a social movement such as Progressive Christianity it is important for others to understand what that is all about. I think that many people who would call themselves Progressive Christians would more identify that social movement with Borg than with your position that seems to indicate that if you want to call yourself a Progressive Christian then you may do so. That has nothing to do with whether you or Borg is "correct".

 

 

Is this a social movement? I would think that working for the progressive issues based on a more

progressive understanding of Jesus' life might be a social movement. But I don't think we are anywhere

near organized in other ways to be a social movement. If we are joining on considering gays to be

not condemned and that equal or poverty and justice major issues, we might be unified in a sense.

But I think you are trying your darnedest to get us all in line on theological issues and it isn't

going to happen.

 

It might not be as easy as saying "if you think you are a progressive you are one, but I would rather

not try and judge someone's heart. Personally I might consider some beliefs less progressive, but to me it isn't really worth the time and trouble to figure out what those are. I think also that people will tend to

self-identify fairly correctly. I can't see the point in not doing that.

 

AR:

>Yes it is a problem to know what parts of the Bible to take literally and which to take as allegory. However, it's a problem that can't be ignored. Scripture is made up of history, poetry, song, prophecy, and story. Not all of it is meant to be interpreted metaphorically, nor is all of it mean to be interpreted literally. I would never suggest that scripture be interpreted only metaphorically, any more than I would suggest it be interpreted only literally. It's both/and, not either/or.

 

I get that as well. I don't actually think of everything as metaphorical either. But I do recognize the

problem. I also realize their are passages for which we have no good way of knowing one way or another or even both.

 

(Note: it's the gourd. :-))

 

--des

[David]

David:

 

Is this a social movement? I would think that working for the progressive issues based on a more

progressive understanding of Jesus' life might be a social movement. But I don't think we are anywhere

near organized in other ways to be a social movement. If we are joining on considering gays to be

not condemned and that equal or poverty and justice major issues, we might be unified in a sense.

But I think you are trying your darnedest to get us all in line on theological issues and it isn't

going to happen.

 

It might not be as easy as saying "if you think you are a progressive you are one, but I would rather

not try and judge someone's heart. Personally I might consider some beliefs less progressive, but to me it isn't really worth the time and trouble to figure out what those are. I think also that people will tend to

self-identify fairly correctly. I can't see the point in not doing that.

 

--des

 

It's a social movement. It might be called the church alumni association or something else. It certainly is not organized. It does have leaders but the followers have no idea exactly where to go. Some are organizing around social issues. It will never respond to an attempt to "fall in line" with much theologically (I have tried to say that several times).

 

But what I find most interesting about your post is "that people will tend to self-identify" as though that process is not social and does not have huge implications. You live in a bigger world than just your point of view. What others think matters. You can choose to "hole up and ignore it all" but that is not as effective as trying to find a social response to a social dynamic.

 

Please accept this post with the understanding that I still respect "the inherent worth and dignity of every person".

[des]

>It's a social movement. It might be called the church alumni association or something else. It certainly is not organized. It does have leaders but the followers have no idea exactly where to go. Some are organizing around social issues. It will never respond to an attempt to "fall in line" with much theologically (I have tried to say that several times).

 

I don't know, I usually think of a social movement as something else, more massive and more

grandeous. But in that sense it might be termed one. I doubt any progressive will fall in line. :-)

 

>But what I find most interesting about your post is "that people will tend to self-identify" as though that process is not social and does not have huge implications. You live in a bigger world than just your point of view. What others think matters. You can choose to "hole up and ignore it all" but that is not as effective as trying to find a social response to a social dynamic.

 

It is *sometimes* social. I didn't come about my views because of what people thought or did. I found groups that matched, to some extent, my point of view and felt comfortable with them. At that point it was social. But there are perhaps thousands of people who arrive at their ideas separately. Perhaps there is a "hundredth monkey" thing going on, where at some point society ends up taking on the points of view

of many people-- heck there probably is. If you read the conservative boards they are clearly worried

about this. I think liberal theology is more bottom up than conservative theology. But yes, I wouldl guess it DOES have social ramifications. I wouldn't argue that. For instance, if most people now think that stem cell research IS moral (a more progressive Pov) then conceivably more money will be available and more cures

will develop than if people believe that we are destroying "life". So no, I am not doubting the social implications. I just don't feel you can try and "describe" progressive theology and then try and place individuals neatly within it or without. It works with conservative theology because it is quite clear cut as

to what is conservative and what isn't. But I just don't feel progressive theology is necessarily as neat.

There are people here who would describe themselves as Christian who believe most of the events of Jesus

are literally true, but that exact sayings may not be and others who do not literally believe in most of the events and don't even care if Jesus actually said them. I can't say for sure which one of those is "progressive Christianity". OTOH, I wouldn't have so much of a problem saying that if someone said, say,

women weren't able to be pastors because Jesus was a man, that that isn't progressive. So I guess I draw the line somewhere. But I haven't seen that. We have someone who is NOt progressive and doesnt' consider himself so say that.

 

Look at the 12 Points. Even these have their detractors, though I think they are very well written. I don't think they were ever written to say "This is progressive and anything that is not exactly these points isn't."

MOre like "here are some points of discussion and reflection..."

 

--des

[October's Autumn]

. OTOH, I wouldn't have so much of a problem saying that if someone said, say,

women weren't able to be pastors because Jesus was a man, that that isn't progressive.

 

Of course they are ignoring the fact that Jesus was also Jewish, (according to tradition) single, realtively poor, Mideastern, etc., etc.

 

This takes me back to the whole literal thing. I love how people claim to take the whole bible literally and then pick and choose. I also love the narrow focus of some of the reasoning they have. Which is a human characteristic, but when someone else takes that reasoning to its logical conclusion, they are often closed to the idea that just maybe they are wrong. THen there is no growth, not learning. I guess that is where I start to have a problem.

[Guest admin]

I just wanted to say that this is a fabulous thread. You are treading on some difficult areas, and working hard to keep the dialogue respectful.

 

This is an area of the boards that is designed for people to challenge each other, and it is so important that we do. Really really important, actually. Realistically, we all think our ideas are a bit more "right," but keeping the dialogue going is an art, so thank you to those of you who may think another idea is a bit, well, wrong, but who want to keep learning and exchanging ideas, just in case! If you are talking to someone who is not as adept at this, please be patient with them. Or don't respond if you don't want to engage with them. But please don't get frustrated. We need you here.

 

Please keep me in the loop about anything I can do to make your stay more comfortable. LOL. We will never be as busy as some of the other boards, and don't want to be. But the conversations here are deepening year by year, and that is a gift.